MHB How can the convexity of a disk be proved using linear algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rputra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disk
rputra
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I am working on a linear algebra problem like this:

> Consider the set of all points $(x,y) \in \mathbb R^2$ as defined by $x^2 + y^2 \leq 25$. Prove that $x^2 + y^2 \leq 25$ is convex.

Here is what I have made out so far:

(1) $x^2 + y^2 \leq 25$ is a disk with center at the origin of Cartesian coordinate with radius of $5$. Consider two points in the disk as defined by $P(a,b)$ and $Q(c,d)$. Consider also point $R(e,f)$ which lays in the segment line $\overline {PQ}$.

(2) By way of contradiction, we will assume that $R(e,f)$ lays outside of the disk. Hence, while we have $a^2+b^2 \leq$ 25 and $c^2+d^2 \leq 25$, we assume that $e^2+f^2 > 25$.

(3) Since $R(e,f)$ lays in the line segment $\overline {PQ}$, there exist $t_1 \geq 0$, and $t_2 \geq 0$, with $t_1 + t_2 = 1$, such that
$$\begin{align}
(e, f) &= t_1(a,b) + t_2(c,d)\\
&= at_1 + ct_2, bt_1 + dt_2.
\end{align}$$

After the third step, I believe that I need to algebraically manipulate $(at_1 + ct_2)^2 + (bt_1 + dt_2)^2$ such that $(at_1 + ct_2)^2 + (bt_1 + dt_2)^2 > 25$ is impossible. However, I am stuck on how to contradict my own assumption. Do I have to use the Triangle Inequality instead? Any helps or suggestion would be very much appreciated.

Thank you before hand for your time and effort.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Tarrant,

To show that your set (which I'll call $\Omega$) is convex, prove that given $\lambda\in [0,1]$, $(x,y),(a,b)\in \Omega$, we have $\lambda(x,y) + (1 - \lambda)(a,b)\in \Omega$, i.e., $(\lambda x + (1 - \lambda)a, \lambda y + (1 - \lambda) b) \in \Omega$. Obtain the identity

$$[\lambda x + (1 - \lambda)a]^2 + [\lambda y + (1 - \lambda)b]^2 = \lambda^2(x^2 + y^2) + 2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) + (1 - \lambda)^2(a^2 + b^2)$$

Since $x^2 + y^2 \le 25$ and $a^2 + b^2 \le 25$, then $\lambda^2(x^2 + y^2) \le 25\lambda^2$ and $(1 - \lambda)^2(a^2 + b^2) \le 25(1 - \lambda)^2$. Now, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $xa + yb \le \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\cdot \sqrt{a^2 + b^2} \le 5 \cdot 5 = 25$. Therefore $2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) \le 25 \cdot 2\lambda(1-\lambda)$. Consequently,

$$\lambda^2(x^2 + y^2) + 2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) + (1 - \lambda)^2(a^2 + b^2) \le 25\lambda^2 + 25\cdot 2\lambda(1-\lambda) + (1 - \lambda)^2 = 25[\lambda^2 + 2\lambda(1 - \lambda) + (1 - \lambda)^2] = 25[\lambda + (1 - \lambda)]^2 = 25$$

This proves $[\lambda x + (1 - \lambda)a]^2 + [\lambda y + (1 - \lambda)b]^2 \le 25$, as desired.
 
Euge said:
Hi Tarrant,

To show that your set (which I'll call $\Omega$) is convex, prove that given $\lambda\in [0,1]$, $(x,y),(a,b)\in \Omega$, we have $\lambda(x,y) + (1 - \lambda)(a,b)\in \Omega$, i.e., $(\lambda x + (1 - \lambda)a, \lambda y + (1 - \lambda) b) \in \Omega$. Obtain the identity

$$[\lambda x + (1 - \lambda)a]^2 + [\lambda y + (1 - \lambda)b]^2 = \lambda^2(x^2 + y^2) + 2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) + (1 - \lambda)^2(a^2 + b^2)$$

Since $x^2 + y^2 \le 25$ and $a^2 + b^2 \le 25$, then $\lambda^2(x^2 + y^2) \le 25\lambda^2$ and $(1 - \lambda)^2(a^2 + b^2) \le 25(1 - \lambda)^2$. Now, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $xa + yb \le \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\cdot \sqrt{a^2 + b^2} \le 5 \cdot 5 = 25$. Therefore $2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) \le 25 \cdot 2\lambda(1-\lambda)$. Consequently,

$$\lambda^2(x^2 + y^2) + 2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) + (1 - \lambda)^2(a^2 + b^2) \le 25\lambda^2 + 25\cdot 2\lambda(1-\lambda) + (1 - \lambda)^2 = 25[\lambda^2 + 2\lambda(1 - \lambda) + (1 - \lambda)^2] = 25[\lambda + (1 - \lambda)]^2 = 25$$

This proves $[\lambda x + (1 - \lambda)a]^2 + [\lambda y + (1 - \lambda)b]^2 \le 25$, as desired.

Thank you for your quick response, and apology for not responding fast enough. I have one question though about the Cauchy-Schwartz Inequality:

(1) According to Wolfram MathWorld, the vector form of the inequality looks like this:
$$||\mathbf a \cdot \mathbf b|| \leq ||\mathbf a|| \ ||\mathbf b||,$$
see its link here: Cauchy's Inequality -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Don't you think the left-hand side should be absolute sign instead, so that it goes like this:
$$|\mathbf a \cdot \mathbf b| \leq ||\mathbf a|| \ ||\mathbf b||,$$
simply because the result of a dot product is already scalar?

(2) If my observation is true, do you think you have to make sure that the left-hand side is always positive in order for your proof to be valid? Please let me know.

Thank you again and again for your quick response.
 
Tarrant said:
Thank you for your quick response, and apology for not responding fast enough. I have one question though about the Cauchy-Schwartz Inequality:

(1) According to Wolfram MathWorld, the vector form of the inequality looks like this:
$$||\mathbf a \cdot \mathbf b|| \leq ||\mathbf a|| \ ||\mathbf b||,$$
see its link here: Cauchy's Inequality -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Don't you think the left-hand side should be absolute sign instead, so that it goes like this:
$$|\mathbf a \cdot \mathbf b| \leq ||\mathbf a|| \ ||\mathbf b||,$$
simply because the result of a dot product is already scalar?

Yes, you're right. The author made a typo there.

Tarrant said:
(2) If my observation is true, do you think you have to make sure that the left-hand side is always positive in order for your proof to be valid? Please let me know.

No. For all real numbers $t$, $t\le \lvert t\rvert$. So $xa + yb \le \lvert xa + yb\rvert \le \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}$. Since $2\lambda(1 - \lambda)$ is a nonnegative number, then $2\lambda(1 - \lambda)(xa + yb) \le 2\lambda(1-\lambda)\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}$.
 
Thank you again and again.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Back
Top