How to Prove $n^{\alpha} > \ln(n)$ for $\alpha>0$ and n is Sufficiently Large?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lisa91
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality \( n^{\alpha} > \ln(n) \) for \( \alpha > 0 \) and sufficiently large \( n \). Participants explore different conditions and scenarios under which this inequality may hold, as well as potential counterexamples.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the definitions of the variables, suggesting that if \( \alpha \in \mathbb{R} \) and \( n \in \mathbb{N} \), a counterexample exists for small values of \( n \) and \( \alpha \).
  • Another participant proposes a two-step approach to the proof, first addressing the case when \( 0 < n < 1 \) and then analyzing \( n > 1 \) using logarithmic transformations.
  • It is noted that for \( n > 1 \), the condition \( \alpha > \frac{\ln(\ln(n))}{\ln(n)} \) must hold, which leads to discussions about the behavior of the right-hand side as \( n \) increases.
  • Some participants argue that since the right-hand side approaches zero for large \( n \), there exists a number \( N \) such that the inequality holds for all \( n > N \) for any \( \alpha > 0 \).
  • There is a contention regarding whether the inequality should hold for all \( n \) or only for sufficiently large \( n \) given a specific \( \alpha \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which the inequality holds. Some believe it is valid for sufficiently large \( n \) given any \( \alpha > 0 \), while others suggest that the inequality may not hold for all \( n \) and that clarification on the problem statement is needed.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the definitions of \( n \) and \( \alpha \), as well as the scope of the inequality. The discussion highlights the need for precise conditions under which the inequality is claimed to be true.

Lisa91
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
How to prove that n^{\alpha} &gt; \ln(n) for \alpha&gt;0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How are the variables defined?

For instance if $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ then one example of a counter-example to your inequality occurs for:

$n=3,\,\alpha=0.01$

This leads me to believe there in some missing information.
 
we have $n^{\alpha}> \ln(n) $ take ln to both sides :

I will separate the problem in two steps :

1-For 0<n<1 this is trivial since the right hand will be always negtative while
and the left hand side is always positive , also for n=1 the inequality holds .

2-Now for n>1 :

${\alpha}\ln(n)> \ln(\ln(n)) \Rightarrow \,\, \alpha> \frac{\ln(\ln(n))}{\ln(n) } $

Now this is only true iff $\frac{\ln(\ln(n))}{\ln(n) } \leq 0$

which holds iff $0<\ln(n)\leq 1\,\, \Rightarrow \,\, 1< n \leq e $

The inequality is true for all $\alpha $ iff $0<n \leq e$
 
ZaidAlyafey said:
2-Now for n>1 :

${\alpha}\ln(n)> \ln(\ln(n)) \Rightarrow \,\, \alpha> \frac{\ln(\ln(n))}{\ln(n) } $

Since the right hand side approaches zero for large n, this means that for any $\alpha>0$ there is a number N such that the inequality is true for any n > N.Hey Lisa91!

Can it be there is a condition missing from your problem?
The extra condition that it holds for any n > N for some N?
 
Last edited:
ILikeSerena said:
Since the right hand side approaches zero for large n, this means that for any $\alpha>0$ there is a number N such that the inequality is true for any n > N.

since $\alpha $ is an independent variable of n I can choose it as small as possible so that
it becomes lesser than the right-hand side .
Can you give a counter example for $\alpha$ and n that disproves my argument ?
 
ZaidAlyafey said:
since $\alpha $ is an independent variable of n I can choose it as small as possible so that
it becomes lesser than the right-hand side .
Can you give a counter example for $\alpha$ and n that disproves my argument ?

Your argument is flawless. ;)
It's just that you have assumed that the inequality should hold for specific n and all $\alpha$'s.
Whereas I have assumed it's not for all n.

In other words, you have solved:
Find n such that $n^\alpha > \ln n$ for all $\alpha > 0$.

Whereas I have use the first half of your argument to follow up with:
Prove that $n^\alpha > \ln n$ for $\alpha > 0$ if n is big enough given a certain $\alpha$.
​​
That's why we need clarification on what the actual problem is.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K