Is the lower bound for this given quantity correct?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EngWiPy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity of a mathematical inequality involving the reciprocals of a sum of variables and their maximum and minimum values. Participants explore the implications of the inequality and provide counterexamples to challenge its correctness, with a focus on mathematical reasoning and the properties of inequalities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the inequality \(\frac{1}{\sum_{m=1}^NX_m^{-1}} \geq \frac{1}{N\underset{m}{\text{max }}X_m^{-1}}\) is true based on supremum arguments.
  • Others challenge the equality \(\frac{1}{\sum_{m=1}^NX_m^{-1}} = \frac{\underset{m}{\text{min}}X_m}{N}\), providing counterexamples that demonstrate potential violations of this expression.
  • A participant suggests that the equality holds in specific cases, such as when all variables are equal, but questions its general applicability.
  • Some participants discuss the importance of considering the inverse of the variables when evaluating the inequality, leading to further clarification on the definitions of minimum and maximum in the context of reciprocals.
  • There is a suggestion to redefine variables to clarify the relationships being discussed, particularly regarding the selection of maximum and minimum values in the context of the inequality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the inequality or the equality presented. Multiple competing views remain, with some supporting the inequality and others providing counterexamples that suggest it may not hold in all cases.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions of minimum and maximum in the context of the original and reciprocal sets, which may affect the validity of the claims made. The discussion reveals a dependency on the specific values of the variables involved, leading to different interpretations of the inequality.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello,

I have this quantity:

\frac{1}{\sum_{m=1}^NX_m^{-1}}\geq\frac{1}{N\underset{m}{\text{max }}X_m^{-1}}=\frac{\underset{m}{\text{min}}X_m}{N}

Is that true?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
S_David said:
Hello,

I have this quantity:

\frac{1}{\sum_{m=1}^NX_m^{-1}}\geq\frac{1}{N\underset{m}{\text{max }}X_m^{-1}}=\frac{\underset{m}{\text{min}}X_m}{N}

Is that true?

The inequality:

\frac{1}{\sum_{m=1}^NX_m^{-1}}\geq\frac{1}{N\underset{m}{\text{max }}X_m^{-1}}

Is definitely true because a simple supremum argument (NxMax(X_m) >= Sum of all X_m's) which means the reciprocal will change it from >= to <=.

In terms of the equality, I don't think this is right. As a simple counterexample let the realization of four random variables be X = {1,2,3,8}. Min(X) = 1, Max(X) = 8. Min(X)/4 = 1/4 and 1/(4xMax(X)) = 1/32 which is clearly in violation of your expression.

However if the realization is {1,1,1,1} then you get Min(X) = 1, Max(X) = 4 which means Min(X)/N = 1/4 and 1/(4x1) = 1/4, but is a very unique case.

Did you mean to have some kind inequality for the rightmost term of your expression?
 
chiro said:
The inequality:

\frac{1}{\sum_{m=1}^NX_m^{-1}}\geq\frac{1}{N\underset{m}{\text{max }}X_m^{-1}}

Is definitely true because a simple supremum argument (NxMax(X_m) >= Sum of all X_m's) which means the reciprocal will change it from >= to <=.

In terms of the equality, I don't think this is right. As a simple counterexample let the realization of four random variables be X = {1,2,3,8}. Min(X) = 1, Max(X) = 8. Min(X)/4 = 1/4 and 1/(4xMax(X)) = 1/32 which is clearly in violation of your expression.

However if the realization is {1,1,1,1} then you get Min(X) = 1, Max(X) = 4 which means Min(X)/N = 1/4 and 1/(4x1) = 1/4, but is a very unique case.

Did you mean to have some kind inequality for the rightmost term of your expression?

In you calculation, you did not consider the inverse. Using your example: Xm={1,2,3,4}, then Xm^-1={1,1/2,1/3,1/4}. Than: min(X)/4=1/4, and 1/(4max(X^-1))=1/4. Right?
 
S_David said:
In you calculation, you did not consider the inverse. Using your example: Xm={1,2,3,4}, then Xm^-1={1,1/2,1/3,1/4}. Than: min(X)/4=1/4, and 1/(4max(X^-1))=1/4. Right?

Well if you want to do it that way, then define a new variable Y = reciprocal of X realizations and apply the reasoning that I did above.

Also you made a mistake with your example since the minimum value in your set is 1/4 so dividing that by 4 gives you 1/16. Also the maximum value is 1 which means 1/(4 x max) = 1/4.

You need to be clear about what you are describing if this is not the case.
 
chiro said:
Well if you want to do it that way, then define a new variable Y = reciprocal of X realizations and apply the reasoning that I did above.

Also you made a mistake with your example since the minimum value in your set is 1/4 so dividing that by 4 gives you 1/16. Also the maximum value is 1 which means 1/(4 x max) = 1/4.

You need to be clear about what you are describing if this is not the case.

From the reciprocal set, I choose the max not the min, so it is 1.
 
S_David said:
From the reciprocal set, I choose the max not the min, so it is 1.

So does this mean your inequality is wrong above? If so can you please change it to what you are trying to describe (for example if the max should be min, then please change it).
 
chiro said:
So does this mean your inequality is wrong above? If so can you please change it to what you are trying to describe (for example if the max should be min, then please change it).

No, it remains the same. Look at it again, please. I have max for the inverse and min for the original set, not both are max!
 
It's nearly midnight here, I'll take a look tomorrow.
 
OK I see what you are saying now (very subtle!).

Yeah I think you are right with the equality involving the min and max. The easiest way to prove this is to just use standard inequalities that if x >= y then 1/x <= 1/y and then from this show how this relates to the supremum and the infinimum (or whatever the minimum is) through the changes in the inequality. Also because you will be dealing with reciprocal the N needs to be shifted to make it a strict inequality.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K