Prove ln(x) <= x-1 for positive x

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dank2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Positive
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the inequality ln(x) ≤ x - 1 for positive x. Participants confirm that evaluating the function at the interval (0, +∞) shows ln(x) is consistently less than x - 1, supported by the derivative analysis. The second derivative test indicates that the function f(x) = x - 1 - ln(x) has a minimum at x = 1, reinforcing the inequality. Additionally, Jensen's Inequality is suggested as an intuitive method for proving this relationship.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of natural logarithms (ln)
  • Knowledge of calculus, specifically derivatives and second derivatives
  • Familiarity with Jensen's Inequality
  • Ability to construct Taylor Polynomials
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of logarithmic functions and their derivatives
  • Learn about Jensen's Inequality and its applications in calculus
  • Explore Taylor series and the Lagrange form of the remainder term
  • Investigate convex functions and their graphical interpretations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and anyone interested in inequalities and their proofs, particularly in the context of logarithmic functions.

Dank2
Messages
213
Reaction score
4
proof ##\ln x##<=x-1 for positive x.
if i show that at the start of the segment, the value in the start of the segment (0, +inf), of inx is smaller than x-1, and the derivative of inx is always smaller than x-1, is that suffice to proof that inx is always smaller than x-1? if not why?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What is inx?
 
Math_QED said:
What is inx?
Natural logarithm ;)
 
Dank2 said:
the value in the start of the segment (0, +inf), of inx is smaller than x-1, AND the derivative of inx is always smaller than x-1,

corrected
 
solved. thanks
 
Dank2 said:
proof ##\ln x##<=x-1 for positive x.
if i show that at the start of the segment, the value in the start of the segment (0, +inf), of inx is smaller than x-1, and the derivative of inx is always smaller than x-1, is that suffice to proof that inx is always smaller than x-1? if not why?
But the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x, which gets huge near 0.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dank2
FactChecker said:
But the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x, which gets huge near 0.
that's right, so:
f(x) = x-1 - Inx . f''(x) = 1 - 1/x = 0 ==> x=1. that should be either maximus or minimum
f(1) = 0.
now if we take the second derivative:
f''(x) = 1/x^2
which means the derivative is increasing constantly and f(1) is the minimum point inthe graph, and hence x-1>=Inx
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
  • #10
It looks like you are ok here.

In my view, the slickest and most intuitive approach to this by far is to use Jensen's Inequality-- as the logarithm is (strictly) negative convex. If you need to, you can derive Jensen's Inequality, and the above relation falls out of it... that is, construct a Taylor Polynomial for the logarithm at x = 1, with the remainder term being O(n^2). I'd suggest using the Lagrange form for the remainder term. Then use the fact that the logarithm has a continuously negative second derivative. Graphically, this means ln(x) will always be below the tangent line for said logarithm evaluated at x = 1, with equality only where x = 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dank2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K