Show that the given function is decreasing

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The function defined as ## \alpha(k) = \left(1-\tfrac{1}{k}\right)^{\ln(2)k} - \left(1-\tfrac{2}{k}\right)^{\ln(2)k} ## is proven to be decreasing for ## k \in [3, \infty) ##. The analysis involves calculating the derivative of ## \alpha(k) ## and demonstrating that it is negative. The final conclusion is reached by comparing the behavior of the function at points ## k ## and ## k+1 ##, confirming that the function does not have turning points in the specified interval.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically differentiation
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions and their properties
  • Knowledge of limits and asymptotic behavior
  • Experience with Taylor series expansions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of logarithmic derivatives in calculus
  • Learn about Taylor series and their applications in approximating functions
  • Investigate the behavior of sequences and series in mathematical analysis
  • Explore advanced calculus techniques for proving monotonicity of functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and anyone interested in understanding the behavior of functions, particularly in the context of monotonicity and calculus applications.

idobido
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
show that the given function is decreasing.
Relevant Equations
derivative
induction
As a follow up for : https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...there-is-i-n-s-t-1-1-k-i-1-2-k-i-1-4.1054669/

show that ## \alpha\left(k\right)\ :=\ \left(1-\tfrac{1}{k}\right)^{\ln\left(2\right)k}-\left(1-\tfrac{2}{k}\right)^{\ln\left(2\right)k} ## is decreasing for ## k\in\left[3,\infty\right) ##

thing I've tried:
showing that first derivative is non-positive, but I've got complicated expression i cannot handle with (## k = x ##):

## \dfrac{\left(\frac{x-1}{x}\right)^{\ln\left(2\right)\,x}\,\left(\ln\left(2\right)\ln\left(\frac{x-1}{x}\right)\left(x-1\right)+\ln\left(2\right)\right)}{x-1}-\dfrac{\left(\frac{x-2}{x}\right)^{\ln\left(2\right)\,x}\,\left(\ln\left(2\right)\ln\left(\frac{x-2}{x}\right)\left(x-2\right)+2\ln\left(2\right)\right)}{x-2} ##

trying to compare
## \alpha\left(k\right)\ ## with ## \alpha\left(k+1\right)\ ##
also got complicated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Set ##f(k) =\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)^{\log 2},## ##\varepsilon(k) =\dfrac{1}{k}## and ##g(k)=(f(k)-\varepsilon(k) )^{\log 2}## and show that
\begin{align*}
\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(f(k)^k-g(k)^k\right)&<0
\end{align*}
... and don't forget to write down your final calculation backward!
 
Last edited:
did you notice that ##
g(k) = \left( \left(1 - \frac{1}{k}\right)^{\log 2} - \frac{1}{k} \right)^{\log 2} \neq \left(1 - \frac{2}{k}\right)^{\log 2}
## ?
 
idobido said:
did you notice that ##
g(k) = \left( \left(1 - \frac{1}{k}\right)^{\log 2} - \frac{1}{k} \right)^{\log 2} \neq \left(1 - \frac{2}{k}\right)^{\log 2}
##
You are right, I overlooked that. So set ##f(k)=1-\dfrac{1}{k}## and ##g(k)=f(k)-\dfrac{1}{k}.## Shouldn't make a difference since we cancel ##k\log(2)## anyway.
 
fresh_42 said:
You are right, I overlooked that. So set ##f(k)=1-\dfrac{1}{k}## and ##g(k)=f(k)-\dfrac{1}{k}.## Shouldn't make a difference since we cancel ##k\log(2)## anyway.
how does it cancelled i've got
##
\frac{d}{dk}\left( f(k)^k - g(k)^k \right) = \left( \ln f(k) + k \cdot \frac{1}{f(k)} \cdot f'(k) \right) \cdot f(k)^k - \left( \ln g(k) + k \cdot \frac{1}{g(k)} \cdot g'(k) \right) \cdot g(k)^k
##
 
idobido said:
how does it cancelled i've got
##
\frac{d}{dk}\left( f(k)^k - g(k)^k \right) = \left( \ln f(k) + k \cdot \frac{1}{f(k)} \cdot f'(k) \right) \cdot f(k)^k - \left( \ln g(k) + k \cdot \frac{1}{g(k)} \cdot g'(k) \right) \cdot g(k)^k
##
You are thinking way too complicated. We want to show that
\begin{align*}
0&>\dfrac{d}{dk}\alpha(k) \\
0&>\dfrac{d}{dk}\left[\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}-\left(1-\dfrac{2}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}\right]\\
0&>\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}-\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{2}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}\\
0&>{k\log 2}\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)-{k\log 2}\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{2}{k}\right)\\
&\phantom{>}\ldots
\end{align*}
... and at the end of it: rewrite it backward.
 
did you notice that ##
fresh_42 said:
You are thinking way too complicated. We want to show that
\begin{align*}
0&>\dfrac{d}{dk}\alpha(k) \\
0&>\dfrac{d}{dk}\left[\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}-\left(1-\dfrac{2}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}\right]\\
0&>\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}-\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{2}{k}\right)^{k\log 2}\\
0&>{k\log 2}\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{1}{k}\right)-{k\log 2}\dfrac{d}{dk}\left(1-\dfrac{2}{k}\right)\\
&\phantom{>}\ldots
\end{align*}
... and at the end of it: rewrite it backward.
i really can't understand why the last result is true, you are applying ##
\sqrt{k \cdot \log 2}
##
on both expressions inside the derivative brackets i.e. (before the derivative)? why is that true that the inequality will hold after the derivative?
 
idobido said:
did you notice that ##

i really can't understand why the last result is true, you are applying ##
\sqrt{k \cdot \log 2}
##
on both expressions inside the derivative brackets i.e. (before the derivative)? why is that true that the inequality will hold after the derivative?

You are right. I made a mistake with the chain rule. Sorry.
 
Note: I took a wrong shortcut with the derivative, so this is wrong. Corrected solution is on the way!

I think you can crank it out using calculus. Let:
$$f(x) = \big (\frac {x-1} x\big)^{ax} - \big (\frac {x-2} x\big)^{ax}$$Then$$f'(x) = a\ln\big (\frac {x-1} x\big)\big (\frac {x-1} x\big)^{ax}\big(\frac 1 {x^2}\big) - a\ln\big (\frac {x-2} x\big)\big (\frac {x-2} x\big)^{ax}\big(\frac 2 {x^2}\big)$$Looking for ##f'(x) = 0## gives$$\frac{\ln\big (\frac x {x-1} \big)}{\ln\big (\frac x {x-2} \big)} = 2\big (\frac{x-2}{x-1})^{ax}$$The left-hand side (for ##x \ge 3##) is an increasing function with a limit of ##\frac 1 2##. The right-hand side is increasing (for ##x \ge 3##) with a limit of ##1##. And, in any case, for ##a = \ln 2##, it is greater than ##\frac 1 2##.

This means that for ##a = \ln 2## the function has no turning points for ##x \ge 3##, hence is decreasing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
  • #10
I think I have managed to crank out a solution this time. The derivative in post #1 is correct. Using ##a = \ln(2)##:
$$f(x) =\big (\frac {x-1} x\big)^{ax} - \big (\frac {x-2} x\big)^{ax}$$Then$$f'(x) = a\big (\frac {x-1} x\big)^{ax}\bigg [\ln\big (\frac {x-1} x\big) + \frac 1 {x-1} \bigg ] - a\big (\frac {x-2} x\big)^{ax}\bigg [\ln\big (\frac {x-2} x\big) + \frac 2 {x-2} \bigg ]$$By estimating ##f(3)## and ##f(4)## it is enough to show that ##f'(x) \ne 0## for ##x > 3##. Then we can conclude that ##f## is decreasing for ##x > 3##. We have ##f'(x) = 0## iff:
$$\frac{\ln(x-1) - ln(x) + \frac 1 {x-1}}{\ln(x-2) - ln(x) + \frac 2 {x-2}} = \big (\frac{x-2}{x-1})^{ax}$$The RHS is increasing from greater than ##\frac 1 4## to ##1##. It is enough to show that the LHS is less than ##\frac 1 4## for ##x \ge 3##. Note that ##p(3) \approx 0.1## and ##\lim_{x \to \infty} LHS = \frac 1 4##. In other words, for ##x \ge 3## it is enough to show that:
$$\ln(x-2) - ln(x) + \frac 2 {x-2} > 4 \big [\ln(x-1) - ln(x) + \frac 1 {x-1}\big]$$The trick I used is to set ##y = \frac 1 x## and then we need to show that for ##0 < y < \frac 1 3## we have:
$$\ln(1 - 2y) + \frac{2y}{1-2y} > 4\big [ \ln(1-y) + \frac{y}{1-y} \big ]$$Using Taylor series we have:
$$\ln(1 - 2y) + \frac{2y}{1-2y} = \frac 1 2 (2y)^2 + \frac 2 3 (2y)^3 + \frac 3 4 (2y)^4 \dots$$$$4\big [\ln(1 - y) + \frac{y}{1-y} \big ] = \frac 1 2 (2y)^2 + \frac 2 3 (\frac 1 2)(2y)^3 + \frac 3 4 (\frac 1 4) (2y)^4 \dots$$And that's it, I hope!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K