Subadditivity and Natural Logs

  • Thread starter Thread starter evad1089
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Natural
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the natural logarithm, specifically addressing the concept of subadditivity. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that the natural logarithm is not subadditive, referencing a specific inequality involving logarithms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the statement that numerical evidence is considered an invalid proof by mathematicians. There is a discussion about the need for a proof by counter-example, with some participants questioning the validity of their reasoning regarding the properties of logarithms.

Discussion Status

Several participants have offered hints and insights, with one suggesting a relationship between the products and sums of variables. Others are exploring different combinations of values to validate their reasoning, indicating a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The discussion remains open with various interpretations being considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of proving properties of logarithms, with some expressing uncertainty about the conditions under which their reasoning holds true. There is mention of specific values and ranges for variables that may influence the proof.

evad1089
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that the natural logarithm is not subadditive.
You could use ln(1/2+1/3)[tex]\leq[/tex]ln(1/2)+ln(1/3), but mathematicians view all such numerical evidence as an invalid proof.

Homework Equations


ln(a+b)[tex]\leq[/tex]ln(a)+ln(b)

The Attempt at a Solution


ln(1/2+1/2)[tex]\leq[/tex]ln(1/2)+ln(1/2)

Well, my real question is what does the "mathematicians view all such numerical evidence as an invalid proof" mean? I am pretty sure this needs to be a proof by counter-example, which involves numerical evidence. What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint:

[tex]ln(a)+ln(b) \geq ln(a+b)[/tex]

[tex]ln(ab) \geq ln(a+b)[/tex]

a>0, b>0
 
So, I am guessing that hint entails:

ab[tex]\geq[/tex]a+b

_______
I have two other ideas, but I have tried every combination of them to get them both to be true... Nothing I try seems make it work.

I am thinking that the ln(ab) and ln(a+b) have to not be irrational for this to be a valid proof? Is my logic correct?

Also, I think a and b have to be some combination of 1 and ex...

Am I getting warm at all?
 
Well, I got frustrated and decided that a qualitative answer about the properties of a natural log is as good as a quantitative one, so:

My proof:

Show by counter example:

a = 1
b = x, 0<x<1

We know lnx is negative and ln1 = 0 by the properties of a logarithm.

Thus,

ln(a+b) has to be positive, because 1 + x, 0<x<1 is greater than one.

and

ln(a) + ln(b) has to be negative because ln(1) = ln(a) = 0 and ln(b) = ln(x) 0<x<1 = (negative number)

Furthermore,

ln(a+b)>ln(a)+ln(b)

Therefore, the natural log is not subadditive.

Works in my mind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K