Subadditivity and Natural Logs

  • Thread starter Thread starter evad1089
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Natural
evad1089
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


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

Homework Equations


ln(a+b)\leqln(a)+ln(b)

The Attempt at a Solution


ln(1/2+1/2)\leqln(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:

ln(a)+ln(b) \geq ln(a+b)

ln(ab) \geq ln(a+b)

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

ab\geqa+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.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top