Prove that $(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x leq 4$

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
Prove that $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x leq 4$ for all $x>0.$
We have $f(x)=f(frac1x), f'(x)=-frac1x^2f'(frac1x),$ so we only need to prove $f'(x)ï¼Â0$ for $0 < x < 1.$
real-analysis inequality exponential-function maxima-minima jensen-inequality
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
Prove that $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x leq 4$ for all $x>0.$
We have $f(x)=f(frac1x), f'(x)=-frac1x^2f'(frac1x),$ so we only need to prove $f'(x)ï¼Â0$ for $0 < x < 1.$
real-analysis inequality exponential-function maxima-minima jensen-inequality
2
Doesn't calculating directly $f'(x)$ provides you $x=1$ i.e. $f(x)=4$ as maxima?
â prog_SAHIL
Aug 30 at 16:45
1
@prog_SAHIL : It's clear that $4$ is the maximum value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is near $1$. The problem is to show that this holds for all positive $x$.
â John Bentin
Sep 1 at 12:05
One possible alternative proof is to consider it's equivalent problem: Prove that $$left[4 - left(1 + frac1xright)^xright]^x geq 1 + x$$ by considering the generalized binomial expansion (of real powers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/⦠) of the LHS, i.e., we equivalently prove that $$ sum_k=0^infty binomxk (-1)^k 4^x-k left(1 + frac1xright)^kx geq 1 + x $$ where $binomxk$ is the generalized binomial coefficient.
â venrey
Sep 5 at 2:38
Another approach, from the Taylor series of $f: x mapsto (1+x)^frac1x + (1+frac1x)^x $ at $x=1$, we have: $$4-f(x) = 2 cdot underbrace(1-2 ln^2(2))_ > 0 cdot(x-1)^2 + Oleft((x-1)^3right) $$. That means the inequality is strictly true in a neighborhood of $1$, where it is the tighter. However, the remainder seems not nice enough to extend the inequality to $(0,1)$.
â yultan
Sep 5 at 3:10
1
As $$lim_xrightarrowinftyf(x)=lim_xrightarrow 0f(x)=1+e$$ and $f$ appears to be increasing on $(0,1)$, this inequality is distinguished as being a near optimal uniform inequality. Most inequalities are good near a point and obvious elsewhere. I wonder if Pade approximations would be good here.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 5 at 15:10
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
Prove that $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x leq 4$ for all $x>0.$
We have $f(x)=f(frac1x), f'(x)=-frac1x^2f'(frac1x),$ so we only need to prove $f'(x)ï¼Â0$ for $0 < x < 1.$
real-analysis inequality exponential-function maxima-minima jensen-inequality
Prove that $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x leq 4$ for all $x>0.$
We have $f(x)=f(frac1x), f'(x)=-frac1x^2f'(frac1x),$ so we only need to prove $f'(x)ï¼Â0$ for $0 < x < 1.$
real-analysis inequality exponential-function maxima-minima jensen-inequality
real-analysis inequality exponential-function maxima-minima jensen-inequality
edited Sep 7 at 9:18
Michael Rozenberg
89.2k1582180
89.2k1582180
asked Aug 30 at 2:18
Next
8,46432269
8,46432269
2
Doesn't calculating directly $f'(x)$ provides you $x=1$ i.e. $f(x)=4$ as maxima?
â prog_SAHIL
Aug 30 at 16:45
1
@prog_SAHIL : It's clear that $4$ is the maximum value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is near $1$. The problem is to show that this holds for all positive $x$.
â John Bentin
Sep 1 at 12:05
One possible alternative proof is to consider it's equivalent problem: Prove that $$left[4 - left(1 + frac1xright)^xright]^x geq 1 + x$$ by considering the generalized binomial expansion (of real powers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/⦠) of the LHS, i.e., we equivalently prove that $$ sum_k=0^infty binomxk (-1)^k 4^x-k left(1 + frac1xright)^kx geq 1 + x $$ where $binomxk$ is the generalized binomial coefficient.
â venrey
Sep 5 at 2:38
Another approach, from the Taylor series of $f: x mapsto (1+x)^frac1x + (1+frac1x)^x $ at $x=1$, we have: $$4-f(x) = 2 cdot underbrace(1-2 ln^2(2))_ > 0 cdot(x-1)^2 + Oleft((x-1)^3right) $$. That means the inequality is strictly true in a neighborhood of $1$, where it is the tighter. However, the remainder seems not nice enough to extend the inequality to $(0,1)$.
â yultan
Sep 5 at 3:10
1
As $$lim_xrightarrowinftyf(x)=lim_xrightarrow 0f(x)=1+e$$ and $f$ appears to be increasing on $(0,1)$, this inequality is distinguished as being a near optimal uniform inequality. Most inequalities are good near a point and obvious elsewhere. I wonder if Pade approximations would be good here.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 5 at 15:10
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2
Doesn't calculating directly $f'(x)$ provides you $x=1$ i.e. $f(x)=4$ as maxima?
â prog_SAHIL
Aug 30 at 16:45
1
@prog_SAHIL : It's clear that $4$ is the maximum value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is near $1$. The problem is to show that this holds for all positive $x$.
â John Bentin
Sep 1 at 12:05
One possible alternative proof is to consider it's equivalent problem: Prove that $$left[4 - left(1 + frac1xright)^xright]^x geq 1 + x$$ by considering the generalized binomial expansion (of real powers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/⦠) of the LHS, i.e., we equivalently prove that $$ sum_k=0^infty binomxk (-1)^k 4^x-k left(1 + frac1xright)^kx geq 1 + x $$ where $binomxk$ is the generalized binomial coefficient.
â venrey
Sep 5 at 2:38
Another approach, from the Taylor series of $f: x mapsto (1+x)^frac1x + (1+frac1x)^x $ at $x=1$, we have: $$4-f(x) = 2 cdot underbrace(1-2 ln^2(2))_ > 0 cdot(x-1)^2 + Oleft((x-1)^3right) $$. That means the inequality is strictly true in a neighborhood of $1$, where it is the tighter. However, the remainder seems not nice enough to extend the inequality to $(0,1)$.
â yultan
Sep 5 at 3:10
1
As $$lim_xrightarrowinftyf(x)=lim_xrightarrow 0f(x)=1+e$$ and $f$ appears to be increasing on $(0,1)$, this inequality is distinguished as being a near optimal uniform inequality. Most inequalities are good near a point and obvious elsewhere. I wonder if Pade approximations would be good here.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 5 at 15:10
2
2
Doesn't calculating directly $f'(x)$ provides you $x=1$ i.e. $f(x)=4$ as maxima?
â prog_SAHIL
Aug 30 at 16:45
Doesn't calculating directly $f'(x)$ provides you $x=1$ i.e. $f(x)=4$ as maxima?
â prog_SAHIL
Aug 30 at 16:45
1
1
@prog_SAHIL : It's clear that $4$ is the maximum value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is near $1$. The problem is to show that this holds for all positive $x$.
â John Bentin
Sep 1 at 12:05
@prog_SAHIL : It's clear that $4$ is the maximum value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is near $1$. The problem is to show that this holds for all positive $x$.
â John Bentin
Sep 1 at 12:05
One possible alternative proof is to consider it's equivalent problem: Prove that $$left[4 - left(1 + frac1xright)^xright]^x geq 1 + x$$ by considering the generalized binomial expansion (of real powers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/⦠) of the LHS, i.e., we equivalently prove that $$ sum_k=0^infty binomxk (-1)^k 4^x-k left(1 + frac1xright)^kx geq 1 + x $$ where $binomxk$ is the generalized binomial coefficient.
â venrey
Sep 5 at 2:38
One possible alternative proof is to consider it's equivalent problem: Prove that $$left[4 - left(1 + frac1xright)^xright]^x geq 1 + x$$ by considering the generalized binomial expansion (of real powers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/⦠) of the LHS, i.e., we equivalently prove that $$ sum_k=0^infty binomxk (-1)^k 4^x-k left(1 + frac1xright)^kx geq 1 + x $$ where $binomxk$ is the generalized binomial coefficient.
â venrey
Sep 5 at 2:38
Another approach, from the Taylor series of $f: x mapsto (1+x)^frac1x + (1+frac1x)^x $ at $x=1$, we have: $$4-f(x) = 2 cdot underbrace(1-2 ln^2(2))_ > 0 cdot(x-1)^2 + Oleft((x-1)^3right) $$. That means the inequality is strictly true in a neighborhood of $1$, where it is the tighter. However, the remainder seems not nice enough to extend the inequality to $(0,1)$.
â yultan
Sep 5 at 3:10
Another approach, from the Taylor series of $f: x mapsto (1+x)^frac1x + (1+frac1x)^x $ at $x=1$, we have: $$4-f(x) = 2 cdot underbrace(1-2 ln^2(2))_ > 0 cdot(x-1)^2 + Oleft((x-1)^3right) $$. That means the inequality is strictly true in a neighborhood of $1$, where it is the tighter. However, the remainder seems not nice enough to extend the inequality to $(0,1)$.
â yultan
Sep 5 at 3:10
1
1
As $$lim_xrightarrowinftyf(x)=lim_xrightarrow 0f(x)=1+e$$ and $f$ appears to be increasing on $(0,1)$, this inequality is distinguished as being a near optimal uniform inequality. Most inequalities are good near a point and obvious elsewhere. I wonder if Pade approximations would be good here.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 5 at 15:10
As $$lim_xrightarrowinftyf(x)=lim_xrightarrow 0f(x)=1+e$$ and $f$ appears to be increasing on $(0,1)$, this inequality is distinguished as being a near optimal uniform inequality. Most inequalities are good near a point and obvious elsewhere. I wonder if Pade approximations would be good here.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 5 at 15:10
 |Â
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
From a friend who doesn't want to use math.se...
Write the inequality as
$$
frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x leq 4.$$
Let $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$. If $f$ is concave, then we are done since this means that
$$4=f(1)=f((1- alpha)x + alpha y)) geq (1- alpha) f(x) + alpha f(y) = frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x$$ with $alpha = fracx1+x, 1-alpha = frac11+x,$ and $y = frac1x$. So, we will show that $f$ is concave.
Note that if $f(x) = e^g(x)$ and $g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0$ for all $x$, then $f$ is concave.
So, consider $g(x) = (1+frac1x) log (1+x).$ Then we have that
$$g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0 leftrightarrow log(1+x) leq fracxsqrt1+x$$
Note that $lim_x to 0^+ log(1+x) = lim_x to 0^+ fracxsqrt1+x=0.$
By AM-GM,
$$frac11+x = fracddx log(1+x) leq fracx+22(1+x)^frac32 = fracddx fracxsqrt1+x $$
So, $$log(1+x) = int_0^x log (1+x) ' dx leq int_0^x left(fracxsqrt1+xright)' dx = fracxsqrt1+x.$$
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
I'm going to include another (almost) answer for "cultural enrichment of technique". This will not be nearly as beautiful as Alvin's approach but does exemplify that when enlightenment doesn't fall upon you that doesn't mean that your hands are bound. The question posed and the answers and comments that eventually got deleted all wanted to use elementary analysis in some capacity. And unfortunately, concavity/convexity isn't discussed in all elementary analysis courses. So this will also provide an approach avoiding convexity, while going deeper into inequalities.
This was a stubborn inequality. The components had dual nature: when one was large, the other was small. And vice versa. This would normally be great if they weren't similar in nature on the middle of $[0,1]$. Typical inequalities were not precise enough to be good both at the endpoints and in the middle of $[0,1]$.
Thus osculatory interpolating polynomials are things to keep in mind, as they can be constructed as needed for ad hoc purposes when enlightenment doesn't come to you but you still have to roll up your sleaves.
We first observe that
$$f(x)=(1+x)^1/x+(1+1/x)^x=e^xln(1+1/x)+e^ln(1+x)/x,.$$
Let us define
$$g(x)=xln(1+1/x)quadtextandquad h(x)=ln(1+x)/x,.$$
It will be nice to have some information about $g$ and $h$. Elementary calculus can show that $g$ is strictly increasing and that $h$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,1)$. But overmore
$$0leq g(x)leqln 2 quadtextandquad ln 2leq h(x)leq 1$$ for $0leq xleq 1$. And lastly
$$lim_xrightarrow 0^+g(x)=0quadtextandquad lim_xrightarrow 0^+h(x)=1,.$$
Most inequalities in elementary analysis are derived from Taylor series which are unfortunately typically only good near a point and pretty much useless far away from that point. Thus things like $1+xleq e^x$ aren't very much help in this problem since the inequality posed is very exact on its entire domain. We need more precision.
Let us define the polynomials below
$$p(x)=a_2x^2+a_1x+a_0quadtextandquad q(x)=b^2x^2+b_1x+b_0$$
where
$$a_2=frac1-ln 2ln^2 2,quad a_1=a_0=1, $$
$$b_2=frac-4+e+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_1=frac2(1-ln^2 2-eln 2+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_0=frac2+2ln^2 2+eln^2 2-6ln 2(ln 2-1)^2,.$$
Why would we do this for any sensible reason? These polynomials are actually fairly easy to reverse engineer. They were specifically constructed to satisfy the properties below.
$$p(0)=p'(0)=1=e^0=(exp)'(0)quadtextandquad p(ln 2)=2=e^ln 2$$
$$q(ln 2)=q'(ln 2)=e^ln 2=2quadtextandquad q(1)=e=e^1,.$$
These constructions make $p$ a good approximation for $e^x$ at $0$ and at $ln 2$ but also on $[0,ln 2]$ (which is the range of $g$). Likewise, $q$ is a good approximation for $e^x$ at $ln 2$ and at $1$ but also on $[ln 2, 1]$ (which is the range of $h$). They are also upper bounds for $e^x$ on the first and latter intervals as well. With these polynomials in hand, we can conclude
$$(1+1/x)^x+(1+x)^1/x=e^g(x)+e^h(x)leq p(g(x))+q(h(x))$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)leq a_2x^2ln^2(1+1/x)+xln(1+1/x)+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We already have here far more separation than we had in our original inequality. Now we try to start using cruder estimates. For example,
$$xln(1+1/x)leq ln 2cdotsqrt[4]xquadtextandquad xln(1+1/x)leqln2cdotsqrtx$$
could be used.
Graphing software seems to hint that these crude replacements won't harm anything (the endpoint limits stay the same and monotonicity is preserved). Thus after simplifying
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We now create a new osculatory polynomial for $g$ on $[0,1]$. We can construct
$$fracln(1+x)xleq left(frac32-ln 4right)x^2+(ln 8-5/2)x+1=r(x)$$
for all $0leq xleq 1$ (preserving limits). This was constructed so that $r(0), r'(0)$, and $r(1)$ coincide with $g(0), g'(0)$, and $g(1)$ respectively.
We now have
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2(r(x))^2+b_1(r(x))+b_0,.$$
Graphing software seems to indicate that this latter (almost) polynomial is less than or equal to $4$ for all $0leq xleq 1$. Which seems quite approachable with elementary analysis and numerical approximations of numbers.
But before I went onto this part, Alvin provided convexity and a far easier argument. Thus I could stop. But I haven't seen this approach to problem solving elsewhere. And this could help someone when convexity can't be found.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
My ugly proof based on the following statements.
By your work it's enough to prove that
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0$$ for all $0<xleq1$ or
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^2xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0.$$
Now, easy to prove the following statements. For all $0<xleq1$ we have:
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4,$$
$$frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2leq0,$$
$$left(1+frac1xright)^2xgeq1+4x-x^2$$ and
$$lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+x>0.$$
Id est, it's enough to prove that:
$$4left(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+(1+4x-x^2)left(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0,$$
which is smooth.
The proof of $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4$ see here:
Monotonicity of the function $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^x$.
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
From a friend who doesn't want to use math.se...
Write the inequality as
$$
frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x leq 4.$$
Let $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$. If $f$ is concave, then we are done since this means that
$$4=f(1)=f((1- alpha)x + alpha y)) geq (1- alpha) f(x) + alpha f(y) = frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x$$ with $alpha = fracx1+x, 1-alpha = frac11+x,$ and $y = frac1x$. So, we will show that $f$ is concave.
Note that if $f(x) = e^g(x)$ and $g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0$ for all $x$, then $f$ is concave.
So, consider $g(x) = (1+frac1x) log (1+x).$ Then we have that
$$g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0 leftrightarrow log(1+x) leq fracxsqrt1+x$$
Note that $lim_x to 0^+ log(1+x) = lim_x to 0^+ fracxsqrt1+x=0.$
By AM-GM,
$$frac11+x = fracddx log(1+x) leq fracx+22(1+x)^frac32 = fracddx fracxsqrt1+x $$
So, $$log(1+x) = int_0^x log (1+x) ' dx leq int_0^x left(fracxsqrt1+xright)' dx = fracxsqrt1+x.$$
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
From a friend who doesn't want to use math.se...
Write the inequality as
$$
frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x leq 4.$$
Let $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$. If $f$ is concave, then we are done since this means that
$$4=f(1)=f((1- alpha)x + alpha y)) geq (1- alpha) f(x) + alpha f(y) = frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x$$ with $alpha = fracx1+x, 1-alpha = frac11+x,$ and $y = frac1x$. So, we will show that $f$ is concave.
Note that if $f(x) = e^g(x)$ and $g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0$ for all $x$, then $f$ is concave.
So, consider $g(x) = (1+frac1x) log (1+x).$ Then we have that
$$g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0 leftrightarrow log(1+x) leq fracxsqrt1+x$$
Note that $lim_x to 0^+ log(1+x) = lim_x to 0^+ fracxsqrt1+x=0.$
By AM-GM,
$$frac11+x = fracddx log(1+x) leq fracx+22(1+x)^frac32 = fracddx fracxsqrt1+x $$
So, $$log(1+x) = int_0^x log (1+x) ' dx leq int_0^x left(fracxsqrt1+xright)' dx = fracxsqrt1+x.$$
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
From a friend who doesn't want to use math.se...
Write the inequality as
$$
frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x leq 4.$$
Let $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$. If $f$ is concave, then we are done since this means that
$$4=f(1)=f((1- alpha)x + alpha y)) geq (1- alpha) f(x) + alpha f(y) = frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x$$ with $alpha = fracx1+x, 1-alpha = frac11+x,$ and $y = frac1x$. So, we will show that $f$ is concave.
Note that if $f(x) = e^g(x)$ and $g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0$ for all $x$, then $f$ is concave.
So, consider $g(x) = (1+frac1x) log (1+x).$ Then we have that
$$g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0 leftrightarrow log(1+x) leq fracxsqrt1+x$$
Note that $lim_x to 0^+ log(1+x) = lim_x to 0^+ fracxsqrt1+x=0.$
By AM-GM,
$$frac11+x = fracddx log(1+x) leq fracx+22(1+x)^frac32 = fracddx fracxsqrt1+x $$
So, $$log(1+x) = int_0^x log (1+x) ' dx leq int_0^x left(fracxsqrt1+xright)' dx = fracxsqrt1+x.$$
From a friend who doesn't want to use math.se...
Write the inequality as
$$
frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x leq 4.$$
Let $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$. If $f$ is concave, then we are done since this means that
$$4=f(1)=f((1- alpha)x + alpha y)) geq (1- alpha) f(x) + alpha f(y) = frac11+x left(1+xright)^1+frac1x + fracx1+x left(1+frac1xright)^1+x$$ with $alpha = fracx1+x, 1-alpha = frac11+x,$ and $y = frac1x$. So, we will show that $f$ is concave.
Note that if $f(x) = e^g(x)$ and $g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0$ for all $x$, then $f$ is concave.
So, consider $g(x) = (1+frac1x) log (1+x).$ Then we have that
$$g''(x) + g'(x)^2 leq 0 leftrightarrow log(1+x) leq fracxsqrt1+x$$
Note that $lim_x to 0^+ log(1+x) = lim_x to 0^+ fracxsqrt1+x=0.$
By AM-GM,
$$frac11+x = fracddx log(1+x) leq fracx+22(1+x)^frac32 = fracddx fracxsqrt1+x $$
So, $$log(1+x) = int_0^x log (1+x) ' dx leq int_0^x left(fracxsqrt1+xright)' dx = fracxsqrt1+x.$$
edited Sep 7 at 9:37
answered Sep 7 at 6:12
Alvin Jin
1,957718
1,957718
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Very very nice answer!
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 6:29
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
Nevermind. On the same page now. I doubt a slicker proof will appear, but I'll wait to award the bounty. Your friend should join. These kind of questions appear occasionally.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 7 at 6:47
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
@Alvin Jin Can you discuss the monotonicity of the function $f(x)=(1+x)^frac1x+(1+frac1x)^x$?
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 7:10
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
Question: somehow I'm missing why "If $f(x) =(1+x)^1+frac1x$ is concave, then we are done." Can you elaborate?
â Andreas
Sep 7 at 9:28
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
@Andreas He used Jensen. Also, $f''(x)<0Leftrightarrowln(1+x)<fracxsqrt1+x,$ which is obvious.
â Michael Rozenberg
Sep 7 at 11:12
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
I'm going to include another (almost) answer for "cultural enrichment of technique". This will not be nearly as beautiful as Alvin's approach but does exemplify that when enlightenment doesn't fall upon you that doesn't mean that your hands are bound. The question posed and the answers and comments that eventually got deleted all wanted to use elementary analysis in some capacity. And unfortunately, concavity/convexity isn't discussed in all elementary analysis courses. So this will also provide an approach avoiding convexity, while going deeper into inequalities.
This was a stubborn inequality. The components had dual nature: when one was large, the other was small. And vice versa. This would normally be great if they weren't similar in nature on the middle of $[0,1]$. Typical inequalities were not precise enough to be good both at the endpoints and in the middle of $[0,1]$.
Thus osculatory interpolating polynomials are things to keep in mind, as they can be constructed as needed for ad hoc purposes when enlightenment doesn't come to you but you still have to roll up your sleaves.
We first observe that
$$f(x)=(1+x)^1/x+(1+1/x)^x=e^xln(1+1/x)+e^ln(1+x)/x,.$$
Let us define
$$g(x)=xln(1+1/x)quadtextandquad h(x)=ln(1+x)/x,.$$
It will be nice to have some information about $g$ and $h$. Elementary calculus can show that $g$ is strictly increasing and that $h$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,1)$. But overmore
$$0leq g(x)leqln 2 quadtextandquad ln 2leq h(x)leq 1$$ for $0leq xleq 1$. And lastly
$$lim_xrightarrow 0^+g(x)=0quadtextandquad lim_xrightarrow 0^+h(x)=1,.$$
Most inequalities in elementary analysis are derived from Taylor series which are unfortunately typically only good near a point and pretty much useless far away from that point. Thus things like $1+xleq e^x$ aren't very much help in this problem since the inequality posed is very exact on its entire domain. We need more precision.
Let us define the polynomials below
$$p(x)=a_2x^2+a_1x+a_0quadtextandquad q(x)=b^2x^2+b_1x+b_0$$
where
$$a_2=frac1-ln 2ln^2 2,quad a_1=a_0=1, $$
$$b_2=frac-4+e+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_1=frac2(1-ln^2 2-eln 2+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_0=frac2+2ln^2 2+eln^2 2-6ln 2(ln 2-1)^2,.$$
Why would we do this for any sensible reason? These polynomials are actually fairly easy to reverse engineer. They were specifically constructed to satisfy the properties below.
$$p(0)=p'(0)=1=e^0=(exp)'(0)quadtextandquad p(ln 2)=2=e^ln 2$$
$$q(ln 2)=q'(ln 2)=e^ln 2=2quadtextandquad q(1)=e=e^1,.$$
These constructions make $p$ a good approximation for $e^x$ at $0$ and at $ln 2$ but also on $[0,ln 2]$ (which is the range of $g$). Likewise, $q$ is a good approximation for $e^x$ at $ln 2$ and at $1$ but also on $[ln 2, 1]$ (which is the range of $h$). They are also upper bounds for $e^x$ on the first and latter intervals as well. With these polynomials in hand, we can conclude
$$(1+1/x)^x+(1+x)^1/x=e^g(x)+e^h(x)leq p(g(x))+q(h(x))$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)leq a_2x^2ln^2(1+1/x)+xln(1+1/x)+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We already have here far more separation than we had in our original inequality. Now we try to start using cruder estimates. For example,
$$xln(1+1/x)leq ln 2cdotsqrt[4]xquadtextandquad xln(1+1/x)leqln2cdotsqrtx$$
could be used.
Graphing software seems to hint that these crude replacements won't harm anything (the endpoint limits stay the same and monotonicity is preserved). Thus after simplifying
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We now create a new osculatory polynomial for $g$ on $[0,1]$. We can construct
$$fracln(1+x)xleq left(frac32-ln 4right)x^2+(ln 8-5/2)x+1=r(x)$$
for all $0leq xleq 1$ (preserving limits). This was constructed so that $r(0), r'(0)$, and $r(1)$ coincide with $g(0), g'(0)$, and $g(1)$ respectively.
We now have
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2(r(x))^2+b_1(r(x))+b_0,.$$
Graphing software seems to indicate that this latter (almost) polynomial is less than or equal to $4$ for all $0leq xleq 1$. Which seems quite approachable with elementary analysis and numerical approximations of numbers.
But before I went onto this part, Alvin provided convexity and a far easier argument. Thus I could stop. But I haven't seen this approach to problem solving elsewhere. And this could help someone when convexity can't be found.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
I'm going to include another (almost) answer for "cultural enrichment of technique". This will not be nearly as beautiful as Alvin's approach but does exemplify that when enlightenment doesn't fall upon you that doesn't mean that your hands are bound. The question posed and the answers and comments that eventually got deleted all wanted to use elementary analysis in some capacity. And unfortunately, concavity/convexity isn't discussed in all elementary analysis courses. So this will also provide an approach avoiding convexity, while going deeper into inequalities.
This was a stubborn inequality. The components had dual nature: when one was large, the other was small. And vice versa. This would normally be great if they weren't similar in nature on the middle of $[0,1]$. Typical inequalities were not precise enough to be good both at the endpoints and in the middle of $[0,1]$.
Thus osculatory interpolating polynomials are things to keep in mind, as they can be constructed as needed for ad hoc purposes when enlightenment doesn't come to you but you still have to roll up your sleaves.
We first observe that
$$f(x)=(1+x)^1/x+(1+1/x)^x=e^xln(1+1/x)+e^ln(1+x)/x,.$$
Let us define
$$g(x)=xln(1+1/x)quadtextandquad h(x)=ln(1+x)/x,.$$
It will be nice to have some information about $g$ and $h$. Elementary calculus can show that $g$ is strictly increasing and that $h$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,1)$. But overmore
$$0leq g(x)leqln 2 quadtextandquad ln 2leq h(x)leq 1$$ for $0leq xleq 1$. And lastly
$$lim_xrightarrow 0^+g(x)=0quadtextandquad lim_xrightarrow 0^+h(x)=1,.$$
Most inequalities in elementary analysis are derived from Taylor series which are unfortunately typically only good near a point and pretty much useless far away from that point. Thus things like $1+xleq e^x$ aren't very much help in this problem since the inequality posed is very exact on its entire domain. We need more precision.
Let us define the polynomials below
$$p(x)=a_2x^2+a_1x+a_0quadtextandquad q(x)=b^2x^2+b_1x+b_0$$
where
$$a_2=frac1-ln 2ln^2 2,quad a_1=a_0=1, $$
$$b_2=frac-4+e+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_1=frac2(1-ln^2 2-eln 2+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_0=frac2+2ln^2 2+eln^2 2-6ln 2(ln 2-1)^2,.$$
Why would we do this for any sensible reason? These polynomials are actually fairly easy to reverse engineer. They were specifically constructed to satisfy the properties below.
$$p(0)=p'(0)=1=e^0=(exp)'(0)quadtextandquad p(ln 2)=2=e^ln 2$$
$$q(ln 2)=q'(ln 2)=e^ln 2=2quadtextandquad q(1)=e=e^1,.$$
These constructions make $p$ a good approximation for $e^x$ at $0$ and at $ln 2$ but also on $[0,ln 2]$ (which is the range of $g$). Likewise, $q$ is a good approximation for $e^x$ at $ln 2$ and at $1$ but also on $[ln 2, 1]$ (which is the range of $h$). They are also upper bounds for $e^x$ on the first and latter intervals as well. With these polynomials in hand, we can conclude
$$(1+1/x)^x+(1+x)^1/x=e^g(x)+e^h(x)leq p(g(x))+q(h(x))$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)leq a_2x^2ln^2(1+1/x)+xln(1+1/x)+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We already have here far more separation than we had in our original inequality. Now we try to start using cruder estimates. For example,
$$xln(1+1/x)leq ln 2cdotsqrt[4]xquadtextandquad xln(1+1/x)leqln2cdotsqrtx$$
could be used.
Graphing software seems to hint that these crude replacements won't harm anything (the endpoint limits stay the same and monotonicity is preserved). Thus after simplifying
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We now create a new osculatory polynomial for $g$ on $[0,1]$. We can construct
$$fracln(1+x)xleq left(frac32-ln 4right)x^2+(ln 8-5/2)x+1=r(x)$$
for all $0leq xleq 1$ (preserving limits). This was constructed so that $r(0), r'(0)$, and $r(1)$ coincide with $g(0), g'(0)$, and $g(1)$ respectively.
We now have
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2(r(x))^2+b_1(r(x))+b_0,.$$
Graphing software seems to indicate that this latter (almost) polynomial is less than or equal to $4$ for all $0leq xleq 1$. Which seems quite approachable with elementary analysis and numerical approximations of numbers.
But before I went onto this part, Alvin provided convexity and a far easier argument. Thus I could stop. But I haven't seen this approach to problem solving elsewhere. And this could help someone when convexity can't be found.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
I'm going to include another (almost) answer for "cultural enrichment of technique". This will not be nearly as beautiful as Alvin's approach but does exemplify that when enlightenment doesn't fall upon you that doesn't mean that your hands are bound. The question posed and the answers and comments that eventually got deleted all wanted to use elementary analysis in some capacity. And unfortunately, concavity/convexity isn't discussed in all elementary analysis courses. So this will also provide an approach avoiding convexity, while going deeper into inequalities.
This was a stubborn inequality. The components had dual nature: when one was large, the other was small. And vice versa. This would normally be great if they weren't similar in nature on the middle of $[0,1]$. Typical inequalities were not precise enough to be good both at the endpoints and in the middle of $[0,1]$.
Thus osculatory interpolating polynomials are things to keep in mind, as they can be constructed as needed for ad hoc purposes when enlightenment doesn't come to you but you still have to roll up your sleaves.
We first observe that
$$f(x)=(1+x)^1/x+(1+1/x)^x=e^xln(1+1/x)+e^ln(1+x)/x,.$$
Let us define
$$g(x)=xln(1+1/x)quadtextandquad h(x)=ln(1+x)/x,.$$
It will be nice to have some information about $g$ and $h$. Elementary calculus can show that $g$ is strictly increasing and that $h$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,1)$. But overmore
$$0leq g(x)leqln 2 quadtextandquad ln 2leq h(x)leq 1$$ for $0leq xleq 1$. And lastly
$$lim_xrightarrow 0^+g(x)=0quadtextandquad lim_xrightarrow 0^+h(x)=1,.$$
Most inequalities in elementary analysis are derived from Taylor series which are unfortunately typically only good near a point and pretty much useless far away from that point. Thus things like $1+xleq e^x$ aren't very much help in this problem since the inequality posed is very exact on its entire domain. We need more precision.
Let us define the polynomials below
$$p(x)=a_2x^2+a_1x+a_0quadtextandquad q(x)=b^2x^2+b_1x+b_0$$
where
$$a_2=frac1-ln 2ln^2 2,quad a_1=a_0=1, $$
$$b_2=frac-4+e+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_1=frac2(1-ln^2 2-eln 2+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_0=frac2+2ln^2 2+eln^2 2-6ln 2(ln 2-1)^2,.$$
Why would we do this for any sensible reason? These polynomials are actually fairly easy to reverse engineer. They were specifically constructed to satisfy the properties below.
$$p(0)=p'(0)=1=e^0=(exp)'(0)quadtextandquad p(ln 2)=2=e^ln 2$$
$$q(ln 2)=q'(ln 2)=e^ln 2=2quadtextandquad q(1)=e=e^1,.$$
These constructions make $p$ a good approximation for $e^x$ at $0$ and at $ln 2$ but also on $[0,ln 2]$ (which is the range of $g$). Likewise, $q$ is a good approximation for $e^x$ at $ln 2$ and at $1$ but also on $[ln 2, 1]$ (which is the range of $h$). They are also upper bounds for $e^x$ on the first and latter intervals as well. With these polynomials in hand, we can conclude
$$(1+1/x)^x+(1+x)^1/x=e^g(x)+e^h(x)leq p(g(x))+q(h(x))$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)leq a_2x^2ln^2(1+1/x)+xln(1+1/x)+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We already have here far more separation than we had in our original inequality. Now we try to start using cruder estimates. For example,
$$xln(1+1/x)leq ln 2cdotsqrt[4]xquadtextandquad xln(1+1/x)leqln2cdotsqrtx$$
could be used.
Graphing software seems to hint that these crude replacements won't harm anything (the endpoint limits stay the same and monotonicity is preserved). Thus after simplifying
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We now create a new osculatory polynomial for $g$ on $[0,1]$. We can construct
$$fracln(1+x)xleq left(frac32-ln 4right)x^2+(ln 8-5/2)x+1=r(x)$$
for all $0leq xleq 1$ (preserving limits). This was constructed so that $r(0), r'(0)$, and $r(1)$ coincide with $g(0), g'(0)$, and $g(1)$ respectively.
We now have
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2(r(x))^2+b_1(r(x))+b_0,.$$
Graphing software seems to indicate that this latter (almost) polynomial is less than or equal to $4$ for all $0leq xleq 1$. Which seems quite approachable with elementary analysis and numerical approximations of numbers.
But before I went onto this part, Alvin provided convexity and a far easier argument. Thus I could stop. But I haven't seen this approach to problem solving elsewhere. And this could help someone when convexity can't be found.
I'm going to include another (almost) answer for "cultural enrichment of technique". This will not be nearly as beautiful as Alvin's approach but does exemplify that when enlightenment doesn't fall upon you that doesn't mean that your hands are bound. The question posed and the answers and comments that eventually got deleted all wanted to use elementary analysis in some capacity. And unfortunately, concavity/convexity isn't discussed in all elementary analysis courses. So this will also provide an approach avoiding convexity, while going deeper into inequalities.
This was a stubborn inequality. The components had dual nature: when one was large, the other was small. And vice versa. This would normally be great if they weren't similar in nature on the middle of $[0,1]$. Typical inequalities were not precise enough to be good both at the endpoints and in the middle of $[0,1]$.
Thus osculatory interpolating polynomials are things to keep in mind, as they can be constructed as needed for ad hoc purposes when enlightenment doesn't come to you but you still have to roll up your sleaves.
We first observe that
$$f(x)=(1+x)^1/x+(1+1/x)^x=e^xln(1+1/x)+e^ln(1+x)/x,.$$
Let us define
$$g(x)=xln(1+1/x)quadtextandquad h(x)=ln(1+x)/x,.$$
It will be nice to have some information about $g$ and $h$. Elementary calculus can show that $g$ is strictly increasing and that $h$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,1)$. But overmore
$$0leq g(x)leqln 2 quadtextandquad ln 2leq h(x)leq 1$$ for $0leq xleq 1$. And lastly
$$lim_xrightarrow 0^+g(x)=0quadtextandquad lim_xrightarrow 0^+h(x)=1,.$$
Most inequalities in elementary analysis are derived from Taylor series which are unfortunately typically only good near a point and pretty much useless far away from that point. Thus things like $1+xleq e^x$ aren't very much help in this problem since the inequality posed is very exact on its entire domain. We need more precision.
Let us define the polynomials below
$$p(x)=a_2x^2+a_1x+a_0quadtextandquad q(x)=b^2x^2+b_1x+b_0$$
where
$$a_2=frac1-ln 2ln^2 2,quad a_1=a_0=1, $$
$$b_2=frac-4+e+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_1=frac2(1-ln^2 2-eln 2+ln 4(ln 2-1)^2,quad b_0=frac2+2ln^2 2+eln^2 2-6ln 2(ln 2-1)^2,.$$
Why would we do this for any sensible reason? These polynomials are actually fairly easy to reverse engineer. They were specifically constructed to satisfy the properties below.
$$p(0)=p'(0)=1=e^0=(exp)'(0)quadtextandquad p(ln 2)=2=e^ln 2$$
$$q(ln 2)=q'(ln 2)=e^ln 2=2quadtextandquad q(1)=e=e^1,.$$
These constructions make $p$ a good approximation for $e^x$ at $0$ and at $ln 2$ but also on $[0,ln 2]$ (which is the range of $g$). Likewise, $q$ is a good approximation for $e^x$ at $ln 2$ and at $1$ but also on $[ln 2, 1]$ (which is the range of $h$). They are also upper bounds for $e^x$ on the first and latter intervals as well. With these polynomials in hand, we can conclude
$$(1+1/x)^x+(1+x)^1/x=e^g(x)+e^h(x)leq p(g(x))+q(h(x))$$
Therefore,
$$f(x)leq a_2x^2ln^2(1+1/x)+xln(1+1/x)+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We already have here far more separation than we had in our original inequality. Now we try to start using cruder estimates. For example,
$$xln(1+1/x)leq ln 2cdotsqrt[4]xquadtextandquad xln(1+1/x)leqln2cdotsqrtx$$
could be used.
Graphing software seems to hint that these crude replacements won't harm anything (the endpoint limits stay the same and monotonicity is preserved). Thus after simplifying
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2fracln^2(1+x)x^2+b_1fracln(1+x)x+b_0,.$$
We now create a new osculatory polynomial for $g$ on $[0,1]$. We can construct
$$fracln(1+x)xleq left(frac32-ln 4right)x^2+(ln 8-5/2)x+1=r(x)$$
for all $0leq xleq 1$ (preserving limits). This was constructed so that $r(0), r'(0)$, and $r(1)$ coincide with $g(0), g'(0)$, and $g(1)$ respectively.
We now have
$$f(x)leq sqrtx+1+b_2(r(x))^2+b_1(r(x))+b_0,.$$
Graphing software seems to indicate that this latter (almost) polynomial is less than or equal to $4$ for all $0leq xleq 1$. Which seems quite approachable with elementary analysis and numerical approximations of numbers.
But before I went onto this part, Alvin provided convexity and a far easier argument. Thus I could stop. But I haven't seen this approach to problem solving elsewhere. And this could help someone when convexity can't be found.
answered Sep 7 at 8:03
Robert Wolfe
5,39122361
5,39122361
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
My ugly proof based on the following statements.
By your work it's enough to prove that
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0$$ for all $0<xleq1$ or
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^2xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0.$$
Now, easy to prove the following statements. For all $0<xleq1$ we have:
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4,$$
$$frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2leq0,$$
$$left(1+frac1xright)^2xgeq1+4x-x^2$$ and
$$lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+x>0.$$
Id est, it's enough to prove that:
$$4left(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+(1+4x-x^2)left(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0,$$
which is smooth.
The proof of $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4$ see here:
Monotonicity of the function $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^x$.
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
My ugly proof based on the following statements.
By your work it's enough to prove that
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0$$ for all $0<xleq1$ or
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^2xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0.$$
Now, easy to prove the following statements. For all $0<xleq1$ we have:
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4,$$
$$frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2leq0,$$
$$left(1+frac1xright)^2xgeq1+4x-x^2$$ and
$$lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+x>0.$$
Id est, it's enough to prove that:
$$4left(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+(1+4x-x^2)left(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0,$$
which is smooth.
The proof of $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4$ see here:
Monotonicity of the function $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^x$.
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
My ugly proof based on the following statements.
By your work it's enough to prove that
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0$$ for all $0<xleq1$ or
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^2xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0.$$
Now, easy to prove the following statements. For all $0<xleq1$ we have:
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4,$$
$$frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2leq0,$$
$$left(1+frac1xright)^2xgeq1+4x-x^2$$ and
$$lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+x>0.$$
Id est, it's enough to prove that:
$$4left(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+(1+4x-x^2)left(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0,$$
which is smooth.
The proof of $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4$ see here:
Monotonicity of the function $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^x$.
My ugly proof based on the following statements.
By your work it's enough to prove that
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0$$ for all $0<xleq1$ or
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleft(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+left(1+frac1xright)^2xleft(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0.$$
Now, easy to prove the following statements. For all $0<xleq1$ we have:
$$(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4,$$
$$frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2leq0,$$
$$left(1+frac1xright)^2xgeq1+4x-x^2$$ and
$$lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+x>0.$$
Id est, it's enough to prove that:
$$4left(frac1x+x^2-fracln(1+x)x^2right)+(1+4x-x^2)left(lnleft(1+frac1xright)-frac11+xright)geq0,$$
which is smooth.
The proof of $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4$ see here:
Monotonicity of the function $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^x$.
edited Sep 7 at 16:26
answered Sep 7 at 11:30
Michael Rozenberg
89.2k1582180
89.2k1582180
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
add a comment |Â
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
How to prove $(1+x)^frac1xleft(1+frac1xright)^xleq4, 0<xleq 1$ easily, and I encountered this question weeks ago, I do not find good method to solve it !I have posted this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2908549/â¦
â Riemann
Sep 7 at 12:36
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2899031%2fprove-that-1x-frac1x1-frac1xx-leq-4%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Doesn't calculating directly $f'(x)$ provides you $x=1$ i.e. $f(x)=4$ as maxima?
â prog_SAHIL
Aug 30 at 16:45
1
@prog_SAHIL : It's clear that $4$ is the maximum value of $f(x)$ when $x$ is near $1$. The problem is to show that this holds for all positive $x$.
â John Bentin
Sep 1 at 12:05
One possible alternative proof is to consider it's equivalent problem: Prove that $$left[4 - left(1 + frac1xright)^xright]^x geq 1 + x$$ by considering the generalized binomial expansion (of real powers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/⦠) of the LHS, i.e., we equivalently prove that $$ sum_k=0^infty binomxk (-1)^k 4^x-k left(1 + frac1xright)^kx geq 1 + x $$ where $binomxk$ is the generalized binomial coefficient.
â venrey
Sep 5 at 2:38
Another approach, from the Taylor series of $f: x mapsto (1+x)^frac1x + (1+frac1x)^x $ at $x=1$, we have: $$4-f(x) = 2 cdot underbrace(1-2 ln^2(2))_ > 0 cdot(x-1)^2 + Oleft((x-1)^3right) $$. That means the inequality is strictly true in a neighborhood of $1$, where it is the tighter. However, the remainder seems not nice enough to extend the inequality to $(0,1)$.
â yultan
Sep 5 at 3:10
1
As $$lim_xrightarrowinftyf(x)=lim_xrightarrow 0f(x)=1+e$$ and $f$ appears to be increasing on $(0,1)$, this inequality is distinguished as being a near optimal uniform inequality. Most inequalities are good near a point and obvious elsewhere. I wonder if Pade approximations would be good here.
â Robert Wolfe
Sep 5 at 15:10