Author
Message
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Concavity and convexity
Given that , prove that
I know that this is a property of concave up functions. But can somebody prove it from the basics. I.e. Can somebody first prove the concavity/convexity and establish the result without using any theorm beyond Lagrange's Mean Value Theorm. I am preparing for IIT - JEE and this question is from there ( for special case of ). There , one is expected to solve without using any theorm from advanced maths
Click to reveal hidden content Administrators - this question might be from calculus. I'd be happy to shift it there if you want. Can you plz guide me about it
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:01 am
enescu
Yang-Mills Theory
Offline Joined: 04 Mar 2003 Posts: 517 Location: Buzau, Romania
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Here's the "special case n=3":
adding up and yield
.
Now, let . Plugging this in the previous inequality immediately gives
,
as desired. The same trick works in the general case...Try it!
_________________ Bogdan Enescu
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:38 pm
Rafal
Riemann Hypothesis
Offline Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 252 Location: Poland,Warsaw
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
there is a simple inductive proof of the inequality but I'm not sure if it's so important to mention it here.
_________________ out of time
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:40 pm
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Rafal wrote:
there is a simple inductive proof of the inequality but I'm not sure if it's so important to mention it here.
Pleases do!!!!
ALso can you correlate this property and concavity/convexity of functions via a rigorous proof?!!!
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:01 am
Rafal
Riemann Hypothesis
Offline Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 252 Location: Poland,Warsaw
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
just look what enescu did ,
1. First prove (what's easy) that for it's true.
2. Then prove that if it's true for then it's true for (putting ).
_________________ out of time
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:23 am
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
I understood the part of proving the inequality. But what about the relation of such functions to convexity?????
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:02 am
Arne
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Offline Joined: 07 Sep 2003 Posts: 3694 Location: Belgium
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
This is obviously the Jensen inequality for convex/concave functions...
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:08 am
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
exactly.
Basically I am asking for the proof of jensen's Inequality and its converse(if true)
If it's not true , I am also asking for a proof of that
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:18 am
lomos_lupin
Yang-Mills Theory
Offline Joined: 15 Mar 2005 Posts: 709 Location: Vancouver
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Rushil
Exactly ,what do you want?
Rafal had showed a basic proof with induction.
_________________ Mind likes to fly to mysterious realms.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:17 pm
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Basically I am asking for the proof that if , prove that
.
The general case can easily be obtained as you have shown above.. ,once we establish the inequality for . My question is this!! To relate the inequality for with concavity without using graphs!! A rigorous proof plz!
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:24 pm
blahblahblah
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Offline Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 3758
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
A function satisfying the above midpoint inequality is not necessarily convex.
As for a proof, one can be found here:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~rbm/18.100-F02.HMW/HMW7s.pdf
(it contains the solution to question 5.14 out of Rudin)
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:32 pm
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
i'm basically asking for a proof of Jensen's inequality!!!
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:37 pm
blahblahblah
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Offline Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 3758
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Well, I don't have a document with a proof of it, and I'm not going to take the time to write it down. The pdf that I gave you contains the proof that if is twice differentiable, then it is convex iff .
Honestly, it's not that hard (induction on the number of 's), and in general, you should stop asking people incessantly for hints and whatnot. You write a huge number of posts with no real content, and it shouldn't really continue. Rafal gave you more than enough information to prove the result you're looking for here, and I have written the proof for
on this forum on at least three different occasions.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:44 pm
Rushil
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1608
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
I think I get it now. I am sorry if I posted useless posts. I wasn't clear about the definitons previously , and that is why I was confused.
The definiton of convexity IS that as aspecial case and a general form also!!!Ok now ,everything is foine and all the proofs are ok.
Obviously , the general case is easy once we establish tge above
Again, Thanks!!! Please correct me if I am wrong!!!
Last edited by Rushil on Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:02 pm
Soarer
Navier-Stokes Equations
Offline Joined: 30 Aug 2003 Posts: 2466
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Rushil wrote:
i'm basically asking for a proof of Jensen's inequality!!!
I don't understand what you want. If you want the proof of Jensen's, Rafal has written the outline of solution to you. If you want to know something about convexity, you have to know that means f is convex only when f is continuous. Same for the second derivative test. Moreover, is more primitive, because the definition of convexity is that with . So I think it's strange to ask one to prove from to
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:02 pm
pardesi
Birch & Swinnerton Dyer
Offline Joined: 08 Jun 2006 Posts: 3712 Location: Bhubaneswar,Orissa
Not_yet_rated
Poor (Spam)
Poor (Spam)
Below average
Below average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Very good
Very good
Excellent
To rate posts you must be logged in
Rushil+Edits wrote:
Basically I am asking for the proof that if , prove that
.
The general case can easily be obtained as you have shown above.. ,once we establish the inequality for . My question is this!! To relate the inequality for with concavity without using graphs!! A rigorous proof plz!
is is increasing.
let
so for some .
also for some .
clearly hence
considering the case
we have
_________________
FUBAR -
KVS
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:50 pm
Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 7 Days 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Sort by: Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending