How can I prove that $frac{e^x+e^y}{2}>e^frac{x+y}{2}$, where $x neq y$?
The inequality is $$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}>e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
where $x neq y$.
This is my first time coming across inequalities of this form thus I really don't know to approach it correctly.
Here is what I tried:
Let us define $f(p)=e^p>0$. Then $f'(p)=e^p>0$ and $f''(p)=e^p>0$ for all $p$. Thus the function is real valued and convex? (*)
Therefore, by Jensen's inequality, we have that
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) leq frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
Since $f''(p)=e^p>0$ is always a strict inequality, then I was thinking this makes the inequality also strict, so that we have
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) lt frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
My question, (besides asking whether or not this 'proof' is correct), is what is the general strategy of proving such inequalities? And is this a correct application of the Jensen inequality? Was it right to have had concluded that the function is convex at (*)?
And a request for a hint to the right answer, in the case that this one is completely wrong. Any feedback is highly appreciated!
EDIT: I appreciate the answers coming in about using the AM-GM inequality, but I'd also like to know if this proof presented here works too.
real-analysis calculus proof-verification inequality jensen-inequality
add a comment |
The inequality is $$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}>e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
where $x neq y$.
This is my first time coming across inequalities of this form thus I really don't know to approach it correctly.
Here is what I tried:
Let us define $f(p)=e^p>0$. Then $f'(p)=e^p>0$ and $f''(p)=e^p>0$ for all $p$. Thus the function is real valued and convex? (*)
Therefore, by Jensen's inequality, we have that
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) leq frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
Since $f''(p)=e^p>0$ is always a strict inequality, then I was thinking this makes the inequality also strict, so that we have
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) lt frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
My question, (besides asking whether or not this 'proof' is correct), is what is the general strategy of proving such inequalities? And is this a correct application of the Jensen inequality? Was it right to have had concluded that the function is convex at (*)?
And a request for a hint to the right answer, in the case that this one is completely wrong. Any feedback is highly appreciated!
EDIT: I appreciate the answers coming in about using the AM-GM inequality, but I'd also like to know if this proof presented here works too.
real-analysis calculus proof-verification inequality jensen-inequality
3
What about $(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2$?
– Sorfosh
yesterday
3
You could use the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove your statement directly. It’s usually written as $frac{x+y}{2} geq sqrt{xy}$ with equality if and only if $x = y$.
– user328442
yesterday
add a comment |
The inequality is $$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}>e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
where $x neq y$.
This is my first time coming across inequalities of this form thus I really don't know to approach it correctly.
Here is what I tried:
Let us define $f(p)=e^p>0$. Then $f'(p)=e^p>0$ and $f''(p)=e^p>0$ for all $p$. Thus the function is real valued and convex? (*)
Therefore, by Jensen's inequality, we have that
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) leq frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
Since $f''(p)=e^p>0$ is always a strict inequality, then I was thinking this makes the inequality also strict, so that we have
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) lt frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
My question, (besides asking whether or not this 'proof' is correct), is what is the general strategy of proving such inequalities? And is this a correct application of the Jensen inequality? Was it right to have had concluded that the function is convex at (*)?
And a request for a hint to the right answer, in the case that this one is completely wrong. Any feedback is highly appreciated!
EDIT: I appreciate the answers coming in about using the AM-GM inequality, but I'd also like to know if this proof presented here works too.
real-analysis calculus proof-verification inequality jensen-inequality
The inequality is $$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}>e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
where $x neq y$.
This is my first time coming across inequalities of this form thus I really don't know to approach it correctly.
Here is what I tried:
Let us define $f(p)=e^p>0$. Then $f'(p)=e^p>0$ and $f''(p)=e^p>0$ for all $p$. Thus the function is real valued and convex? (*)
Therefore, by Jensen's inequality, we have that
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) leq frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
Since $f''(p)=e^p>0$ is always a strict inequality, then I was thinking this makes the inequality also strict, so that we have
$$e^frac{x+y}{2}=fleft(frac{1}{2}x+frac{1}{2}{y}right) lt frac{1}{2}f(x)+frac{1}{2}f(y)=frac{e^x+e^y}{2}$$
My question, (besides asking whether or not this 'proof' is correct), is what is the general strategy of proving such inequalities? And is this a correct application of the Jensen inequality? Was it right to have had concluded that the function is convex at (*)?
And a request for a hint to the right answer, in the case that this one is completely wrong. Any feedback is highly appreciated!
EDIT: I appreciate the answers coming in about using the AM-GM inequality, but I'd also like to know if this proof presented here works too.
real-analysis calculus proof-verification inequality jensen-inequality
real-analysis calculus proof-verification inequality jensen-inequality
edited yesterday
asked yesterday
E.Nole
9519
9519
3
What about $(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2$?
– Sorfosh
yesterday
3
You could use the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove your statement directly. It’s usually written as $frac{x+y}{2} geq sqrt{xy}$ with equality if and only if $x = y$.
– user328442
yesterday
add a comment |
3
What about $(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2$?
– Sorfosh
yesterday
3
You could use the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove your statement directly. It’s usually written as $frac{x+y}{2} geq sqrt{xy}$ with equality if and only if $x = y$.
– user328442
yesterday
3
3
What about $(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2$?
– Sorfosh
yesterday
What about $(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2$?
– Sorfosh
yesterday
3
3
You could use the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove your statement directly. It’s usually written as $frac{x+y}{2} geq sqrt{xy}$ with equality if and only if $x = y$.
– user328442
yesterday
You could use the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove your statement directly. It’s usually written as $frac{x+y}{2} geq sqrt{xy}$ with equality if and only if $x = y$.
– user328442
yesterday
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Use AM-GM inequality!
$$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}geq e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
Equality holds only when $e^x=e^y$ or $x=y$, which isn't the case.
add a comment |
Rephrasing:
$e^x+e^y=$
$(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2 +2e^{x/2}e^{y/2} ge$
$2e^{x/2}e^{y/2};$
Equality for $e^{x/2}=e^{y/2}$.
add a comment |
Your proof is right and the function is indeed convex.
But the inequality like Jensen can be true even the function is not convex.
For example, the function $f(x)=-cos{x}$ is not convex function on $[0,pi],$
but the following inequality is true:
$$frac{-cos{x}-cos{y}-cos{z}}{3}geq-cosfrac{x+y+z}{3}$$ for all ${x,y,z}subset[0,pi]$ such that $x+y+z=pi.$
add a comment |
A simpler proof.
Assume $x<y$.
Plot $f(x)=e^x$. The arc of curve Jon int $(x,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$. Plot The segment joining these two points.
The segment is above The curve.
The midpoint of The segment is above The midpoint of The curve.
The midpoint of The segment has y coordínate $(e^x+e^y)/2$ and The midpoint of The curve, $e^{(x+y)/2}$.
We are done
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
1
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
add a comment |
Suppose $f''>0.$ Let $x<y$ and let $z=(x+y)/2.$
Method 1.There exists $ain (x,z)$ with $$(1).quad f(x)=f(z)+(x-z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2.$$ There exists $bin (z,y)$ with $$(2).quad f(y)=f(z)+(y-z)f'(z)+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2.$$ Adding (1) and (2), since $x+y-2z=0,$ we have $$f(x)+f(y)=2f(z)+(x+y-2z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2=$$ $$=2f(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2>$$ $$>2f(z).$$
Method 2. $f'$ is strictly increasing and continuous so we have $$(1').
quad f(z)=f(x)+int_x^zf'(t)dt<f(x)+(z-x)f'(z)$$ and we have $$(2').quad f(z)=f(y)+int_y^zf'(t)dt<f(y)+(z-y)f'(z).$$ Adding (1') and (2'), since $2z-x-y=0, $ we have $$2f(z)<f(x)+f(y)+(2z-x-y)f'(z)=f(x)+f(y).$$
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3051524%2fhow-can-i-prove-that-fracexey2e-fracxy2-where-x-neq-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Use AM-GM inequality!
$$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}geq e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
Equality holds only when $e^x=e^y$ or $x=y$, which isn't the case.
add a comment |
Use AM-GM inequality!
$$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}geq e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
Equality holds only when $e^x=e^y$ or $x=y$, which isn't the case.
add a comment |
Use AM-GM inequality!
$$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}geq e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
Equality holds only when $e^x=e^y$ or $x=y$, which isn't the case.
Use AM-GM inequality!
$$frac{e^x+e^y}{2}geq e^frac{x+y}{2}$$
Equality holds only when $e^x=e^y$ or $x=y$, which isn't the case.
answered yesterday
Ankit Kumar
1,649119
1,649119
add a comment |
add a comment |
Rephrasing:
$e^x+e^y=$
$(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2 +2e^{x/2}e^{y/2} ge$
$2e^{x/2}e^{y/2};$
Equality for $e^{x/2}=e^{y/2}$.
add a comment |
Rephrasing:
$e^x+e^y=$
$(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2 +2e^{x/2}e^{y/2} ge$
$2e^{x/2}e^{y/2};$
Equality for $e^{x/2}=e^{y/2}$.
add a comment |
Rephrasing:
$e^x+e^y=$
$(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2 +2e^{x/2}e^{y/2} ge$
$2e^{x/2}e^{y/2};$
Equality for $e^{x/2}=e^{y/2}$.
Rephrasing:
$e^x+e^y=$
$(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2 +2e^{x/2}e^{y/2} ge$
$2e^{x/2}e^{y/2};$
Equality for $e^{x/2}=e^{y/2}$.
answered yesterday
Peter Szilas
10.6k2720
10.6k2720
add a comment |
add a comment |
Your proof is right and the function is indeed convex.
But the inequality like Jensen can be true even the function is not convex.
For example, the function $f(x)=-cos{x}$ is not convex function on $[0,pi],$
but the following inequality is true:
$$frac{-cos{x}-cos{y}-cos{z}}{3}geq-cosfrac{x+y+z}{3}$$ for all ${x,y,z}subset[0,pi]$ such that $x+y+z=pi.$
add a comment |
Your proof is right and the function is indeed convex.
But the inequality like Jensen can be true even the function is not convex.
For example, the function $f(x)=-cos{x}$ is not convex function on $[0,pi],$
but the following inequality is true:
$$frac{-cos{x}-cos{y}-cos{z}}{3}geq-cosfrac{x+y+z}{3}$$ for all ${x,y,z}subset[0,pi]$ such that $x+y+z=pi.$
add a comment |
Your proof is right and the function is indeed convex.
But the inequality like Jensen can be true even the function is not convex.
For example, the function $f(x)=-cos{x}$ is not convex function on $[0,pi],$
but the following inequality is true:
$$frac{-cos{x}-cos{y}-cos{z}}{3}geq-cosfrac{x+y+z}{3}$$ for all ${x,y,z}subset[0,pi]$ such that $x+y+z=pi.$
Your proof is right and the function is indeed convex.
But the inequality like Jensen can be true even the function is not convex.
For example, the function $f(x)=-cos{x}$ is not convex function on $[0,pi],$
but the following inequality is true:
$$frac{-cos{x}-cos{y}-cos{z}}{3}geq-cosfrac{x+y+z}{3}$$ for all ${x,y,z}subset[0,pi]$ such that $x+y+z=pi.$
answered yesterday
Michael Rozenberg
95.4k1588183
95.4k1588183
add a comment |
add a comment |
A simpler proof.
Assume $x<y$.
Plot $f(x)=e^x$. The arc of curve Jon int $(x,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$. Plot The segment joining these two points.
The segment is above The curve.
The midpoint of The segment is above The midpoint of The curve.
The midpoint of The segment has y coordínate $(e^x+e^y)/2$ and The midpoint of The curve, $e^{(x+y)/2}$.
We are done
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
1
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
add a comment |
A simpler proof.
Assume $x<y$.
Plot $f(x)=e^x$. The arc of curve Jon int $(x,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$. Plot The segment joining these two points.
The segment is above The curve.
The midpoint of The segment is above The midpoint of The curve.
The midpoint of The segment has y coordínate $(e^x+e^y)/2$ and The midpoint of The curve, $e^{(x+y)/2}$.
We are done
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
1
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
add a comment |
A simpler proof.
Assume $x<y$.
Plot $f(x)=e^x$. The arc of curve Jon int $(x,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$. Plot The segment joining these two points.
The segment is above The curve.
The midpoint of The segment is above The midpoint of The curve.
The midpoint of The segment has y coordínate $(e^x+e^y)/2$ and The midpoint of The curve, $e^{(x+y)/2}$.
We are done
A simpler proof.
Assume $x<y$.
Plot $f(x)=e^x$. The arc of curve Jon int $(x,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$. Plot The segment joining these two points.
The segment is above The curve.
The midpoint of The segment is above The midpoint of The curve.
The midpoint of The segment has y coordínate $(e^x+e^y)/2$ and The midpoint of The curve, $e^{(x+y)/2}$.
We are done
answered yesterday
Tito Eliatron
1,530622
1,530622
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
1
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
add a comment |
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
1
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
Plotting is not a proof. It may be suggestive, as in this case, but the suggestion needs to be made rigorous.
– marty cohen
yesterday
1
1
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Because The second dericvative of The exponencial function is always positive, The epigraph is convex.
– Tito Eliatron
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
Now that is a proof.
– marty cohen
yesterday
add a comment |
Suppose $f''>0.$ Let $x<y$ and let $z=(x+y)/2.$
Method 1.There exists $ain (x,z)$ with $$(1).quad f(x)=f(z)+(x-z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2.$$ There exists $bin (z,y)$ with $$(2).quad f(y)=f(z)+(y-z)f'(z)+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2.$$ Adding (1) and (2), since $x+y-2z=0,$ we have $$f(x)+f(y)=2f(z)+(x+y-2z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2=$$ $$=2f(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2>$$ $$>2f(z).$$
Method 2. $f'$ is strictly increasing and continuous so we have $$(1').
quad f(z)=f(x)+int_x^zf'(t)dt<f(x)+(z-x)f'(z)$$ and we have $$(2').quad f(z)=f(y)+int_y^zf'(t)dt<f(y)+(z-y)f'(z).$$ Adding (1') and (2'), since $2z-x-y=0, $ we have $$2f(z)<f(x)+f(y)+(2z-x-y)f'(z)=f(x)+f(y).$$
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Suppose $f''>0.$ Let $x<y$ and let $z=(x+y)/2.$
Method 1.There exists $ain (x,z)$ with $$(1).quad f(x)=f(z)+(x-z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2.$$ There exists $bin (z,y)$ with $$(2).quad f(y)=f(z)+(y-z)f'(z)+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2.$$ Adding (1) and (2), since $x+y-2z=0,$ we have $$f(x)+f(y)=2f(z)+(x+y-2z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2=$$ $$=2f(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2>$$ $$>2f(z).$$
Method 2. $f'$ is strictly increasing and continuous so we have $$(1').
quad f(z)=f(x)+int_x^zf'(t)dt<f(x)+(z-x)f'(z)$$ and we have $$(2').quad f(z)=f(y)+int_y^zf'(t)dt<f(y)+(z-y)f'(z).$$ Adding (1') and (2'), since $2z-x-y=0, $ we have $$2f(z)<f(x)+f(y)+(2z-x-y)f'(z)=f(x)+f(y).$$
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Suppose $f''>0.$ Let $x<y$ and let $z=(x+y)/2.$
Method 1.There exists $ain (x,z)$ with $$(1).quad f(x)=f(z)+(x-z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2.$$ There exists $bin (z,y)$ with $$(2).quad f(y)=f(z)+(y-z)f'(z)+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2.$$ Adding (1) and (2), since $x+y-2z=0,$ we have $$f(x)+f(y)=2f(z)+(x+y-2z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2=$$ $$=2f(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2>$$ $$>2f(z).$$
Method 2. $f'$ is strictly increasing and continuous so we have $$(1').
quad f(z)=f(x)+int_x^zf'(t)dt<f(x)+(z-x)f'(z)$$ and we have $$(2').quad f(z)=f(y)+int_y^zf'(t)dt<f(y)+(z-y)f'(z).$$ Adding (1') and (2'), since $2z-x-y=0, $ we have $$2f(z)<f(x)+f(y)+(2z-x-y)f'(z)=f(x)+f(y).$$
Suppose $f''>0.$ Let $x<y$ and let $z=(x+y)/2.$
Method 1.There exists $ain (x,z)$ with $$(1).quad f(x)=f(z)+(x-z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2.$$ There exists $bin (z,y)$ with $$(2).quad f(y)=f(z)+(y-z)f'(z)+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2.$$ Adding (1) and (2), since $x+y-2z=0,$ we have $$f(x)+f(y)=2f(z)+(x+y-2z)f'(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2=$$ $$=2f(z)+(x-z)^2f''(a)/2+(y-z)^2f''(b)/2>$$ $$>2f(z).$$
Method 2. $f'$ is strictly increasing and continuous so we have $$(1').
quad f(z)=f(x)+int_x^zf'(t)dt<f(x)+(z-x)f'(z)$$ and we have $$(2').quad f(z)=f(y)+int_y^zf'(t)dt<f(y)+(z-y)f'(z).$$ Adding (1') and (2'), since $2z-x-y=0, $ we have $$2f(z)<f(x)+f(y)+(2z-x-y)f'(z)=f(x)+f(y).$$
edited 22 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
DanielWainfleet
34k31647
34k31647
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
add a comment |
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
By the same method, if $rin (0,1)$ then $rf(x)+(1-r)f(y)>f(rx+(1-r)y)$.
– DanielWainfleet
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3051524%2fhow-can-i-prove-that-fracexey2e-fracxy2-where-x-neq-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
What about $(e^{x/2}-e^{y/2})^2$?
– Sorfosh
yesterday
3
You could use the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove your statement directly. It’s usually written as $frac{x+y}{2} geq sqrt{xy}$ with equality if and only if $x = y$.
– user328442
yesterday