Difference between revisions of "Hölder's Inequality"
Etmetalakret (talk | contribs) m |
(→Elementary Form) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Elementary Form == | == Elementary Form == | ||
If <math>a_1, a_2, \dotsc, a_n, b_1, b_2, \dotsc, b_n, \dotsc, z_1, z_2, \dotsc, z_n</math> are [[nonnegative]] [[real number]]s and <math>\lambda_a, \lambda_b, \dotsc, \lambda_z</math> are nonnegative reals with sum of 1, then | If <math>a_1, a_2, \dotsc, a_n, b_1, b_2, \dotsc, b_n, \dotsc, z_1, z_2, \dotsc, z_n</math> are [[nonnegative]] [[real number]]s and <math>\lambda_a, \lambda_b, \dotsc, \lambda_z</math> are nonnegative reals with sum of 1, then | ||
− | <cmath> | + | <cmath>a_1^{\lambda_a}b_1^{\lambda_b} \dotsm z_1^{\lambda_z} + \dotsb + a_n^{\lambda_a}b_n^{\lambda_b} \dotsm z_n^{\lambda_z} |
− | a_1^{\lambda_a}b_1^{\lambda_b} \dotsm z_1^{\lambda_z} + \dotsb | + | \le{}(a_1 + \dotsb + a_n)^{\lambda_a} (b_1 + \dotsb + b_n)^{\lambda_b} \dotsm (z_1 + \dotsb + z_n)^{\lambda_z} .</cmath> |
− | \le{} | + | |
− | |||
Note that with two sequences <math>\mathbf{a}</math> and <math>\mathbf{b}</math>, and <math>\lambda_a = \lambda_b = 1/2</math>, this is the elementary form of the [[Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality]]. | Note that with two sequences <math>\mathbf{a}</math> and <math>\mathbf{b}</math>, and <math>\lambda_a = \lambda_b = 1/2</math>, this is the elementary form of the [[Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality]]. | ||
Revision as of 10:13, 18 August 2022
Elementary Form
If are nonnegative real numbers and are nonnegative reals with sum of 1, then
Note that with two sequences and , and , this is the elementary form of the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality.
We can state the inequality more concisely thus: Let be several sequences of nonnegative reals, and let be a sequence of nonnegative reals such that . Then
Proof of Elementary Form
We will use weighted AM-GM. We will disregard sequences for which one of the terms is zero, as the terms of these sequences do not contribute to the left-hand side of the desired inequality but may contribute to the right-hand side.
For integers , let us define Evidently, . Then for all integers , by weighted AM-GM, Hence But from our choice of , for all integers , Therefore since the sum of the is one. Hence in summary, as desired. Equality holds when for all integers , i.e., when all the sequences are proportional.
Statement
If , , then and .
Proof
If then a.e. and there is nothing to prove. Case is similar. On the other hand, we may assume that for all . Let . Young's Inequality gives us These functions are measurable, so by integrating we get
Examples
- Prove that, for positive reals , the following inequality holds: