Proving this inequality without calculus
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For all $xin(0,1)$, prove that $ln x<x$.
My attempt:
First step:
Assume a function $f(x)=ln x-x$. Analysing tells me the function is continious and non-differentiable at $x=0$.
Second step:
$F'(x) =frac1x-1$
=$frac1-xx$
This gives me $x=1$ as extremum. From further analysis this appears to be global maximum.
So combining all the info, $x=1$ is the global maxinmum with the function decreasing at points less than it. That would mean $f(x)$ is decreasing from (0, 1] and (0, 1). Hence, this proves the inequality.
However, is there a quick non-calculus way to solve this? I thought of using Taylor series but it's not working.
calculus
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For all $xin(0,1)$, prove that $ln x<x$.
My attempt:
First step:
Assume a function $f(x)=ln x-x$. Analysing tells me the function is continious and non-differentiable at $x=0$.
Second step:
$F'(x) =frac1x-1$
=$frac1-xx$
This gives me $x=1$ as extremum. From further analysis this appears to be global maximum.
So combining all the info, $x=1$ is the global maxinmum with the function decreasing at points less than it. That would mean $f(x)$ is decreasing from (0, 1] and (0, 1). Hence, this proves the inequality.
However, is there a quick non-calculus way to solve this? I thought of using Taylor series but it's not working.
calculus
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For all $xin(0,1)$, prove that $ln x<x$.
My attempt:
First step:
Assume a function $f(x)=ln x-x$. Analysing tells me the function is continious and non-differentiable at $x=0$.
Second step:
$F'(x) =frac1x-1$
=$frac1-xx$
This gives me $x=1$ as extremum. From further analysis this appears to be global maximum.
So combining all the info, $x=1$ is the global maxinmum with the function decreasing at points less than it. That would mean $f(x)$ is decreasing from (0, 1] and (0, 1). Hence, this proves the inequality.
However, is there a quick non-calculus way to solve this? I thought of using Taylor series but it's not working.
calculus
For all $xin(0,1)$, prove that $ln x<x$.
My attempt:
First step:
Assume a function $f(x)=ln x-x$. Analysing tells me the function is continious and non-differentiable at $x=0$.
Second step:
$F'(x) =frac1x-1$
=$frac1-xx$
This gives me $x=1$ as extremum. From further analysis this appears to be global maximum.
So combining all the info, $x=1$ is the global maxinmum with the function decreasing at points less than it. That would mean $f(x)$ is decreasing from (0, 1] and (0, 1). Hence, this proves the inequality.
However, is there a quick non-calculus way to solve this? I thought of using Taylor series but it's not working.
calculus
calculus
edited 12 secs ago
user107224
313112
313112
asked 37 mins ago
GENESECT
466
466
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
For $xin (0,1)$, $log x$ is negative (because $e^tgeq 1$ for $tgeq 0$) and so $log x<0<x$ follows. (log is base $e$, as always).
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
We have
$$ln (1+x)<xiff 1+x<e^x$$
and by $x=frac1y$ with $y>1$
$$1+x<e^xiff 1+frac1y<e^1/yiff left(1+frac1yright)^y<e$$
which is true.
1
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
For $xin (0,1)$, $log x$ is negative (because $e^tgeq 1$ for $tgeq 0$) and so $log x<0<x$ follows. (log is base $e$, as always).
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
For $xin (0,1)$, $log x$ is negative (because $e^tgeq 1$ for $tgeq 0$) and so $log x<0<x$ follows. (log is base $e$, as always).
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
For $xin (0,1)$, $log x$ is negative (because $e^tgeq 1$ for $tgeq 0$) and so $log x<0<x$ follows. (log is base $e$, as always).
For $xin (0,1)$, $log x$ is negative (because $e^tgeq 1$ for $tgeq 0$) and so $log x<0<x$ follows. (log is base $e$, as always).
answered 8 mins ago
user10354138
1,8755
1,8755
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
We have
$$ln (1+x)<xiff 1+x<e^x$$
and by $x=frac1y$ with $y>1$
$$1+x<e^xiff 1+frac1y<e^1/yiff left(1+frac1yright)^y<e$$
which is true.
1
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
We have
$$ln (1+x)<xiff 1+x<e^x$$
and by $x=frac1y$ with $y>1$
$$1+x<e^xiff 1+frac1y<e^1/yiff left(1+frac1yright)^y<e$$
which is true.
1
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
We have
$$ln (1+x)<xiff 1+x<e^x$$
and by $x=frac1y$ with $y>1$
$$1+x<e^xiff 1+frac1y<e^1/yiff left(1+frac1yright)^y<e$$
which is true.
We have
$$ln (1+x)<xiff 1+x<e^x$$
and by $x=frac1y$ with $y>1$
$$1+x<e^xiff 1+frac1y<e^1/yiff left(1+frac1yright)^y<e$$
which is true.
edited 7 mins ago
answered 28 mins ago
gimusi
74.5k73889
74.5k73889
1
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
1
1
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
Why does the last inquality hold? It fails for $x=frac12$, for example.
â user10354138
15 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
@user10354138 Yes you are right, Bernoulli indeed does not suffice! IâÂÂve fixed that. Thanks to have pointed that out.
â gimusi
2 mins ago
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%2f2927886%2fproving-this-inequality-without-calculus%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