Will this inequality stay preserved if I take $log$ on both sides? EDIT: Also, can someone please try and...
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am trying to solved this inequality for $k$.
$x^{2k}<varepsiloncdot k^k$
Here $kinmathbb{N}$ and $x,varepsilon$ are fixed such that $x,varepsiloninmathbb{R}$ and $varepsilon>0$. I was thinking about taking $log_varepsilon$ on both sides but I am not sure about whether this will preserve the inequality or not? Moreover, I cannot really think of any other way to isolate $k$ other than to consider logarithms.
EDIT: Can someone suggest a solution?
Also if possible, could someone tell me what are the conditions for when the inequalities are preserved under logarithms and what are the properties that need to be satisfied by the base? EDIT: Got the answer for this! Thank you!
algebra-precalculus functions
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am trying to solved this inequality for $k$.
$x^{2k}<varepsiloncdot k^k$
Here $kinmathbb{N}$ and $x,varepsilon$ are fixed such that $x,varepsiloninmathbb{R}$ and $varepsilon>0$. I was thinking about taking $log_varepsilon$ on both sides but I am not sure about whether this will preserve the inequality or not? Moreover, I cannot really think of any other way to isolate $k$ other than to consider logarithms.
EDIT: Can someone suggest a solution?
Also if possible, could someone tell me what are the conditions for when the inequalities are preserved under logarithms and what are the properties that need to be satisfied by the base? EDIT: Got the answer for this! Thank you!
algebra-precalculus functions
4
It's possible to show that if the function you're using is strictly monotonically increasing (which the logarithm is), it will preserve inequalities. If it's strictly monotonically decreasing, it will reverse the inequality. If it's neither, you will destroy the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 19:41
If $varepsilon>1$, the inequality will be preserved— but if $0<varepsilon<1$, the inequality will be reversed.
– Mercy King
Nov 14 at 19:47
@AdrianKeister and Mercy King : Thank you for your comments. So does that mean the value of $x$ makes no difference and does not have an impact on how the inequality will be upon taking the logarithm? EDIT : Also, what about $varepsilon=1$? Do you just deal with that as a special case?
– Bhavesh Singhal
Nov 14 at 19:59
Rather than take $log_{varepsilon},$ I would just do $ln$ of both sides.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:12
@MercyKing: I think the conditions on the variables present would make that an impossibility, right? The LHS is non-negative, and $k^k>0$ for all $kinmathbb{N}$, so $varepsilon<0$ would make the inequality a contradiction.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:14
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am trying to solved this inequality for $k$.
$x^{2k}<varepsiloncdot k^k$
Here $kinmathbb{N}$ and $x,varepsilon$ are fixed such that $x,varepsiloninmathbb{R}$ and $varepsilon>0$. I was thinking about taking $log_varepsilon$ on both sides but I am not sure about whether this will preserve the inequality or not? Moreover, I cannot really think of any other way to isolate $k$ other than to consider logarithms.
EDIT: Can someone suggest a solution?
Also if possible, could someone tell me what are the conditions for when the inequalities are preserved under logarithms and what are the properties that need to be satisfied by the base? EDIT: Got the answer for this! Thank you!
algebra-precalculus functions
I am trying to solved this inequality for $k$.
$x^{2k}<varepsiloncdot k^k$
Here $kinmathbb{N}$ and $x,varepsilon$ are fixed such that $x,varepsiloninmathbb{R}$ and $varepsilon>0$. I was thinking about taking $log_varepsilon$ on both sides but I am not sure about whether this will preserve the inequality or not? Moreover, I cannot really think of any other way to isolate $k$ other than to consider logarithms.
EDIT: Can someone suggest a solution?
Also if possible, could someone tell me what are the conditions for when the inequalities are preserved under logarithms and what are the properties that need to be satisfied by the base? EDIT: Got the answer for this! Thank you!
algebra-precalculus functions
algebra-precalculus functions
edited Nov 14 at 20:47
asked Nov 14 at 19:39
Bhavesh Singhal
184
184
4
It's possible to show that if the function you're using is strictly monotonically increasing (which the logarithm is), it will preserve inequalities. If it's strictly monotonically decreasing, it will reverse the inequality. If it's neither, you will destroy the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 19:41
If $varepsilon>1$, the inequality will be preserved— but if $0<varepsilon<1$, the inequality will be reversed.
– Mercy King
Nov 14 at 19:47
@AdrianKeister and Mercy King : Thank you for your comments. So does that mean the value of $x$ makes no difference and does not have an impact on how the inequality will be upon taking the logarithm? EDIT : Also, what about $varepsilon=1$? Do you just deal with that as a special case?
– Bhavesh Singhal
Nov 14 at 19:59
Rather than take $log_{varepsilon},$ I would just do $ln$ of both sides.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:12
@MercyKing: I think the conditions on the variables present would make that an impossibility, right? The LHS is non-negative, and $k^k>0$ for all $kinmathbb{N}$, so $varepsilon<0$ would make the inequality a contradiction.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:14
|
show 1 more comment
4
It's possible to show that if the function you're using is strictly monotonically increasing (which the logarithm is), it will preserve inequalities. If it's strictly monotonically decreasing, it will reverse the inequality. If it's neither, you will destroy the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 19:41
If $varepsilon>1$, the inequality will be preserved— but if $0<varepsilon<1$, the inequality will be reversed.
– Mercy King
Nov 14 at 19:47
@AdrianKeister and Mercy King : Thank you for your comments. So does that mean the value of $x$ makes no difference and does not have an impact on how the inequality will be upon taking the logarithm? EDIT : Also, what about $varepsilon=1$? Do you just deal with that as a special case?
– Bhavesh Singhal
Nov 14 at 19:59
Rather than take $log_{varepsilon},$ I would just do $ln$ of both sides.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:12
@MercyKing: I think the conditions on the variables present would make that an impossibility, right? The LHS is non-negative, and $k^k>0$ for all $kinmathbb{N}$, so $varepsilon<0$ would make the inequality a contradiction.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:14
4
4
It's possible to show that if the function you're using is strictly monotonically increasing (which the logarithm is), it will preserve inequalities. If it's strictly monotonically decreasing, it will reverse the inequality. If it's neither, you will destroy the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 19:41
It's possible to show that if the function you're using is strictly monotonically increasing (which the logarithm is), it will preserve inequalities. If it's strictly monotonically decreasing, it will reverse the inequality. If it's neither, you will destroy the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 19:41
If $varepsilon>1$, the inequality will be preserved— but if $0<varepsilon<1$, the inequality will be reversed.
– Mercy King
Nov 14 at 19:47
If $varepsilon>1$, the inequality will be preserved— but if $0<varepsilon<1$, the inequality will be reversed.
– Mercy King
Nov 14 at 19:47
@AdrianKeister and Mercy King : Thank you for your comments. So does that mean the value of $x$ makes no difference and does not have an impact on how the inequality will be upon taking the logarithm? EDIT : Also, what about $varepsilon=1$? Do you just deal with that as a special case?
– Bhavesh Singhal
Nov 14 at 19:59
@AdrianKeister and Mercy King : Thank you for your comments. So does that mean the value of $x$ makes no difference and does not have an impact on how the inequality will be upon taking the logarithm? EDIT : Also, what about $varepsilon=1$? Do you just deal with that as a special case?
– Bhavesh Singhal
Nov 14 at 19:59
Rather than take $log_{varepsilon},$ I would just do $ln$ of both sides.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:12
Rather than take $log_{varepsilon},$ I would just do $ln$ of both sides.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:12
@MercyKing: I think the conditions on the variables present would make that an impossibility, right? The LHS is non-negative, and $k^k>0$ for all $kinmathbb{N}$, so $varepsilon<0$ would make the inequality a contradiction.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:14
@MercyKing: I think the conditions on the variables present would make that an impossibility, right? The LHS is non-negative, and $k^k>0$ for all $kinmathbb{N}$, so $varepsilon<0$ would make the inequality a contradiction.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:14
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose $0 < a < c$ and $b = 1$. The $b^k = 1$ for all $k$ and defining $log_1$ makes no sense. So you can't use logarithms base $1$. (Duh....)
If $b > 1$ then for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
Notice that if $0 < x < 1$ then $k =log_b x < 0$. If $x = 1$ then $k = log_b x = 0$. And if $x > 1$ then $k=log_b x > 0$.
Now if we are given that $a,c$ are positive then notice:
$a < c iff 1 < frac ca iff log_b frac ca > 0 iff log_b c - log_b a > 0 iff log_b a < log_b c$.
So if $b > 1$ then you can "take the logs of both sides" to perserve inequality.
If $0 < b < 1$ then we still have for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
If this is not as intuitively obvious note if $0 < b < 1$ then $M = frac 1b > 0$ and there is $j = log_M x$ so that $M^j = x$. So $(frac 1b)^{j} = b^{-j} = x$ so $k = log_b x = -j = -log_M x$. So it is true.
We get "double negatives" but...
If $x > 1$ then $b^k = x> 1implies k =log_b x < 0$. Of $x = 1$ then $b^k = x=1implies k = log_b x = 0$ and if $0 < x < 1$ then $0<b^k = x< 1implies k = log_b x > 0$.
And again if $a,c$ are positive and $a < ciff 1 < frac caiff log_b frac ca <0 iff log_b c - log_b a <0 iff log_b a > log_b c$.
So....
Upshot. You can take logs of both sides to preserve inequality if the base is more than $1$. You can take logs of both sides to reverse inequality if the base is less that $1$. And if the base is $1$ you can't do anything.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Because the log function (to a base greater than $1$) is monotonically increasing, you can take the log of both sides. You still won't get a clean answer for $k$ given $x,varepsilon$ If we make it an equality to find the minimum $k$ we can look at it as $$left(frac {x^2}kright)^k=varepsilon$$
If $varepsilon$ is a small positive number as it usually is, we can see that $k$ must be greater than $x^2$. If $x^2$ is reasonably large, $k$ will not be much larger because the power will be so high. If $x=10, varepsilon=10^{-6}$ we have $k approx 113$
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Choosing $k=max left( lceil x^2rceil+1, lceilfrac{x^2}{varepsilon}rceil right)$ works. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Since $ln$ is increasing, we have
$$
2kln(|x|)<kvarepsilonln(k)
$$
i.e
$$
frac{2kln(|x|)}{kvarepsilon}=2varepsilon^{-1}ln(|x|)<ln(k)
$$
Hence
$$
k>|x|^{2/varepsilon}
$$
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose $0 < a < c$ and $b = 1$. The $b^k = 1$ for all $k$ and defining $log_1$ makes no sense. So you can't use logarithms base $1$. (Duh....)
If $b > 1$ then for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
Notice that if $0 < x < 1$ then $k =log_b x < 0$. If $x = 1$ then $k = log_b x = 0$. And if $x > 1$ then $k=log_b x > 0$.
Now if we are given that $a,c$ are positive then notice:
$a < c iff 1 < frac ca iff log_b frac ca > 0 iff log_b c - log_b a > 0 iff log_b a < log_b c$.
So if $b > 1$ then you can "take the logs of both sides" to perserve inequality.
If $0 < b < 1$ then we still have for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
If this is not as intuitively obvious note if $0 < b < 1$ then $M = frac 1b > 0$ and there is $j = log_M x$ so that $M^j = x$. So $(frac 1b)^{j} = b^{-j} = x$ so $k = log_b x = -j = -log_M x$. So it is true.
We get "double negatives" but...
If $x > 1$ then $b^k = x> 1implies k =log_b x < 0$. Of $x = 1$ then $b^k = x=1implies k = log_b x = 0$ and if $0 < x < 1$ then $0<b^k = x< 1implies k = log_b x > 0$.
And again if $a,c$ are positive and $a < ciff 1 < frac caiff log_b frac ca <0 iff log_b c - log_b a <0 iff log_b a > log_b c$.
So....
Upshot. You can take logs of both sides to preserve inequality if the base is more than $1$. You can take logs of both sides to reverse inequality if the base is less that $1$. And if the base is $1$ you can't do anything.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose $0 < a < c$ and $b = 1$. The $b^k = 1$ for all $k$ and defining $log_1$ makes no sense. So you can't use logarithms base $1$. (Duh....)
If $b > 1$ then for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
Notice that if $0 < x < 1$ then $k =log_b x < 0$. If $x = 1$ then $k = log_b x = 0$. And if $x > 1$ then $k=log_b x > 0$.
Now if we are given that $a,c$ are positive then notice:
$a < c iff 1 < frac ca iff log_b frac ca > 0 iff log_b c - log_b a > 0 iff log_b a < log_b c$.
So if $b > 1$ then you can "take the logs of both sides" to perserve inequality.
If $0 < b < 1$ then we still have for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
If this is not as intuitively obvious note if $0 < b < 1$ then $M = frac 1b > 0$ and there is $j = log_M x$ so that $M^j = x$. So $(frac 1b)^{j} = b^{-j} = x$ so $k = log_b x = -j = -log_M x$. So it is true.
We get "double negatives" but...
If $x > 1$ then $b^k = x> 1implies k =log_b x < 0$. Of $x = 1$ then $b^k = x=1implies k = log_b x = 0$ and if $0 < x < 1$ then $0<b^k = x< 1implies k = log_b x > 0$.
And again if $a,c$ are positive and $a < ciff 1 < frac caiff log_b frac ca <0 iff log_b c - log_b a <0 iff log_b a > log_b c$.
So....
Upshot. You can take logs of both sides to preserve inequality if the base is more than $1$. You can take logs of both sides to reverse inequality if the base is less that $1$. And if the base is $1$ you can't do anything.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose $0 < a < c$ and $b = 1$. The $b^k = 1$ for all $k$ and defining $log_1$ makes no sense. So you can't use logarithms base $1$. (Duh....)
If $b > 1$ then for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
Notice that if $0 < x < 1$ then $k =log_b x < 0$. If $x = 1$ then $k = log_b x = 0$. And if $x > 1$ then $k=log_b x > 0$.
Now if we are given that $a,c$ are positive then notice:
$a < c iff 1 < frac ca iff log_b frac ca > 0 iff log_b c - log_b a > 0 iff log_b a < log_b c$.
So if $b > 1$ then you can "take the logs of both sides" to perserve inequality.
If $0 < b < 1$ then we still have for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
If this is not as intuitively obvious note if $0 < b < 1$ then $M = frac 1b > 0$ and there is $j = log_M x$ so that $M^j = x$. So $(frac 1b)^{j} = b^{-j} = x$ so $k = log_b x = -j = -log_M x$. So it is true.
We get "double negatives" but...
If $x > 1$ then $b^k = x> 1implies k =log_b x < 0$. Of $x = 1$ then $b^k = x=1implies k = log_b x = 0$ and if $0 < x < 1$ then $0<b^k = x< 1implies k = log_b x > 0$.
And again if $a,c$ are positive and $a < ciff 1 < frac caiff log_b frac ca <0 iff log_b c - log_b a <0 iff log_b a > log_b c$.
So....
Upshot. You can take logs of both sides to preserve inequality if the base is more than $1$. You can take logs of both sides to reverse inequality if the base is less that $1$. And if the base is $1$ you can't do anything.
Suppose $0 < a < c$ and $b = 1$. The $b^k = 1$ for all $k$ and defining $log_1$ makes no sense. So you can't use logarithms base $1$. (Duh....)
If $b > 1$ then for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
Notice that if $0 < x < 1$ then $k =log_b x < 0$. If $x = 1$ then $k = log_b x = 0$. And if $x > 1$ then $k=log_b x > 0$.
Now if we are given that $a,c$ are positive then notice:
$a < c iff 1 < frac ca iff log_b frac ca > 0 iff log_b c - log_b a > 0 iff log_b a < log_b c$.
So if $b > 1$ then you can "take the logs of both sides" to perserve inequality.
If $0 < b < 1$ then we still have for every $x > 0$ there is some $k = log_b x$ so that $b^k = x$.
If this is not as intuitively obvious note if $0 < b < 1$ then $M = frac 1b > 0$ and there is $j = log_M x$ so that $M^j = x$. So $(frac 1b)^{j} = b^{-j} = x$ so $k = log_b x = -j = -log_M x$. So it is true.
We get "double negatives" but...
If $x > 1$ then $b^k = x> 1implies k =log_b x < 0$. Of $x = 1$ then $b^k = x=1implies k = log_b x = 0$ and if $0 < x < 1$ then $0<b^k = x< 1implies k = log_b x > 0$.
And again if $a,c$ are positive and $a < ciff 1 < frac caiff log_b frac ca <0 iff log_b c - log_b a <0 iff log_b a > log_b c$.
So....
Upshot. You can take logs of both sides to preserve inequality if the base is more than $1$. You can take logs of both sides to reverse inequality if the base is less that $1$. And if the base is $1$ you can't do anything.
answered Nov 15 at 19:38
fleablood
65.7k22682
65.7k22682
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Because the log function (to a base greater than $1$) is monotonically increasing, you can take the log of both sides. You still won't get a clean answer for $k$ given $x,varepsilon$ If we make it an equality to find the minimum $k$ we can look at it as $$left(frac {x^2}kright)^k=varepsilon$$
If $varepsilon$ is a small positive number as it usually is, we can see that $k$ must be greater than $x^2$. If $x^2$ is reasonably large, $k$ will not be much larger because the power will be so high. If $x=10, varepsilon=10^{-6}$ we have $k approx 113$
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Because the log function (to a base greater than $1$) is monotonically increasing, you can take the log of both sides. You still won't get a clean answer for $k$ given $x,varepsilon$ If we make it an equality to find the minimum $k$ we can look at it as $$left(frac {x^2}kright)^k=varepsilon$$
If $varepsilon$ is a small positive number as it usually is, we can see that $k$ must be greater than $x^2$. If $x^2$ is reasonably large, $k$ will not be much larger because the power will be so high. If $x=10, varepsilon=10^{-6}$ we have $k approx 113$
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Because the log function (to a base greater than $1$) is monotonically increasing, you can take the log of both sides. You still won't get a clean answer for $k$ given $x,varepsilon$ If we make it an equality to find the minimum $k$ we can look at it as $$left(frac {x^2}kright)^k=varepsilon$$
If $varepsilon$ is a small positive number as it usually is, we can see that $k$ must be greater than $x^2$. If $x^2$ is reasonably large, $k$ will not be much larger because the power will be so high. If $x=10, varepsilon=10^{-6}$ we have $k approx 113$
Because the log function (to a base greater than $1$) is monotonically increasing, you can take the log of both sides. You still won't get a clean answer for $k$ given $x,varepsilon$ If we make it an equality to find the minimum $k$ we can look at it as $$left(frac {x^2}kright)^k=varepsilon$$
If $varepsilon$ is a small positive number as it usually is, we can see that $k$ must be greater than $x^2$. If $x^2$ is reasonably large, $k$ will not be much larger because the power will be so high. If $x=10, varepsilon=10^{-6}$ we have $k approx 113$
answered Nov 14 at 21:29
Ross Millikan
287k23195364
287k23195364
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
add a comment |
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
Could you use the Lambert $W$ function here? Looks like you might, but I'm not sure $W$ is monotonic; you might lose the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:29
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
From your equation, Mathematica yields $k=-ln(varepsilon)/W(-ln(varepsilon)/x^2).$
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 22:32
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
@AdrianKeister: Mathematica says so, but I haven't understood the W function to say one way or the other.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 14 at 22:47
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Choosing $k=max left( lceil x^2rceil+1, lceilfrac{x^2}{varepsilon}rceil right)$ works. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Choosing $k=max left( lceil x^2rceil+1, lceilfrac{x^2}{varepsilon}rceil right)$ works. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Choosing $k=max left( lceil x^2rceil+1, lceilfrac{x^2}{varepsilon}rceil right)$ works. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.
Choosing $k=max left( lceil x^2rceil+1, lceilfrac{x^2}{varepsilon}rceil right)$ works. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.
answered Nov 15 at 18:32
Bhavesh Singhal
184
184
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Since $ln$ is increasing, we have
$$
2kln(|x|)<kvarepsilonln(k)
$$
i.e
$$
frac{2kln(|x|)}{kvarepsilon}=2varepsilon^{-1}ln(|x|)<ln(k)
$$
Hence
$$
k>|x|^{2/varepsilon}
$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Since $ln$ is increasing, we have
$$
2kln(|x|)<kvarepsilonln(k)
$$
i.e
$$
frac{2kln(|x|)}{kvarepsilon}=2varepsilon^{-1}ln(|x|)<ln(k)
$$
Hence
$$
k>|x|^{2/varepsilon}
$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Since $ln$ is increasing, we have
$$
2kln(|x|)<kvarepsilonln(k)
$$
i.e
$$
frac{2kln(|x|)}{kvarepsilon}=2varepsilon^{-1}ln(|x|)<ln(k)
$$
Hence
$$
k>|x|^{2/varepsilon}
$$
Since $ln$ is increasing, we have
$$
2kln(|x|)<kvarepsilonln(k)
$$
i.e
$$
frac{2kln(|x|)}{kvarepsilon}=2varepsilon^{-1}ln(|x|)<ln(k)
$$
Hence
$$
k>|x|^{2/varepsilon}
$$
answered Nov 16 at 0:23
Mercy King
13.9k11327
13.9k11327
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%2f2998735%2fwill-this-inequality-stay-preserved-if-i-take-log-on-both-sides-edit-also%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
4
It's possible to show that if the function you're using is strictly monotonically increasing (which the logarithm is), it will preserve inequalities. If it's strictly monotonically decreasing, it will reverse the inequality. If it's neither, you will destroy the inequality.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 19:41
If $varepsilon>1$, the inequality will be preserved— but if $0<varepsilon<1$, the inequality will be reversed.
– Mercy King
Nov 14 at 19:47
@AdrianKeister and Mercy King : Thank you for your comments. So does that mean the value of $x$ makes no difference and does not have an impact on how the inequality will be upon taking the logarithm? EDIT : Also, what about $varepsilon=1$? Do you just deal with that as a special case?
– Bhavesh Singhal
Nov 14 at 19:59
Rather than take $log_{varepsilon},$ I would just do $ln$ of both sides.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:12
@MercyKing: I think the conditions on the variables present would make that an impossibility, right? The LHS is non-negative, and $k^k>0$ for all $kinmathbb{N}$, so $varepsilon<0$ would make the inequality a contradiction.
– Adrian Keister
Nov 14 at 20:14