A moment inequality











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Let $chi(s)=int_{0}^{1}x(t)^{s}f(t)dt$,
where $x(t)$ and $f(t)$ are real valued continuous functions for
$tin[0,1]$, and $f(t)geq0$.



Is it possible to show that



$left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)-left(chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}right)^{2}geq0$



Note: I believe that



$chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}geq0$



$chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}geq0$



follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
(correct me if I am wrong about this).










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Editing to give a more informative title would be useful.
    – YCor
    Nov 20 at 15:13















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Let $chi(s)=int_{0}^{1}x(t)^{s}f(t)dt$,
where $x(t)$ and $f(t)$ are real valued continuous functions for
$tin[0,1]$, and $f(t)geq0$.



Is it possible to show that



$left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)-left(chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}right)^{2}geq0$



Note: I believe that



$chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}geq0$



$chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}geq0$



follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
(correct me if I am wrong about this).










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Editing to give a more informative title would be useful.
    – YCor
    Nov 20 at 15:13













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1





Let $chi(s)=int_{0}^{1}x(t)^{s}f(t)dt$,
where $x(t)$ and $f(t)$ are real valued continuous functions for
$tin[0,1]$, and $f(t)geq0$.



Is it possible to show that



$left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)-left(chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}right)^{2}geq0$



Note: I believe that



$chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}geq0$



$chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}geq0$



follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
(correct me if I am wrong about this).










share|cite|improve this question















Let $chi(s)=int_{0}^{1}x(t)^{s}f(t)dt$,
where $x(t)$ and $f(t)$ are real valued continuous functions for
$tin[0,1]$, and $f(t)geq0$.



Is it possible to show that



$left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)-left(chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}right)^{2}geq0$



Note: I believe that



$chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}geq0$



$chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}geq0$



follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
(correct me if I am wrong about this).







real-analysis inequalities cauchy-schwarz-inequality






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 20 at 15:14









Iosif Pinelis

17k12157




17k12157










asked Nov 20 at 12:59









hopeless

184




184












  • Editing to give a more informative title would be useful.
    – YCor
    Nov 20 at 15:13


















  • Editing to give a more informative title would be useful.
    – YCor
    Nov 20 at 15:13
















Editing to give a more informative title would be useful.
– YCor
Nov 20 at 15:13




Editing to give a more informative title would be useful.
– YCor
Nov 20 at 15:13










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










This inequality is false in general, by homogeneity considerations. Indeed, it can be rewritten as $L(x)ge R(x)$, where $L(x):=left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)$ and $R(x):=chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}$. Take any non-constant positive $x$, so that, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, $R(x)>0$. Then for small enough $t>0$ we have $L(tx)=t^8L(x)<t^4R(x)=R(tx)$.





Added in response to the OP fixing the typo: The inequality is now true. Indeed, let $m_j:=chi(j)$. Without loss of generality, $m_0 m_2-m_1^2>0$, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality. The matrix $M:=[m_{i+j}]_{i,j=0}^2$ is positive semidefinite. This follows because
begin{equation}
0leint_0^1Big(sum_{i=0}^2 a_i, x(t)^iBig)^2f(t),dt=sum_{i,j=0}^2 m_{i+j}a_i a_j
end{equation}

for all real $a_0,a_1,a_2$.



So, the determinant of $M$ is $ge0$, which is equivalent to
begin{equation}
m_4ge m_4^*:=frac{m_2^3-2 m_1 m_3 m_2+m_0 m_3^2}{m_0 m_2-m_1^2}.
end{equation}

On the other hand, the difference between the left and right sides of your inequality (with $m_j$ in place of $chi(j)$) is increasing in $m_4$, and the value of this difference is $0$ at $m_4=m_4^*$. Thus, your inequality follows.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
    – hopeless
    Nov 20 at 13:28











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: "504"
};
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',
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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315776%2fa-moment-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
6
down vote



accepted










This inequality is false in general, by homogeneity considerations. Indeed, it can be rewritten as $L(x)ge R(x)$, where $L(x):=left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)$ and $R(x):=chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}$. Take any non-constant positive $x$, so that, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, $R(x)>0$. Then for small enough $t>0$ we have $L(tx)=t^8L(x)<t^4R(x)=R(tx)$.





Added in response to the OP fixing the typo: The inequality is now true. Indeed, let $m_j:=chi(j)$. Without loss of generality, $m_0 m_2-m_1^2>0$, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality. The matrix $M:=[m_{i+j}]_{i,j=0}^2$ is positive semidefinite. This follows because
begin{equation}
0leint_0^1Big(sum_{i=0}^2 a_i, x(t)^iBig)^2f(t),dt=sum_{i,j=0}^2 m_{i+j}a_i a_j
end{equation}

for all real $a_0,a_1,a_2$.



So, the determinant of $M$ is $ge0$, which is equivalent to
begin{equation}
m_4ge m_4^*:=frac{m_2^3-2 m_1 m_3 m_2+m_0 m_3^2}{m_0 m_2-m_1^2}.
end{equation}

On the other hand, the difference between the left and right sides of your inequality (with $m_j$ in place of $chi(j)$) is increasing in $m_4$, and the value of this difference is $0$ at $m_4=m_4^*$. Thus, your inequality follows.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
    – hopeless
    Nov 20 at 13:28















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










This inequality is false in general, by homogeneity considerations. Indeed, it can be rewritten as $L(x)ge R(x)$, where $L(x):=left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)$ and $R(x):=chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}$. Take any non-constant positive $x$, so that, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, $R(x)>0$. Then for small enough $t>0$ we have $L(tx)=t^8L(x)<t^4R(x)=R(tx)$.





Added in response to the OP fixing the typo: The inequality is now true. Indeed, let $m_j:=chi(j)$. Without loss of generality, $m_0 m_2-m_1^2>0$, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality. The matrix $M:=[m_{i+j}]_{i,j=0}^2$ is positive semidefinite. This follows because
begin{equation}
0leint_0^1Big(sum_{i=0}^2 a_i, x(t)^iBig)^2f(t),dt=sum_{i,j=0}^2 m_{i+j}a_i a_j
end{equation}

for all real $a_0,a_1,a_2$.



So, the determinant of $M$ is $ge0$, which is equivalent to
begin{equation}
m_4ge m_4^*:=frac{m_2^3-2 m_1 m_3 m_2+m_0 m_3^2}{m_0 m_2-m_1^2}.
end{equation}

On the other hand, the difference between the left and right sides of your inequality (with $m_j$ in place of $chi(j)$) is increasing in $m_4$, and the value of this difference is $0$ at $m_4=m_4^*$. Thus, your inequality follows.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
    – hopeless
    Nov 20 at 13:28













up vote
6
down vote



accepted







up vote
6
down vote



accepted






This inequality is false in general, by homogeneity considerations. Indeed, it can be rewritten as $L(x)ge R(x)$, where $L(x):=left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)$ and $R(x):=chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}$. Take any non-constant positive $x$, so that, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, $R(x)>0$. Then for small enough $t>0$ we have $L(tx)=t^8L(x)<t^4R(x)=R(tx)$.





Added in response to the OP fixing the typo: The inequality is now true. Indeed, let $m_j:=chi(j)$. Without loss of generality, $m_0 m_2-m_1^2>0$, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality. The matrix $M:=[m_{i+j}]_{i,j=0}^2$ is positive semidefinite. This follows because
begin{equation}
0leint_0^1Big(sum_{i=0}^2 a_i, x(t)^iBig)^2f(t),dt=sum_{i,j=0}^2 m_{i+j}a_i a_j
end{equation}

for all real $a_0,a_1,a_2$.



So, the determinant of $M$ is $ge0$, which is equivalent to
begin{equation}
m_4ge m_4^*:=frac{m_2^3-2 m_1 m_3 m_2+m_0 m_3^2}{m_0 m_2-m_1^2}.
end{equation}

On the other hand, the difference between the left and right sides of your inequality (with $m_j$ in place of $chi(j)$) is increasing in $m_4$, and the value of this difference is $0$ at $m_4=m_4^*$. Thus, your inequality follows.






share|cite|improve this answer














This inequality is false in general, by homogeneity considerations. Indeed, it can be rewritten as $L(x)ge R(x)$, where $L(x):=left(chi(0)chi(2)-chi(1)^{2}right)left(chi(4)chi(2)-chi(3)^{2}right)$ and $R(x):=chi(3)chi(1)-chi(2)^{2}$. Take any non-constant positive $x$, so that, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, $R(x)>0$. Then for small enough $t>0$ we have $L(tx)=t^8L(x)<t^4R(x)=R(tx)$.





Added in response to the OP fixing the typo: The inequality is now true. Indeed, let $m_j:=chi(j)$. Without loss of generality, $m_0 m_2-m_1^2>0$, by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality. The matrix $M:=[m_{i+j}]_{i,j=0}^2$ is positive semidefinite. This follows because
begin{equation}
0leint_0^1Big(sum_{i=0}^2 a_i, x(t)^iBig)^2f(t),dt=sum_{i,j=0}^2 m_{i+j}a_i a_j
end{equation}

for all real $a_0,a_1,a_2$.



So, the determinant of $M$ is $ge0$, which is equivalent to
begin{equation}
m_4ge m_4^*:=frac{m_2^3-2 m_1 m_3 m_2+m_0 m_3^2}{m_0 m_2-m_1^2}.
end{equation}

On the other hand, the difference between the left and right sides of your inequality (with $m_j$ in place of $chi(j)$) is increasing in $m_4$, and the value of this difference is $0$ at $m_4=m_4^*$. Thus, your inequality follows.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 20 at 15:12

























answered Nov 20 at 13:18









Iosif Pinelis

17k12157




17k12157












  • Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
    – hopeless
    Nov 20 at 13:28


















  • Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
    – hopeless
    Nov 20 at 13:28
















Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
– hopeless
Nov 20 at 13:28




Yes, sorry! There should have been a square on the second term. Sorry about this, I have edited the question. Thank you
– hopeless
Nov 20 at 13:28


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • 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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315776%2fa-moment-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa