One lower bound for $(1+x)log(1+x)-x$











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Problem



When studying Chernoff bound, one result is used without proof and reference, which is
$$
(1+x)log(1+x)-xgeq frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}
$$

I am wondering how this is proved.



What I Have Done



I checked the minimum of LHS and maximum of RHS, this indeed holds. But when it comes to prove this, this sort of check is far from enough.



Something I think relatable is doing some Taylor expansion of LHS, but I did not get the result.



Could someone help me, thank you in advance.



Edit



Take the second-order derivative of $f(x)=(1+x)log(1+x)-x-frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}$ gives us $f''(x)=frac{x^2, left(x + 9right)}{left(x + 1right), {left(x + 3right)}^3}$, which shows the correctness of the answer below.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • For which $x$ is the inequality to hold? For all $x>-1$? [need at least that restriction because of $log(1+x)$]
    – coffeemath
    Nov 18 at 3:20










  • Yeah, if you solve the inequality for the log, you get that it's $ge dfrac{5x^2+6x}{2x^2+8x+6}$ whose limit as $x to infty$ is $dfrac 52$, and since $log$ is unbounded its easy to see that after some point the inequality must be true.
    – Ovi
    Nov 18 at 3:25












  • I don't think it is always true. Take x=9 for example. You get 1 on the left and 10.125 on the right. It is only true in (-1,0].
    – NoChance
    Nov 18 at 4:45












  • @NoChance. For $x=9$, $lhs=10log(10)-9=14.0259$
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:49






  • 1




    The rhs is the $[2,1]$ Padé approximant (built at $x=0$) of the lhs.
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:54

















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Problem



When studying Chernoff bound, one result is used without proof and reference, which is
$$
(1+x)log(1+x)-xgeq frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}
$$

I am wondering how this is proved.



What I Have Done



I checked the minimum of LHS and maximum of RHS, this indeed holds. But when it comes to prove this, this sort of check is far from enough.



Something I think relatable is doing some Taylor expansion of LHS, but I did not get the result.



Could someone help me, thank you in advance.



Edit



Take the second-order derivative of $f(x)=(1+x)log(1+x)-x-frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}$ gives us $f''(x)=frac{x^2, left(x + 9right)}{left(x + 1right), {left(x + 3right)}^3}$, which shows the correctness of the answer below.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • For which $x$ is the inequality to hold? For all $x>-1$? [need at least that restriction because of $log(1+x)$]
    – coffeemath
    Nov 18 at 3:20










  • Yeah, if you solve the inequality for the log, you get that it's $ge dfrac{5x^2+6x}{2x^2+8x+6}$ whose limit as $x to infty$ is $dfrac 52$, and since $log$ is unbounded its easy to see that after some point the inequality must be true.
    – Ovi
    Nov 18 at 3:25












  • I don't think it is always true. Take x=9 for example. You get 1 on the left and 10.125 on the right. It is only true in (-1,0].
    – NoChance
    Nov 18 at 4:45












  • @NoChance. For $x=9$, $lhs=10log(10)-9=14.0259$
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:49






  • 1




    The rhs is the $[2,1]$ Padé approximant (built at $x=0$) of the lhs.
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:54















up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Problem



When studying Chernoff bound, one result is used without proof and reference, which is
$$
(1+x)log(1+x)-xgeq frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}
$$

I am wondering how this is proved.



What I Have Done



I checked the minimum of LHS and maximum of RHS, this indeed holds. But when it comes to prove this, this sort of check is far from enough.



Something I think relatable is doing some Taylor expansion of LHS, but I did not get the result.



Could someone help me, thank you in advance.



Edit



Take the second-order derivative of $f(x)=(1+x)log(1+x)-x-frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}$ gives us $f''(x)=frac{x^2, left(x + 9right)}{left(x + 1right), {left(x + 3right)}^3}$, which shows the correctness of the answer below.










share|cite|improve this question















Problem



When studying Chernoff bound, one result is used without proof and reference, which is
$$
(1+x)log(1+x)-xgeq frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}
$$

I am wondering how this is proved.



What I Have Done



I checked the minimum of LHS and maximum of RHS, this indeed holds. But when it comes to prove this, this sort of check is far from enough.



Something I think relatable is doing some Taylor expansion of LHS, but I did not get the result.



Could someone help me, thank you in advance.



Edit



Take the second-order derivative of $f(x)=(1+x)log(1+x)-x-frac{x^2}{frac{2}{3}x+2}$ gives us $f''(x)=frac{x^2, left(x + 9right)}{left(x + 1right), {left(x + 3right)}^3}$, which shows the correctness of the answer below.







calculus inequality logarithms upper-lower-bounds






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 18 at 6:33









Martin Sleziak

44.5k7115268




44.5k7115268










asked Nov 18 at 3:07









Mr.Robot

1789




1789












  • For which $x$ is the inequality to hold? For all $x>-1$? [need at least that restriction because of $log(1+x)$]
    – coffeemath
    Nov 18 at 3:20










  • Yeah, if you solve the inequality for the log, you get that it's $ge dfrac{5x^2+6x}{2x^2+8x+6}$ whose limit as $x to infty$ is $dfrac 52$, and since $log$ is unbounded its easy to see that after some point the inequality must be true.
    – Ovi
    Nov 18 at 3:25












  • I don't think it is always true. Take x=9 for example. You get 1 on the left and 10.125 on the right. It is only true in (-1,0].
    – NoChance
    Nov 18 at 4:45












  • @NoChance. For $x=9$, $lhs=10log(10)-9=14.0259$
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:49






  • 1




    The rhs is the $[2,1]$ Padé approximant (built at $x=0$) of the lhs.
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:54




















  • For which $x$ is the inequality to hold? For all $x>-1$? [need at least that restriction because of $log(1+x)$]
    – coffeemath
    Nov 18 at 3:20










  • Yeah, if you solve the inequality for the log, you get that it's $ge dfrac{5x^2+6x}{2x^2+8x+6}$ whose limit as $x to infty$ is $dfrac 52$, and since $log$ is unbounded its easy to see that after some point the inequality must be true.
    – Ovi
    Nov 18 at 3:25












  • I don't think it is always true. Take x=9 for example. You get 1 on the left and 10.125 on the right. It is only true in (-1,0].
    – NoChance
    Nov 18 at 4:45












  • @NoChance. For $x=9$, $lhs=10log(10)-9=14.0259$
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:49






  • 1




    The rhs is the $[2,1]$ Padé approximant (built at $x=0$) of the lhs.
    – Claude Leibovici
    Nov 18 at 4:54


















For which $x$ is the inequality to hold? For all $x>-1$? [need at least that restriction because of $log(1+x)$]
– coffeemath
Nov 18 at 3:20




For which $x$ is the inequality to hold? For all $x>-1$? [need at least that restriction because of $log(1+x)$]
– coffeemath
Nov 18 at 3:20












Yeah, if you solve the inequality for the log, you get that it's $ge dfrac{5x^2+6x}{2x^2+8x+6}$ whose limit as $x to infty$ is $dfrac 52$, and since $log$ is unbounded its easy to see that after some point the inequality must be true.
– Ovi
Nov 18 at 3:25






Yeah, if you solve the inequality for the log, you get that it's $ge dfrac{5x^2+6x}{2x^2+8x+6}$ whose limit as $x to infty$ is $dfrac 52$, and since $log$ is unbounded its easy to see that after some point the inequality must be true.
– Ovi
Nov 18 at 3:25














I don't think it is always true. Take x=9 for example. You get 1 on the left and 10.125 on the right. It is only true in (-1,0].
– NoChance
Nov 18 at 4:45






I don't think it is always true. Take x=9 for example. You get 1 on the left and 10.125 on the right. It is only true in (-1,0].
– NoChance
Nov 18 at 4:45














@NoChance. For $x=9$, $lhs=10log(10)-9=14.0259$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 18 at 4:49




@NoChance. For $x=9$, $lhs=10log(10)-9=14.0259$
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 18 at 4:49




1




1




The rhs is the $[2,1]$ Padé approximant (built at $x=0$) of the lhs.
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 18 at 4:54






The rhs is the $[2,1]$ Padé approximant (built at $x=0$) of the lhs.
– Claude Leibovici
Nov 18 at 4:54












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Hint: Study the function $f(x) = LHS-RHS$ and show it is non-negative



Detailed hint: $f$ is infinitely differentiable on $(-1,infty)$. Derive $f$ (twice): $f''$ is easy to handle, as it is a rational function (no more logarithms); it has a single root at $0$ and is always non-negative. This means $f'$ is non-decreasing; since $f'(0)=0$, we have $f$ decreasing on $(-1,0)$ and increasing on $(0,infty)$. But $f(0)=0$, and thus $f(x)geq f(0)=0$ for all $x$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
    – Mr.Robot
    Nov 18 at 5:04






  • 1




    Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
    – Clement C.
    Nov 18 at 6:04




















up vote
0
down vote













Also, we can make the following.



We need to prove that $f(x)geq0,$ where
$$f(x)=ln(1+x)-frac{5x^2+6x}{2(x^2+4x+3)}.$$
We see that
$$f'(x)=frac{x^3}{(x^2+4x+3)^2},$$ which says that $$f(x)geq f(0)=0$$ and we are done!






share|cite|improve this answer





















    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',
    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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003093%2fone-lower-bound-for-1x-log1x-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    Hint: Study the function $f(x) = LHS-RHS$ and show it is non-negative



    Detailed hint: $f$ is infinitely differentiable on $(-1,infty)$. Derive $f$ (twice): $f''$ is easy to handle, as it is a rational function (no more logarithms); it has a single root at $0$ and is always non-negative. This means $f'$ is non-decreasing; since $f'(0)=0$, we have $f$ decreasing on $(-1,0)$ and increasing on $(0,infty)$. But $f(0)=0$, and thus $f(x)geq f(0)=0$ for all $x$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
      – Mr.Robot
      Nov 18 at 5:04






    • 1




      Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
      – Clement C.
      Nov 18 at 6:04

















    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    Hint: Study the function $f(x) = LHS-RHS$ and show it is non-negative



    Detailed hint: $f$ is infinitely differentiable on $(-1,infty)$. Derive $f$ (twice): $f''$ is easy to handle, as it is a rational function (no more logarithms); it has a single root at $0$ and is always non-negative. This means $f'$ is non-decreasing; since $f'(0)=0$, we have $f$ decreasing on $(-1,0)$ and increasing on $(0,infty)$. But $f(0)=0$, and thus $f(x)geq f(0)=0$ for all $x$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
      – Mr.Robot
      Nov 18 at 5:04






    • 1




      Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
      – Clement C.
      Nov 18 at 6:04















    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted






    Hint: Study the function $f(x) = LHS-RHS$ and show it is non-negative



    Detailed hint: $f$ is infinitely differentiable on $(-1,infty)$. Derive $f$ (twice): $f''$ is easy to handle, as it is a rational function (no more logarithms); it has a single root at $0$ and is always non-negative. This means $f'$ is non-decreasing; since $f'(0)=0$, we have $f$ decreasing on $(-1,0)$ and increasing on $(0,infty)$. But $f(0)=0$, and thus $f(x)geq f(0)=0$ for all $x$.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Hint: Study the function $f(x) = LHS-RHS$ and show it is non-negative



    Detailed hint: $f$ is infinitely differentiable on $(-1,infty)$. Derive $f$ (twice): $f''$ is easy to handle, as it is a rational function (no more logarithms); it has a single root at $0$ and is always non-negative. This means $f'$ is non-decreasing; since $f'(0)=0$, we have $f$ decreasing on $(-1,0)$ and increasing on $(0,infty)$. But $f(0)=0$, and thus $f(x)geq f(0)=0$ for all $x$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 18 at 3:52









    Clement C.

    48.9k33784




    48.9k33784








    • 1




      Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
      – Mr.Robot
      Nov 18 at 5:04






    • 1




      Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
      – Clement C.
      Nov 18 at 6:04
















    • 1




      Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
      – Mr.Robot
      Nov 18 at 5:04






    • 1




      Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
      – Clement C.
      Nov 18 at 6:04










    1




    1




    Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
    – Mr.Robot
    Nov 18 at 5:04




    Thank you, but I think we can do this because we know RHS. I am wondering how something like RHS is derived from LHS using certain techniques.
    – Mr.Robot
    Nov 18 at 5:04




    1




    1




    Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
    – Clement C.
    Nov 18 at 6:04






    Then you can for instance look at Taylor series to have an idea of a possible approximation by polynomials. For things like this one (not a polynomial), you would look at another type of approximation by the "best function in a simple class" (e.g., this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pad%C3%A9_approximant)
    – Clement C.
    Nov 18 at 6:04












    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Also, we can make the following.



    We need to prove that $f(x)geq0,$ where
    $$f(x)=ln(1+x)-frac{5x^2+6x}{2(x^2+4x+3)}.$$
    We see that
    $$f'(x)=frac{x^3}{(x^2+4x+3)^2},$$ which says that $$f(x)geq f(0)=0$$ and we are done!






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Also, we can make the following.



      We need to prove that $f(x)geq0,$ where
      $$f(x)=ln(1+x)-frac{5x^2+6x}{2(x^2+4x+3)}.$$
      We see that
      $$f'(x)=frac{x^3}{(x^2+4x+3)^2},$$ which says that $$f(x)geq f(0)=0$$ and we are done!






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        Also, we can make the following.



        We need to prove that $f(x)geq0,$ where
        $$f(x)=ln(1+x)-frac{5x^2+6x}{2(x^2+4x+3)}.$$
        We see that
        $$f'(x)=frac{x^3}{(x^2+4x+3)^2},$$ which says that $$f(x)geq f(0)=0$$ and we are done!






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Also, we can make the following.



        We need to prove that $f(x)geq0,$ where
        $$f(x)=ln(1+x)-frac{5x^2+6x}{2(x^2+4x+3)}.$$
        We see that
        $$f'(x)=frac{x^3}{(x^2+4x+3)^2},$$ which says that $$f(x)geq f(0)=0$$ and we are done!







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 18 at 8:33









        Michael Rozenberg

        94.5k1588183




        94.5k1588183






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003093%2fone-lower-bound-for-1x-log1x-x%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

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater