0

How can i proof the following inequality:

exp(-1/x) < 1 for x > 0 (real numbers)

First i tried to assume that exp(-1/x) is equal to sum ((-1/x)^n/n!) from n=0 to infinite < 1 but i cant simplify the inequality further. Do you have any tips or idea to proof this?

Razmo
  • 47

4 Answers4

1

You just need to know that the exponential function $t \mapsto e^t $ is strictly increasing at $\mathbb R $ and of course $e^0=1$.

from this

$$x>0\implies 1/x>0$$ $$\implies -1/x <0 \implies e^{-1/x}<e^0$$

  • And how, using the series definition, would you prove that $\exp$ is strictly increasing? – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 11:25
  • @JohnHughes It is increasing since it is the reciprocal of logarithm which is increasing. – hamam_Abdallah May 29 '17 at 11:27
  • I agree that the usual exponential function is the inverse of log (indeed, that's how I like to define it). But OP has exp defined by a series. Do you know that the inverse of that function is the log? Indeed, do you even know that that function is invertible? Not without a lot more steps... – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 11:30
0

$$ \exp(t) = 1 + t + \frac{t^2}{2!} + \frac{t^3}{3!} + \ldots $$ so $$ \exp(\frac{-1}{x}) = 1 - \frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{2!x^2} - \frac{1}{3! x^3} \pm \ldots, $$ which is an alternating series (for $x > 1$) of nonzero terms, whose sum is therefore strictly less than its first term.

N.B.: This only works for $x > 1$, and therefore does not prove the claim for all $x > 0$; that appears to require a good deal more work.

=========

As Barry Cipra points out, I've omitted something important: the terms need to be decreasing for my alternating series claim to be correct. For $x > 1$, this is clear. But what about for $0 < x < 1$? In the case, my argument fails. So this is only a partial answer, and I suggest OP un-accept it, since it's incomplete.

John Hughes
  • 93,729
  • yes i got the same but im not sure if this is enough for a "proof" – Razmo May 29 '17 at 11:21
  • It's a perfectly good proof, as long as you have a theorem that say that an alternating series with nonzero terms has a sum that strictly smaller than the first element. If you haven't yet proved that theorem, then it's not enough for a proof. – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 11:23
  • thanks i will use this one. – Razmo May 29 '17 at 11:24
  • Let $x=1/3$. Is it clear that $1-3+{9\over2}-{27\over6}+\cdots$ is strictly less than its first term? – Barry Cipra May 29 '17 at 11:50
0

To prove $e^{-\frac 1 x}<1$, it is sufficient to prove $e^{t}<1 ~\forall t<0$

Since the function $f(t)=e^t$ is monotonously increasing $(f'(t)=e^t>0)$, and $f(0)=1$, we can conclude that $f(t)<f(0) ~\forall t<0$. That is nothing else than saying :

$$e^t<1~ \forall t\in \mathbb{R^-} \leftrightarrow e^{-\frac{1}{x}}<1 ~\forall x>0$$

Jaideep Khare
  • 19,293
0

So as not to be misled by the exponential notation, suppose all we have to start with is a function $f$ given by the power series

$$f(u)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{u^n\over n!}=1+u+{u^2\over2}+{u^3\over6}+\cdots$$

It's clear that $f(0)=1$ and $f(u)\gt1$ if $u\gt0$. For this problem, however, setting $u=1/x$ with $x\gt0$, we need to show that

$$f(-u)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty(-1)^n{u^n\over n!}=1-u+{u^2\over2}-{u^3\over6}+\cdots\lt1\quad\text{for }u\gt0$$

The easiest way to do this (I think) is to show that $f(-u)=1/f(u)$ and then invoke the fact that $f(u)\gt1$ for $u\gt0$, and the easiest way to do this (I think!) is to establish the general property

$$f(u+v)=f(u)f(v)$$

and then invoke the fact that $f(u-u)=f(0)=1$. So let's do that:

$$\begin{align} f(u+v) &=\sum_{N=0}^\infty{(u+v)^N\over N!}\\ &=\sum_{N=0}^\infty{1\over N!}\sum_{n=0}^N{N\choose n}u^nv^{N-n}\\ &=\sum_{N=0}^\infty{1\over N!}\sum_{n=0}^N{N!\over n!(N-n)!}u^nv^{N-n}\\ &=\sum_{N=0}^\infty\sum_{n=0}^N\left({u^n\over n!}\cdot{v^{N-n}\over(N-n)!}\right)\\ &=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{N=n}^\infty\left({u^n\over n!}\cdot{v^{N-n}\over(N-n)!}\right)\qquad(*)\\ &=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left({u^n\over n!}\sum_{N=n}^\infty{v^{N-n}\over(N-n)!} \right)\\ &=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left({u^n\over n!}\sum_{m=0}^\infty{v^m\over m!} \right)\\ &=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty{u^n\over n!}\right)\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty{v^m\over m!}\right)=f(u)f(v) \end{align}$$

The key step, $(*)$, is the switching of the order of summation. This technically requires its own justification, which amounts to showing (or knowing) that the series is absolutely convergent.

Remarks: For $0\lt u\lt1$ it's clear from the strictly decreasing nature of the terms of the alternating series $f(-u)=1-u+{u^2\over2}-{u^3\over6}+\cdots$ that $0\lt f(-u)\lt1$ without any of the preceding folderol. But for $u\gt1$ it's not at all clear just from the series definition that $f(-u)$ is either positive or less than $1$. E.g., it's really hard to see, just from its opening, where the sum

$$1-10+50-{500\over3}+{1250\over3}-\cdots$$

is going to settle down. If there is an easier way to prove that $f(-u)\lt1$ for $u\gt0$ than the approach I've taken, I'd very much like to see it.

Barry Cipra
  • 79,832
  • I think that my proof -- it's an alternating series with nonzero terms, hence less than its first term -- is simpler, and doesn't rely on the summation-switching, which I agree requires its own proof. I have to assume that OP knows about series (otherwise, why define "exp" this way and prove continuity of it?), so saying that the sum of an alternating series is no more than its first term (or strictly less, if all terms are nonzero) doesn't seem like as big a step as yours requires. – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 14:24
  • Your point about $0 < u < 1$ is a good one. I think that the answer there is also not too tough: you observe (by induction) that for some $K$ and all $n > K$, $(\frac{1}{u})^n < n!$. Then you say that $exp$ is the sum of a mess of terms and (starting at $K$) an alternating series. It's still messy, but it's doable. I'll edit my answer to include this stuff. Thanks for pointing out the subtlety. – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 14:27
  • @JohnHughes, I disagree (with your first comment) completely! My whole point here (and in the comment I left below your answer) is that the sum of an alternating series may or may not be less than its first term. Consider, for example, the series $1-{1\over2}+1-{1\over2}+{1\over4}-{1\over8}+{1\over16}-\cdots$. To conclude that $1-u+{u^2\over2}-{u^3\over6}+\cdots$ is always less than $1$ even when the next several terms are much larger than $1$ demands additional analysis. (I was writing this while you were posting your follow-up comment. I'm keen to see your edit.) – Barry Cipra May 29 '17 at 14:33
  • ...and in writing my follow-up, I realized exactly what you wrote. My explanation (as I was writing it) showed that the series for $exp(u)$, where $u$ is small, is actually convergent, and bounded by the sum of its first few terms (right up until it starts alternating), but does not show that this bound is actually less than $1$. So I just gave up. I still don't like YOUR proof (and your remarks suggest that you don't really either), but I no longer claim that mine is (or can easily be made) complete. Sigh. – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 14:44
  • @JohnHughes, I'm glad we're on the same page now. My main dissatisfaction with my answer is that I'd really like to prove that there's no easier approach! – Barry Cipra May 29 '17 at 14:51
  • It seems to me that proving absolute convergence shouldn't be too hard: after all, if you start with the series for $f(-1/x)$, for $0 < x < 1$, then when you make all terms positive, you get the series for $f(1/x)$, which OP apparently knows is convergent. Re: alternative proofs: It's clear the term-by-term derivative converges (you just get $f(x)$); if you can show that this means that $f$ is actually differentiable, then you know that $f' = f$, and can then just use the mean value theorem to finish things off. I can 't recall how hard "term by term diff for power series" is, though. – John Hughes May 29 '17 at 21:44
  • @JohnHughes, I actually mulled over the possibility of an alternative proof using $f'=f$, but got hung up on how to prove that $f\gt0$. I still don't quite see how to do it. If you do, please post! – Barry Cipra May 29 '17 at 22:01