11

I have been asked to prove the inequality $$\ln(4)<\sqrt{2}$$ without using the fact that $$\ln(4)\approx 1.38 \text{ and }\;\sqrt{2}\approx 1.41$$

I defined at $ [1,2] $ the function $$f(x)=x^3\ln(x)-1$$ and tried to see if $ f(\sqrt{2})<0 $ but i need to know where the sign of $ f(x) $ changes. Thanks in advance.

6 Answers6

14

\begin{align*} & \int_1^2 (x^{-1/4}-x^{-3/4})^2dx \\\ & =\int_1^2(x^{-1/2} -2x^{-1}+x^{-3/2})dx \\ &=[2x^{1/2}-2\ln(x)-2x^{-1/2}]|_{x=1}^2 \\ &=2(\sqrt2-1)-2\ln(2)-2(\sqrt2/2-1) \\ &=\sqrt{2}-\ln(4) \end{align*}

Simon Segert
  • 5,487
13

Use the inequality $$\log(x) < \sqrt{x} - \frac1{\sqrt x}$$ for $x>1$ and take $x=2$. This inequality follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\int_1^x \frac{\mathrm ds}s < \left(\int_1^x \frac{\mathrm ds}{s^2}\right)^{\frac 12} \left(\int_1^x \mathrm ds \right)^{\frac 12} $$ or from the trapezium rule for $$\int_1^{\sqrt x} \frac{\mathrm ds}s.$$

WimC
  • 32,192
  • 2
  • 48
  • 88
  • 1
    (+1) I had written an equivalent answer, but substituting $x\mapsto1+x$, which gives $\log(1+x)\le\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x}}$. This did not immediately look the same, but it is, so I deleted it. – robjohn Jan 15 '22 at 14:47
  • (+1) I found $x \log{x} < (x - 1) + \frac{1}{2} (x - 1)^2$ via the Taylor expansion of $x \log{x}$ around $x = 1$. This is the same as your inequality upon expanding and substituting $x \mapsto \sqrt{x}$. – Ant Feb 01 '22 at 21:04
6

The function $f(x) = \frac{1}{x}$ is convex. Therefore, we have $\frac{(f(\sqrt{2}) + f(1))(\sqrt{2} - 1)}{2} > \int\limits_1^{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{x} dx$ by trying to approximate the region of integration as a trapazoid.

Evaluating both sides gives us $\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} + 1)(\sqrt{2} - 1) > \ln \sqrt{2}$. Multiply both sides by 4 to get $(\sqrt{2} + 2)(\sqrt{2} - 1) > \ln 4$.

The left-hand side simplifies to $\sqrt{2}$. So we have $\sqrt{2} > \ln 4$.

Mark Saving
  • 31,855
6

Equivalently, since the exponential function is increasing, we have to prove $\exp(\sqrt2)>4$.

Now,

$$\exp(\sqrt2)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(\sqrt2)^n}{n!}>\sum_{n=0}^4 \frac{(\sqrt2)^n}{n!}\\=1+\sqrt2+\frac{2}{2!}+\frac{2\sqrt2}{3!}+\frac{4}{4!}\\=\frac{13+8\sqrt2}{6}$$

Let $x=\dfrac{13+8\sqrt2}{6}$, then $\frac{13}{6}<4$, so both $x-\frac{13}{6}$ and $4-\frac{13}{6}$ are positive, and we can compare their square:

$$(x-\frac{13}{6})^2=\frac{128}{36}$$

While

$$(4-\frac{13}{6})^2=\frac{121}{36}$$

Therefore, $x>4$, so $\exp(\sqrt2)>4$, hence $\sqrt2>\ln 4$.

4

A known definite integral trick (Using $\int_0^1 \frac{x^m (1 - x)^n}{1 + x}\mathrm{d} x$):

We have $$0 \le \int_0^1 \frac{x(1 - x)^3}{1 + x}\mathrm{d} x = \int_0^1 \left(-x^3 + 4x^2 - 7x + 8 - \frac{8}{1 + x}\right)\mathrm{d} x = \frac{67}{12} - 8\ln 2$$ which results in $$\frac{67}{96} \ge \ln 2.$$

Thus, $$\ln 4 < \sqrt2 \iff 2\ln 2 < \sqrt2 \Longleftarrow 2\cdot \frac{67}{96} < \sqrt2 \iff 4\cdot \frac{67^2}{96^2} < 2$$ which is true.

River Li
  • 37,323
3

If you are familiar with the trapezoid rule for integration, you can use it to approximate

$\ln 4 =\int_1^4(dx/x)$

Since $f(x) =1/x$ has a positive second derivative everywhere, the piece wise linear function you use to approximate it will lie above the curve, so the numerical integral value you achieve will be an upper bound.

Calculating with six equal intervals, each having width $1/2$, is convenient because then the function values you put into the trapezoid-rule formula will have the form $2/(1+k)$ for whole numbers $k$, which tends to keep denominators relatively small. You eventually get $787/560$ as your upper bound for $\ln 4$. Then $787^2=619369$ versus $2×560^2=627200$, so $(787/560)^2<2$ and the claim is proved.

If you render $\ln 4=2\ln 2$, you can make the calculations simpler. In this case the integral

$\ln 2 =\int_1^2(dx/x)$

would be approximated with the trapezoid rule using just three intervals, which gives an upper bound of $7/10$ (again the second derivative is positive, so the trapezoid rule gives an upper bound). In this method we then have $\ln 4<7/5$ and $(7/5)^2=49/25<2$.

Oscar Lanzi
  • 39,403
  • 2
    you can use it to approximate -- This seems not allowed according to the OP's title, but perhaps the title was not correctly (or sufficiently precisely) stated. – Dave L. Renfro Jan 12 '22 at 20:41
  • I am defining a rigorous upper bound. I think that would be allowed. – Oscar Lanzi Jan 12 '22 at 20:47
  • 2
    I also suspect it would be allowed, but more clarification from the OP would help. When I see a bald question like this, I feel like I'm shooting in the dark regarding what is appropriate -- only school level math? beginning calculus? undergraduate numerical analysis? contest type math in which we're allowed to bring in little known techniques analogous to playing scrabble? advanced numerical techniques? graduate level variations of things like the Minkowski inequality? – Dave L. Renfro Jan 12 '22 at 20:56