A question about Young's inequality and complex numbers

In summary, the conversation discusses the attempt to demonstrate that ##\Omega## is real using the fact that ##u<0##. However, it is shown that ##u## must be greater than or equal to zero, making ##\Omega## either zero or imaginary. The fallacy in the given proof is that the last step relies on assuming that both ##a^2## and ##b^2## are positive, which is not initially stated.
  • #1
VX10
5
1
TL;DR Summary
Here, I present question about the validity of Young's inequality.
Let ##\Omega## here be ##\Omega=\sqrt{-u}##, in which it is not difficult to realize that ##\Omega ## is real if ##u<0##; imaginary, if ##u>0##. Now, suppose further that ##u=(a-b)^2## with ##a<0## and ##b>0## real numbers. Bearing this in mind, I want to demonstrate that ##\Omega## is real. To that end, we must demonstrate that ##u<0##, or equivalently,
$$ a^2+b^2-2ab<0$$.
Going through some straightforward algebraic manipulations, we then have
$$ab>\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{2}+b^{2}\right)$$.
Nevertheless, on recalling that ##a<0##, we then are led to conclude that
$$ab<\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{2}+b^{2}\right)$$.

Based on the above, I ask:
1. Would that last statement hold true by virtue of Young's inequality?
2. Is there any fallacious step in that given proof?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
:welcome:

I have no idea what you are trying to do there, I'm sorry to say.
 
  • #3
PeroK said:
:welcome:

I have no idea what you are trying to do there, I'm sorry to say.
Hi, PeroK. I hope you are doing well. I want to demonstrate that ##u<0##.
 
  • #4
VX10 said:
Hi, PeroK. I hope you are doing well. I want to demonstrate that ##u<0##.
But if ##u = (a-b)^2##, isn't ##u## guaranteed to be ##\ge 0##?
 
  • Like
Likes VX10
  • #5
VX10 said:
Hi, PeroK. I hope you are doing well. I want to demonstrate that ##u<0##.
And what is ##u##?
 
  • #6
VX10 said:
TL;DR Summary: Here, I present question about the validity of Young's inequality.

Let ##\Omega## here be ##\Omega=\sqrt{-u}##, in which it is not difficult to realize that ##\Omega ## is real if ##u<0##; imaginary, if ##u>0##. Now, suppose further that ##u=(a-b)^2## with ##a<0## and ##b>0## real numbers. Bearing this in mind, I want to demonstrate that ##\Omega## is real.

If [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] are real of any sign, then [itex]a - b[/itex] is real and [itex]u = (a-b)^2 \geq 0[/itex]. Hence [itex]\Omega[/itex] is imaginary.
 
  • Like
Likes VX10 and FactChecker
  • #7
FactChecker said:
But if ##u = (a-b)^2##, isn't ##u## guaranteed to be ##\ge 0##?
Thanks for commenting FactChecker. This is the point of my doubt. As you can see, when I expand the equation and use the fact that ##a<0##, I arrive at the final statement presented above.
 
  • #8
pasmith said:
If [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] are real of any sign, then [itex]a - b[/itex] is real and [itex]u = (a-b)^2 \geq 0[/itex]. Hence [itex]\Omega[/itex] is imaginary.
Hi, pasmith. I hope you are doing well. This is the point of my doubt. As you can see, when I expand the equation and use the fact that ##a<0##, I arrive at the final statement presented above. Is the "mathematical development" presented above fallacious? Thanks for commeting.
 
  • #9
VX10 said:
Thanks for commenting FactChecker. This is the point of my doubt. As you can see, when I expand the equation and use the fact that ##a<0##, I arrive at the final statement presented above.
Any real number, when squared, is positive. It is pointless to look at how that real number was obtained.
 
  • #10
VX10 said:
Hi, pasmith. I hope you are doing well. This is the point of my doubt. As you can see, when I expand the equation and use the fact that ##a<0##, I arrive at the final statement presented above. Is the "mathematical development" presented above fallacious? Thanks for commeting.

There's no development. To show ##u<0## you decided it was equivalent to ##ab> 0.5(a^2+b^2)##, but you concluded that actually the opposite is true. This means you proved ##u>0##.
But this is all nonsense, since that last step relies on ##a^2## and ##b^2## being positive, which is something you didn't want to assume to begin with.
 
  • Like
Likes quasar987, VX10 and PeroK
  • #11
VX10 said:
Hi, pasmith. I hope you are doing well. This is the point of my doubt. As you can see, when I expand the equation and use the fact that ##a<0##, I arrive at the final statement presented above. Is the "mathematical development" presented above fallacious? Thanks for commeting.
As I said before your steps make little or no sense. ##(a-b)^2 \ge 0## for all real ##a, b##. It's not clear how or why you think you have shown that ##(a - b)^2 < 0##.
 
  • #12
FactChecker said:
Any real number, when squared, is positive.
Or zero...
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and VX10
  • #13
Office_Shredder said:
There's no development. To show ##u<0## you decided it was equivalent to ##ab> 0.5(a^2+b^2)##, but you concluded that actually the opposite is true. This means you proved ##u>0##.
But this is all nonsense, since that last step relies on ##a^2## and ##b^2## being positive, which is something you didn't want to assume to begin with.
Thanks for commeting. Now, it became clear to me. Thanks again.
 
  • Like
Likes quasar987
  • #14
VX10 said:
Let ##\Omega## here be ##\Omega=\sqrt{-u}##, in which it is not difficult to realize that ##\Omega ## is real if ##u<0##; imaginary, if ##u>0##. Now, suppose further that ##u=(a-b)^2## with ##a<0## and ##b>0## real numbers. Bearing this in mind, I want to demonstrate that ##\Omega## is real.
To summarize what others have said, if ##u = (a - b)^2##, with a and be being any real numbers, then ##u \ge 0##. So ##\Omega## is zero if a = b or is imaginary otherwise. Period.
 

FAQ: A question about Young's inequality and complex numbers

What is Young's inequality?

Young's inequality is a fundamental result in analysis that provides a way to estimate the integral or sum of products of functions. Specifically, it states that for any measurable functions \( f \) and \( g \), and for any \( p, q > 1 \) such that \( \frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1 \), the following inequality holds: \[\int |fg| \leq \|f\|_p \|g\|_q\]This inequality is widely used in various fields, including functional analysis and probability theory.

How does Young's inequality apply to complex numbers?

Young's inequality can be applied to complex-valued functions in the same way as it is applied to real-valued functions. The absolute values of the complex functions are considered, so if \( f \) and \( g \) are complex functions, we can use the inequality:\[\int |fg| \leq \|f\|_p \|g\|_q\]where \( \|f\|_p \) and \( \|g\|_q \) are defined using the standard \( L^p \) norms for complex functions. The key is to work with the magnitudes of the complex numbers involved.

What are the conditions for Young's inequality to hold?

For Young's inequality to hold, the functions \( f \) and \( g \) must be measurable, and the exponents \( p \) and \( q \) must satisfy \( p, q > 1 \) with \( \frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1 \). Additionally, the functions must be in the appropriate \( L^p \) and \( L^q \) spaces, meaning they should be integrable to the required power.

Can Young's inequality be generalized?

Yes, Young's inequality can be generalized in several ways. One common generalization is to consider convolutions of functions, where it can be stated as:\[\|f * g\|_r \leq \|f\|_p \|g\|_q\]for suitable choices of \( r, p, \) and \( q \). Additionally, there are versions of Young's inequality in the context of distributions and in other spaces, such as \( L^p \) spaces with weights.

What are some applications of Young's inequality?

Young's inequality has numerous applications in analysis, including in the study of partial differential equations, signal processing, and in establishing bounds for various operators. It is particularly useful in the

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
541
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
744
Back
Top