Proving that $|x , g(y) - y , g(x)| leq C$ for $x,y in [-1,1]$, where $|g''(t)| leq C$











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $f : mathbb{R}^2 rightarrow mathbb{R}^2$ given by $f(x,y) = x , g(y) - y , g(x)$, where $g:mathbb{R} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $g in C^2$, $g(0)=0$ and $|g''(x)| leq C $ $forall x in mathbb{R}$. I Want to prove:



a) If $(x,y) in [-1,1]times[-1,1]$ then $|f(x,y)| leq C$.



b) Evaluate $int^1_0 int^1_0 f(x,y) , dx , dy$.



For the b part i guess that a simple application of green theorem will solve it, the value will be in function of $g$.



But, for the a part I'm getting trouble.



I tried to use the mean value theorem for the derivative of $g$ and then obtain that $|g'(x)|leq$ sup $ g^{''}$ $|x|$ on $x in [-1,1]$ and then conclude $ |g'(x)| leq C$ either.



So, applying again to $f$ I would get $|f(x,y)|$ is less or equal to a multiple of $C$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Hint: How does $f$ change if you change $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = ax + g(x)$?
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 23 at 19:03










  • @PhoemueX, there is no change, but I still can't see for where it is going
    – Eduardo Silva
    Nov 23 at 19:20










  • I now also added an answer for part b)
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 28 at 10:48















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $f : mathbb{R}^2 rightarrow mathbb{R}^2$ given by $f(x,y) = x , g(y) - y , g(x)$, where $g:mathbb{R} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $g in C^2$, $g(0)=0$ and $|g''(x)| leq C $ $forall x in mathbb{R}$. I Want to prove:



a) If $(x,y) in [-1,1]times[-1,1]$ then $|f(x,y)| leq C$.



b) Evaluate $int^1_0 int^1_0 f(x,y) , dx , dy$.



For the b part i guess that a simple application of green theorem will solve it, the value will be in function of $g$.



But, for the a part I'm getting trouble.



I tried to use the mean value theorem for the derivative of $g$ and then obtain that $|g'(x)|leq$ sup $ g^{''}$ $|x|$ on $x in [-1,1]$ and then conclude $ |g'(x)| leq C$ either.



So, applying again to $f$ I would get $|f(x,y)|$ is less or equal to a multiple of $C$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Hint: How does $f$ change if you change $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = ax + g(x)$?
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 23 at 19:03










  • @PhoemueX, there is no change, but I still can't see for where it is going
    – Eduardo Silva
    Nov 23 at 19:20










  • I now also added an answer for part b)
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 28 at 10:48













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Let $f : mathbb{R}^2 rightarrow mathbb{R}^2$ given by $f(x,y) = x , g(y) - y , g(x)$, where $g:mathbb{R} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $g in C^2$, $g(0)=0$ and $|g''(x)| leq C $ $forall x in mathbb{R}$. I Want to prove:



a) If $(x,y) in [-1,1]times[-1,1]$ then $|f(x,y)| leq C$.



b) Evaluate $int^1_0 int^1_0 f(x,y) , dx , dy$.



For the b part i guess that a simple application of green theorem will solve it, the value will be in function of $g$.



But, for the a part I'm getting trouble.



I tried to use the mean value theorem for the derivative of $g$ and then obtain that $|g'(x)|leq$ sup $ g^{''}$ $|x|$ on $x in [-1,1]$ and then conclude $ |g'(x)| leq C$ either.



So, applying again to $f$ I would get $|f(x,y)|$ is less or equal to a multiple of $C$.










share|cite|improve this question















Let $f : mathbb{R}^2 rightarrow mathbb{R}^2$ given by $f(x,y) = x , g(y) - y , g(x)$, where $g:mathbb{R} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $g in C^2$, $g(0)=0$ and $|g''(x)| leq C $ $forall x in mathbb{R}$. I Want to prove:



a) If $(x,y) in [-1,1]times[-1,1]$ then $|f(x,y)| leq C$.



b) Evaluate $int^1_0 int^1_0 f(x,y) , dx , dy$.



For the b part i guess that a simple application of green theorem will solve it, the value will be in function of $g$.



But, for the a part I'm getting trouble.



I tried to use the mean value theorem for the derivative of $g$ and then obtain that $|g'(x)|leq$ sup $ g^{''}$ $|x|$ on $x in [-1,1]$ and then conclude $ |g'(x)| leq C$ either.



So, applying again to $f$ I would get $|f(x,y)|$ is less or equal to a multiple of $C$.







calculus derivatives absolute-value






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 28 at 10:48









PhoemueX

27.2k22455




27.2k22455










asked Nov 23 at 18:08









Eduardo Silva

68239




68239












  • Hint: How does $f$ change if you change $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = ax + g(x)$?
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 23 at 19:03










  • @PhoemueX, there is no change, but I still can't see for where it is going
    – Eduardo Silva
    Nov 23 at 19:20










  • I now also added an answer for part b)
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 28 at 10:48


















  • Hint: How does $f$ change if you change $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = ax + g(x)$?
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 23 at 19:03










  • @PhoemueX, there is no change, but I still can't see for where it is going
    – Eduardo Silva
    Nov 23 at 19:20










  • I now also added an answer for part b)
    – PhoemueX
    Nov 28 at 10:48
















Hint: How does $f$ change if you change $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = ax + g(x)$?
– PhoemueX
Nov 23 at 19:03




Hint: How does $f$ change if you change $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = ax + g(x)$?
– PhoemueX
Nov 23 at 19:03












@PhoemueX, there is no change, but I still can't see for where it is going
– Eduardo Silva
Nov 23 at 19:20




@PhoemueX, there is no change, but I still can't see for where it is going
– Eduardo Silva
Nov 23 at 19:20












I now also added an answer for part b)
– PhoemueX
Nov 28 at 10:48




I now also added an answer for part b)
– PhoemueX
Nov 28 at 10:48










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













a) If we change from $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = g(x) + a x$ for any $a in Bbb{R}$, this does not change the function $f$. Also, we will still have $widetilde{g}(0) = 0$ and $|widetilde{g}''(x)| leq C$. Therefore, we can without loss of generality assume that $g'(0) = 0$.



Now, Taylor's theorem, with the Lagrange form of the remainder shows that for each $x in [-1,1]$, there is some $xi in [0,x] cup [x,0] subset [-1,1]$ satisfying
$$
g(x) = g(0) + g'(0) cdot x + frac{g''(xi)}{2} (x - 0)^2 , ,
$$

and hence $|g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} cdot x^2 leq frac{C}{2}$ for all $x in [-1,1]$.



Now, we easily see
$$
|f(x,y)| leq |x| cdot |g(y)| + |y| cdot |g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} + frac{C}{2} = C
$$

for all $x,y in [-1,1]$.



Final comment: This is more or less what you were also trying to do (using the estimate for $g''$ to estimate $g'$, and then $g$). The main points was to see that one can assume $g'(x) = 0$. Finally, instead of using the mean-value theorem twice, we used Taylor's theorem, which got rid of the factor two that you would otherwise get if you naively apply the mean-value theorem.



b) This part of the question is actually pretty easy; one does not need anything fancy like Green's theorem. Simply note that if we set $a := int_0^1 t , d t$ (so that $a = 1/2$) and $b := int_0^1 g(t) , dt$, then
begin{align*}
int_0^1 int_0^1 f(x,y) , d x , d y
& = int_0^1 int_0^1 x , g(y) , d x , d y
- int_0^1 int_0^1 y , g(x) , d x , d y \
& = int_0^1 g(y) cdot a , d y
- int_0^1 y , b , d y \
& = a cdot b - a cdot b
= 0 , .
end{align*}






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%2f3010661%2fproving-that-x-gy-y-gx-leq-c-for-x-y-in-1-1-where-g%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
    1
    down vote













    a) If we change from $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = g(x) + a x$ for any $a in Bbb{R}$, this does not change the function $f$. Also, we will still have $widetilde{g}(0) = 0$ and $|widetilde{g}''(x)| leq C$. Therefore, we can without loss of generality assume that $g'(0) = 0$.



    Now, Taylor's theorem, with the Lagrange form of the remainder shows that for each $x in [-1,1]$, there is some $xi in [0,x] cup [x,0] subset [-1,1]$ satisfying
    $$
    g(x) = g(0) + g'(0) cdot x + frac{g''(xi)}{2} (x - 0)^2 , ,
    $$

    and hence $|g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} cdot x^2 leq frac{C}{2}$ for all $x in [-1,1]$.



    Now, we easily see
    $$
    |f(x,y)| leq |x| cdot |g(y)| + |y| cdot |g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} + frac{C}{2} = C
    $$

    for all $x,y in [-1,1]$.



    Final comment: This is more or less what you were also trying to do (using the estimate for $g''$ to estimate $g'$, and then $g$). The main points was to see that one can assume $g'(x) = 0$. Finally, instead of using the mean-value theorem twice, we used Taylor's theorem, which got rid of the factor two that you would otherwise get if you naively apply the mean-value theorem.



    b) This part of the question is actually pretty easy; one does not need anything fancy like Green's theorem. Simply note that if we set $a := int_0^1 t , d t$ (so that $a = 1/2$) and $b := int_0^1 g(t) , dt$, then
    begin{align*}
    int_0^1 int_0^1 f(x,y) , d x , d y
    & = int_0^1 int_0^1 x , g(y) , d x , d y
    - int_0^1 int_0^1 y , g(x) , d x , d y \
    & = int_0^1 g(y) cdot a , d y
    - int_0^1 y , b , d y \
    & = a cdot b - a cdot b
    = 0 , .
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      a) If we change from $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = g(x) + a x$ for any $a in Bbb{R}$, this does not change the function $f$. Also, we will still have $widetilde{g}(0) = 0$ and $|widetilde{g}''(x)| leq C$. Therefore, we can without loss of generality assume that $g'(0) = 0$.



      Now, Taylor's theorem, with the Lagrange form of the remainder shows that for each $x in [-1,1]$, there is some $xi in [0,x] cup [x,0] subset [-1,1]$ satisfying
      $$
      g(x) = g(0) + g'(0) cdot x + frac{g''(xi)}{2} (x - 0)^2 , ,
      $$

      and hence $|g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} cdot x^2 leq frac{C}{2}$ for all $x in [-1,1]$.



      Now, we easily see
      $$
      |f(x,y)| leq |x| cdot |g(y)| + |y| cdot |g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} + frac{C}{2} = C
      $$

      for all $x,y in [-1,1]$.



      Final comment: This is more or less what you were also trying to do (using the estimate for $g''$ to estimate $g'$, and then $g$). The main points was to see that one can assume $g'(x) = 0$. Finally, instead of using the mean-value theorem twice, we used Taylor's theorem, which got rid of the factor two that you would otherwise get if you naively apply the mean-value theorem.



      b) This part of the question is actually pretty easy; one does not need anything fancy like Green's theorem. Simply note that if we set $a := int_0^1 t , d t$ (so that $a = 1/2$) and $b := int_0^1 g(t) , dt$, then
      begin{align*}
      int_0^1 int_0^1 f(x,y) , d x , d y
      & = int_0^1 int_0^1 x , g(y) , d x , d y
      - int_0^1 int_0^1 y , g(x) , d x , d y \
      & = int_0^1 g(y) cdot a , d y
      - int_0^1 y , b , d y \
      & = a cdot b - a cdot b
      = 0 , .
      end{align*}






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        a) If we change from $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = g(x) + a x$ for any $a in Bbb{R}$, this does not change the function $f$. Also, we will still have $widetilde{g}(0) = 0$ and $|widetilde{g}''(x)| leq C$. Therefore, we can without loss of generality assume that $g'(0) = 0$.



        Now, Taylor's theorem, with the Lagrange form of the remainder shows that for each $x in [-1,1]$, there is some $xi in [0,x] cup [x,0] subset [-1,1]$ satisfying
        $$
        g(x) = g(0) + g'(0) cdot x + frac{g''(xi)}{2} (x - 0)^2 , ,
        $$

        and hence $|g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} cdot x^2 leq frac{C}{2}$ for all $x in [-1,1]$.



        Now, we easily see
        $$
        |f(x,y)| leq |x| cdot |g(y)| + |y| cdot |g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} + frac{C}{2} = C
        $$

        for all $x,y in [-1,1]$.



        Final comment: This is more or less what you were also trying to do (using the estimate for $g''$ to estimate $g'$, and then $g$). The main points was to see that one can assume $g'(x) = 0$. Finally, instead of using the mean-value theorem twice, we used Taylor's theorem, which got rid of the factor two that you would otherwise get if you naively apply the mean-value theorem.



        b) This part of the question is actually pretty easy; one does not need anything fancy like Green's theorem. Simply note that if we set $a := int_0^1 t , d t$ (so that $a = 1/2$) and $b := int_0^1 g(t) , dt$, then
        begin{align*}
        int_0^1 int_0^1 f(x,y) , d x , d y
        & = int_0^1 int_0^1 x , g(y) , d x , d y
        - int_0^1 int_0^1 y , g(x) , d x , d y \
        & = int_0^1 g(y) cdot a , d y
        - int_0^1 y , b , d y \
        & = a cdot b - a cdot b
        = 0 , .
        end{align*}






        share|cite|improve this answer














        a) If we change from $g$ to $widetilde{g}(x) = g(x) + a x$ for any $a in Bbb{R}$, this does not change the function $f$. Also, we will still have $widetilde{g}(0) = 0$ and $|widetilde{g}''(x)| leq C$. Therefore, we can without loss of generality assume that $g'(0) = 0$.



        Now, Taylor's theorem, with the Lagrange form of the remainder shows that for each $x in [-1,1]$, there is some $xi in [0,x] cup [x,0] subset [-1,1]$ satisfying
        $$
        g(x) = g(0) + g'(0) cdot x + frac{g''(xi)}{2} (x - 0)^2 , ,
        $$

        and hence $|g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} cdot x^2 leq frac{C}{2}$ for all $x in [-1,1]$.



        Now, we easily see
        $$
        |f(x,y)| leq |x| cdot |g(y)| + |y| cdot |g(x)| leq frac{C}{2} + frac{C}{2} = C
        $$

        for all $x,y in [-1,1]$.



        Final comment: This is more or less what you were also trying to do (using the estimate for $g''$ to estimate $g'$, and then $g$). The main points was to see that one can assume $g'(x) = 0$. Finally, instead of using the mean-value theorem twice, we used Taylor's theorem, which got rid of the factor two that you would otherwise get if you naively apply the mean-value theorem.



        b) This part of the question is actually pretty easy; one does not need anything fancy like Green's theorem. Simply note that if we set $a := int_0^1 t , d t$ (so that $a = 1/2$) and $b := int_0^1 g(t) , dt$, then
        begin{align*}
        int_0^1 int_0^1 f(x,y) , d x , d y
        & = int_0^1 int_0^1 x , g(y) , d x , d y
        - int_0^1 int_0^1 y , g(x) , d x , d y \
        & = int_0^1 g(y) cdot a , d y
        - int_0^1 y , b , d y \
        & = a cdot b - a cdot b
        = 0 , .
        end{align*}







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 28 at 10:44

























        answered Nov 25 at 18:17









        PhoemueX

        27.2k22455




        27.2k22455






























            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%2f3010661%2fproving-that-x-gy-y-gx-leq-c-for-x-y-in-1-1-where-g%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

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen