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 $C$.
calculus derivatives absolute-value
add a comment |
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 $C$.
calculus derivatives absolute-value
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
add a comment |
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 $C$.
calculus derivatives absolute-value
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
calculus derivatives absolute-value
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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*}
add a comment |
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*}
add a comment |
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*}
add a comment |
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*}
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*}
edited Nov 28 at 10:44
answered Nov 25 at 18:17
PhoemueX
27.2k22455
27.2k22455
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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