I think the equation establishes only when $x = 0$, so the condition should be x>=0. The first derivative of $\ln(1+x)-x/(1+x/2)$ is $0$ at $x=0$. So the inequality looks good to establish. Is there a better way to prove it?
How to prove $\ln(1+x)\ge x/(1+x/2)$ when $x > 0$?
5 Answers
Consider $$ f(x)=\ln(1+x)-\frac{2x}{2+x}=\ln(1+x)-2+\frac{4}{2+x} $$ Then $$ f'(x)=\frac{1}{1+x}-\frac{4}{(2+x)^2}= \frac{x^2}{(1+x)(2+x)^2} $$ Hence $f'(x)>0$ for $x>0$. Since $f(0)=0$, we are done.
-
0When I was writing my answer I did not see yours. Should I delete mine? – 2017-02-04
-
0@NiklasHebestreit Why? You just didn't apply the corollary to the mean value theorem about increasing functions, but essentially proved it in the special case. – 2017-02-04
-
0At first I didn't like to prove it by using derivative of difference, but now must admit your answer is beautiful. I tried to use series but failed to get a simple answer. Thank you. – 2017-02-04
Apply the mean value theorem on $f\colon[0,x] \to \mathbf R$ with $$f(t):= \ln(1+t)- \frac{t}{1+\frac{t}{2}}$$ where we assume $x>0$. Therefore whe have that there is a $\xi \in (0,x)$ with $$\ln(1+x)- \frac{x}{1+\frac{x}{2}}=f(x)-f(0)= f'(\xi)(x-0)=\frac{\xi^2}{(\xi +1)(\xi+2)}.$$ Since we have $\xi >0$ and $x>0$ we get the desired inequality $$\ln(1+x)- \frac{x}{1+\frac{x}{2}}>0.$$ For $x=0$ we have $\ln1 = \frac{0}{1+\frac{0}{2}}$ so the inequality $$\ln(1+x) \geq \frac{x}{1+\frac{x}{2}}$$ holds for alle $x\geq 0$.
-
0It is a different way of answer. – 2017-02-03
To show $\ln(1+x) \ge x/(1+x/2) $.
Since $\ln(1+x) =\int_0^x \dfrac{dt}{1+t} $, this is equivalent to $\dfrac1{x}\int_0^x \dfrac{dt}{1+t} \ge \dfrac1{1+x/2} $.
Since $\dfrac1{1+x/2}$ is the value of $\dfrac1{1+t} $ at the midpoint, I'll combine the two halves.
$\begin{array}\\ \int_0^x \frac{dt}{1+t} &=\int_0^{x/2} \frac{dt}{1+t}+\int_{x/2}^x \frac{dt}{1+t}\\ &=\int_0^{x/2} \frac{dt}{1+t}+\int_0^{x/2} \frac{dt}{1+x-t}\\ &=\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{1}{1+t}+\frac{1}{1+x-t}\right)\\ &=\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{1+x-t+1+t}{(1+t)(1+x-t)}\right)\\ &=\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{2+x}{1+t+x-t+t(x-t)}\right)\\ &=(2+x)\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{1}{1+x+t(x-t)}\right)\\ &\ge(2+x)\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{1}{1+x+x^2/4}\right) \qquad\text{since }t(x-t) \le x^2/4\\ &=\dfrac{2+x}{(1+x/2)^2}\int_0^{x/2} dt\\ &=\dfrac{x}{2}\dfrac{4(2+x)}{(2+x)^2}\\ &=\dfrac{2x}{x+2}\\ &=\dfrac{x}{1+x/2}\\ \end{array} $
so that $\dfrac1{x}\int_0^x \frac{dt}{1+t} \ge \dfrac{1}{1+x/2} $.
Note that the only inequality used is that $t(x-t) \le x^2/4$ for $0 \le t \le x/2$.
If we use $t(x-t) \ge 0$, we can get an inequality going the other way:
$\begin{array}\\ \int_0^x \frac{dt}{1+t} &=(2+x)\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{1}{1+x+t(x-t)}\right)\\ &\le(2+x)\int_0^{x/2} dt\left(\frac{1}{1+x}\right)\\ &=\dfrac{2+x}{1+x}\int_0^{x/2} dt\\ &=\dfrac{x(2+x)}{2(1+x)}\\ \end{array} $
so that $\ln(1+x) \le \dfrac{x(2+x)}{2(1+x)} $.
The difference of the two bounds is
$\begin{array}\\ \dfrac{x(2+x)}{2(1+x)}-\dfrac{2x}{x+2} &=\dfrac{x(2+x)(x+2)-2x(2(1+x))}{2(1+x)(x+2)}\\ &=\dfrac{x(x^2+4x+4-(4+4x))}{2(1+x)(x+2)}\\ &=\dfrac{x^3}{2(1+x)(x+2)}\\ &\le \dfrac{x^3}{4}\\ \end{array} $
-
0Thank you for rigorous proof. It is good to know different thinking. – 2017-02-04
-
0I think your answer is very good. If I had the right to vote, I would vote for you. Thank you again. – 2017-02-04
-
1+1. This is [Jensen's inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality) for $1/(1+t)$ with the uniform probability measure on the interval $[0, x]$. – 2017-03-05
-
0So it works because $d^2/dx^2(1/(1 + x)) = 2/(x + 1)^3 \gt 0$. Nice. – 2017-03-05
Bounds using the Taylor series can be used but it is far more work. $ \def\lfrac#1#2{{\large\frac{#1}{#2}}} $
$\exp(x) \le \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \lfrac1{k!} x^k + \lfrac2{n!} x^n$ for every real $x \in [0,\lfrac{n+1}{2}]$.
In particular the one we need is:
$\exp(x) \le 1+x+\lfrac12x^2+\lfrac16x^3+\lfrac1{12}x^4$ for every real $x \in [0,2.5]$.
Just comparing derivatives only works for $x \in [0,\ln(2)]$. But using a geometric series to bound the error gives $\sum_{k=n}^\infty \lfrac1{k!} x^k \le \lfrac1{n!}x^n \sum_{k=0}^\infty (n+1)^{-k} x^k \le \lfrac1{n!}x^n \sum_{k=0}^\infty 2^{-k} = \lfrac2{n!}x^n$ as desired.
Now take any real $y \ge 0$. Let $x = \lfrac{2y}{2+y} \in [0,2)$. Then $y = \lfrac{2x}{2-x}$ and all we need to prove is
$1+x+\lfrac12x^2+\lfrac16x^3+\lfrac1{12}x^4 \le 1+\lfrac{2x}{2-x}$.
This is equivalent to:
$(1+x+\lfrac12x^2+\lfrac16x^3+\lfrac1{12}x^4)(2-x) \le 2+x$.
Which simplifies to an obvious inequality.
Notes
The desired result is actually a Padé approximant for $\ln$, and egreg has already shown how to prove it directly. Note that it can be used to prove the Padé approximant for $\exp$, which is especially useful when we want an upper bound that the Taylor series does not give. Specifically:
$\exp(x) \le \lfrac{2+x}{2-x}$ for every real $x \in [0,2)$.
Which in fact clearly follows from the above inequalities as well. So we have two methods to prove this upper bound for $\exp$, and it is a matter of taste which is easier.
Take the exponential of both terms and re arrange the equation in order to be written as
$$1 + x \geq \large e^{\frac{2x}{2+x}}$$
Now you can use the Taylor series for the exponential, stopping at first order, to get
$$1 + x \geq 1 + \frac{2x}{2+x}$$
$$x \geq \frac{2x}{2+x}$$
$$1 \geq \frac{2}{2+x}$$
$$2 + x \geq 2$$
Which holds $\forall x \geq 0$
-
0Thank you. The answer is simple and nice. – 2017-02-03
-
0@user1908842 You're welcome! – 2017-02-03
-
1Oh, the stopping of taylor series makes the right side smaller, which breaks the inequality? – 2017-02-03
-
0@user1908842 No. Suppose we continue up to the second order, we'd have $$1+x \geq 1+ \frac{2x}{2+x} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{4x^2}{(2+x)^2}$$ arrange it and you will get $$(2+x)^2 \geq 2(2+x) + 2x$$ that is $$x^2\geq 0$$ hence again: $x \geq 0$. – 2017-02-04
-
1@AlanTuring And what about higher orders? – 2017-02-04
-
0@egreg For the third order the solution will be $-2
$x$ to be positive, the result keep holding. – 2017-02-04 -
0@egreg For the fourth order, we get simply $x \geq 0$ – 2017-02-04
-
0And so on, and so on. – 2017-02-04
-
1@AlanTuring You need to *prove* it. But it's not sufficient: the fact that the inequality holds for $x\ge0$ with any truncation doesn't imply it holds without truncation, because the full series has a larger value than any truncation. – 2017-02-04
-
0@egreg Mmm then let me ask you this: is there a way to prove the solution holds at every oder? – 2017-02-04
-
0I don't know why you're keeping your incorrect answer up without even a notice that it is incorrect. You'll lead astray many students who read it. And @egreg already said that it's **not enough** to prove that the inequality holds for every truncation; you need convergence to claim that that implies the inequality without truncation. Finally, I don't think the inequality for every truncation can be proven easily without simply proving the original desired inequality, which is actually nothing more than the (1,1) Padé approximant for $\ln$. – 2017-02-10
-
0By the way, inverting that approximant for $\ln$ gives the (1,1) Padé approximant for $\exp$, which yields the inequality you wanted to prove. But naturally this would be circular... See my (just-posted) answer for how to use Taylor series if desired. It's not that simple, but not so trivial either. – 2017-02-10