Talk:Bernoulli's inequality
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
asdf
[edit]In generalized inequality: if x=0, both inequalities are valid. -- anon
This has been fixed. -- Toby Bartels
a little bit more
[edit]1-x<e^(-x)
Jackzhp 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This entry should be for real values of r, not just for integer values
[edit]Bernoulli's inequality true for all real values of r ≥ 1. This is important for many applications, so it is less useful to just describe it for integer values of r. And I do not think that it is worthwhile including an induction proof, which only gives the result for integer values of r.
Here's a quick proof for all real values of r ≥ 1. Unfortunately, I don't have the Wikipedia skills to directly edit this entry, so maybe someone else can do it.
Let f(x) = (1+x)^r - 1 - rx. The extended mean value theorem says that
f(x) = f(0) + f'(0)x + (1/2)f(y)x^2
for some y between 0 and x. But f(0) = 0 and f'(0) = 0, so
f(x) = r(r-1)(1+y)^{r-2}x^2.
for some y between 0 and x. It is clear that this last expression is nonnegative if x > -1 and r ≥ 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.41.44 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
For n integer values the inequality also applies for x≥−2
[edit]For some reason this is not mentioned anywhere, but upon trying to prove the inequality I stumbled upon that fact. It can be easily shown that for even n values the inequality applies for all real x values, and for odd ns, for all x≥−2.
- Maybe it is not mentioned because for non-integer n values - an is meaningless for negative a values (−2≤x<−1).
[Shir Peled] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it should definitely be mentioned in the article that for whole number exponents Bernoulli's inequality holds for x≥−2 - in fact this follows from the inductive proof already given in the article, because what is used there is that x+2 ≥ 0, i.e. x ≥ −2 Joel Brennan (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- The reason why it is not mentioned that the inequality applies for all x≥−2 cannot be because for non-integer n values - an is meaningless for negative a values (−2≤x<−1), as far as this argument should end by requiring x≥0. The condition was modified in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernoulli%27s_inequality&diff=955387483&oldid=935247787 --Polsko40 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- The proof in Proof for integer exponent does not accord with the restriction given, but with the older x ≥ −2. --Polsko40 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Please add History
[edit]Does anyone know which Bernoulli came up with the inequality, or when? Will someone please add a history section, links to the proper Bernoulli, and a link to this article from the proper Bernoulli's page? Thank you. Yoda of Borg (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
More info at http://web01.shu.edu/projects/reals/history/bernoull.html. I can fill out the article later, but I'm not an expert on whether what I would add would be considered plagiarizing this source. Yoda of Borg (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Question
[edit]Shouln't it be specified that for x=-1 and r=0 the first written Bernoulli's equation doesn't work? (Because then there is 0^0). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.235.177.80 (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- 0^0 is only undefined in the context of limits (which is not the context here) so it is fine in the case x = −1, r = 0 - if an expression approaching 0 is raised to the power of an expression approaching 0 then the result is indeterminate, but if the whole number 0 is raised to the power of the whole number 0 then the answer is simply 1 (because any real number a to the power of the whole number 0 is defined to be 1 as it is the product of zero copies of a)
Convexity proof
[edit]I don't see how the inequality derived for 0 < \alpha < 1 can be "reversed" outside that domain, because I think convexity is only proved for alpha between 0 and 1.
It's more straightforward to prove f(x) = (1 + x)^n is convex over x >= -1, n >= 1, then by convexity f lies above its tangent line at x=0, 1 + nx. Wqwt (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Bernoulli's inequality page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Bernoulli's inequality" page.