Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Show that for $\alpha\in (0,1)$, $l,f\in\mathbb{R}_+ (l>f)$, $x(l)>y(l),\forall l\in\mathbb{R_+}$ where $y(l)=(l-f)^{\alpha}/l$ and $x(l)=\alpha(l-f)^{\alpha-1}$.

I first noted that $(l-f)>0,\forall l,f$. Then I looked at cases:
(1) for $l-f<1$, $(l-f)^{\alpha}<(l-f)^{\alpha-1}$, but then since there's the case that $l<1, (l-f)^{\alpha}/l>(l-f)^{\alpha}$...

I'm confused as to how to approach this in a rigorous way rather than just plugging in values.

share|cite|improve this question
Hmm, we want $$\alpha(l-f)^{\alpha - 1} > \frac{(l-f)^\alpha}{l}$$Since $l$ and $\frac{1}{(l-f)^{\alpha - 1}}$ are both both positive, we can multiply both sides of the inequality by $\frac{l}{(l-f)^{\alpha-1}}$ and not change its sign, we arrive at: $$\alpha l > (l - f)$$ This seems false...namely, divide both sides by $l$, and consider the limit as $l \rightarrow \infty$, we get $$\alpha > 1$$or am I missing something :(? – uncookedfalcon Apr 9 '12 at 6:13
Seems true iff $f > l (1-\alpha)$. – copper.hat Apr 9 '12 at 6:26
ah, so it is not true for all $\alpha\in (0,1)$? – Emir Apr 10 '12 at 7:48
@uncookedfalcon You get $\alpha\ge 1$ in the limit, not $\alpha>1$. – ˈjuː.zɚ79365 Jun 15 '13 at 0:15

As observed by uncookedfalcon and copper.hat in the comments, the desired inequality $x>y$ simplifies to $\alpha l > l-f$. The latter does not hold as generally as stated in the question, but it holds if we additionally assume $f>l(1-\alpha)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.