Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is probably not very exciting, but can't get my head around this for a while. Here's the inequality: $$ x_1^3-\epsilon x_1^2 -(2+\epsilon(1-x_1^n))x_1+(1+\epsilon)>0 $$ where $\epsilon>0, n \in \mathbb{Z^{+}}$. Please just give me hints, don't solve it for me.

EDIT: $x_1>0$

EDIT2: it seems that the solution to inequality $1-x_1-x_1^2>0$ is the trick. For (see EDIT 1) $0<x_1<\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2} \approx 0.618$ the main inequality above is true for all $n, \epsilon$. If $x_1$ is larger than $\approx 0.618$, then it is true for some $\epsilon>0$ iff $n$ is not very large. The condition $\epsilon>0$ is crucial.

share|improve this question
    
Presumably this is not the full question, since in particular there can be problems if $x_1$ is negative. –  André Nicolas Oct 8 '12 at 1:14
    
I deleted this condition, but it seems to be important. Add it back. –  Alex Oct 8 '12 at 1:23

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

If it is wished that the inequality be true for all positive $x_1$, it will need modification. For example, let $n=1$. Then we are looking at $$x^3-(2+\epsilon)x+1+\epsilon.$$ This is not necessarily positive. Imagine $\epsilon$ very close to $0$. The function reaches a minimum at $x=\sqrt{(2+\epsilon)/3}$, and the minimum value is negative, though not by much. I chose a small $\epsilon$, because presumably that is what is intended. But if we pick $\epsilon$ large, like $10$, we are looking at $z^3-12x+11$, which is $-5$ at $x=2$.

There will be similar difficulties with $n=2$. And for any $n\ge 3$, and small $\epsilon$, we can reproduce the same problem.

share|improve this answer
    
could you specify pls? –  Alex Oct 8 '12 at 3:06
    
@Alex: This was a reply to a comment by alex.jordan, who then deleted the comment! So it doesn't make much sense by itself. I assumed in my answer that you wanted to prove that the inequality holds for all $x_1$. alex.jordan pointed out that you could be asking for the solutions to the inequality. That would be of course very difficult except approximately, since we are dealing with possibly a high degree polynomial. –  André Nicolas Oct 8 '12 at 3:21
    
OK, sorry, I didn't express myself properly: what I mean, is to find for what values of $x_1$ this inequality holds. Does this make better sense now? –  Alex Oct 8 '12 at 3:46
    
@Alex: Yes, it is clearer. For $n\ge 5$, one cannot expect a pleasant closed form solution. Already there will be some difficulty with $n=3$. –  André Nicolas Oct 8 '12 at 3:51
    
Ok, I see that for $x=0$ or $x=1$ this inequality holds for all $\epsilon, n$. Is it possible to extend it other subsets of $x$? An approximation is OK. –  Alex Oct 8 '12 at 4:22

Your Answer

 
discard

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.