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

Let $1<p<\infty$. Let $x,y\in l^p$ such that $||x||_p=1$, $||y||_p=1$ and $x\neq y$. Would you help me to show that for any $0<t<1$, $||tx+(1-t)y||_p<1$.

My answer : By using Minkowski inequality, we get $||tx+(1-t)y||_p\leq t||x||_p+(1-t)||y||_p=t+(1-t)=1$. But I don't get the strict inequality.

But, For $p=2$: \begin{eqnarray} ||tx+(1-t)y||_2^2&=&t^2||x||_2^2+(1-t)^2||y||_2^2+2t(1-t)\Re(<x,y>)\\&=&1+2t(1-t)(\Re(<x,y>)-1)) \end{eqnarray}

Since $x\neq y$ and $||x||_2=||y||_2$, we conclude that $x\neq ky$ for every scalar hence we get $\Re(<x,y>)\leq|<x,y>|<||x||_2||y||_2=1$. So, $||tx+(1-t)y||_2<1$.

Thanks everyone.

share|cite|improve this question

For $1 < p < \infty$, Minkowski's inequality is an equality if and only if one of the vectors is a multiple of the other by a nonnegative scalar.

share|cite|improve this answer
If the vectors is multiple of the other by scalar implies the equality is trivial. How about the converse? – beginner Nov 30 '12 at 6:43
You can go back over the proof of Minkowski's inequality, and Hölder's which is usually used in that proof. At some point you may use something like the fact that the minimum of the function $f(x) = x^p/p - x$ for $x \ge 0$ is at $x=1$. Now note that this is a unique minimum ($f$ is strictly convex)... – Robert Israel Nov 30 '12 at 8:20

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.