Let $\mu:S\rightarrow[0, +\infty]$ be a positive measure on $S$ $\sigma$-algebra on $X$ such that $\mu(X)=1$, and let be $f,g:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be positive $S$-measurable functions such that: $$f(x)g(x)\geq1$$ $\mu$-almost everywhere in $X$. Prove that: $$\int_X f d\mu\cdot\int_X gd\mu\geq1$$ So, I've proved that $\int_X f(x)g(x)d\mu\geq1$ and then I used the Hölder inequality and obtained: $$\left(\int_X f^2 d\mu\right)^{\frac12}\cdot\left(\int_X g^2d\mu\right)^{\frac12}\geq1.$$ How do I move forward from this point?
1 Answer
As $t \mapsto 1/t$ is convex on $(0,\infty)$ Jensen's inequality gives
$$
\frac{1}{\int_X f d\mu} \le \int_X \frac{1}{f} d\mu.
$$
From this inequality and $g \ge 1/f$ a.e. we get
$$
\int_X f d\mu\int_X g d\mu \ge \int_X f d\mu\int_X \frac{1}{f} d\mu \ge 1
$$
Edit: A way to use Cauchy Schwarz instead of Jensen's inequality: Since $\sqrt{fg} \ge 1$ a.e. we have $$ 1=\int_X 1 d\mu \le \int_X\sqrt{f}\sqrt{g} d\mu \le (\int_X f d\mu)^{1/2} (\int_X g d\mu)^{1/2}. $$ Squaring this inequality leads to the desired result.
-
$\begingroup$ Is there any way to prove this without using the Jensen's inequality? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 12, 2022 at 13:37
-
$\begingroup$ I don't see any other way (which does not mean that there isn't one). At least, I think Cauchy Schwarz is not suitable to prove this inequality since i.g. $\int_X f d\mu < (\int_X f^2 d\mu)^{1/2}$ (and the same for $g$), so you can't go to the inequality you want from there. $\endgroup$– GerdCommented Mar 12, 2022 at 14:15
-
$\begingroup$ I was asking because the hint for the solution is to use the Holder inequality, so I tried to use that, but I don't see how it cluld come in handy. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 12, 2022 at 14:19
-
1$\begingroup$ I edited the answer. Indeed one can use Cauchy Schwarz. $\endgroup$– GerdCommented Mar 12, 2022 at 14:26
$S$ $\sigma$-algebra
(or, even better, "$S$ a $\sigma$-algebra") instead of "$S\ \sigma-algebra$"$S\ \sigma-algebra$
. I have edited accordingly. $\endgroup$$
:$\int$ f d$\mu$
$\endgroup$\mathrm
—but I agree it could easily be interpreted otherwise. Thank you for the clarification. $\endgroup$