Yes, just need to provide a counter-example.Is that second part really manageable by current 2016ers?
Oh right.Yes, just need to provide a counter-example.
Oh right.
But how would you go about proving a general case?
Also, in the context of maths what do we regard as convex and concave
To disprove the statement's converse, one only needs a counter-example. What do you mean general case?Oh right.
But how would you go about proving a general case?
There is no general case for the converse. All you have to show is that the converse does not hold true in general, as the converse statement is already generalised to all convex exponentials.Oh right.
But how would you go about proving a general case?
Also, in the context of maths what do we regard as convex and concave
Great, that's what I was thinking but I needed confirmation, since for some reason during the HSC I never came across that language.
Wrong, linear functions are technically ambiguous in their convexity and concavity. A more rigorous counter-example would be f(x) = 2log(x)i) Let g=e^f
g(tx+(1-t)y) =< e^(tf(x)+(1-t)f(y)) (convexity of f)
= (e^f(x))^t(e^f(y))^(1-t)
= g(x)^tg(y)^(1-t)
=< tg(x)+(1-t)g(t) (weighted AM-GM in two variables *)
for all 0 =< t =< 1.
ii) f(x)=log(x) is a counterexample, it is strictly concave as it's second derivative is negative, and e^f(x)=x is trivially convex.
Proof of weighted AM-GM in two variables:
log is a concave function because its second derivative is negative.
This implies that
tlog(x)+(1-t)log(y)=< log(tx+(1-t)y)
x^t y^(1-t) =< tx + (1-t)y (exponentiating both sides.)
Note that the proof of i) makes no assumption on the regularity of f. Convex functions need not be very smooth!
It is literally a matter of definition. My use of the word "convex" is exactly that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_function (as well as most textbooks I have ever seen it in).Wrong, linear functions are technically ambiguous in their convexity and concavity. A more rigorous counter-example would be f(x) = 2log(x)
A followup question based on the second derivative test for convexity:
Given that f''(x)>0 for all a =< x =< b, show that f is convex on the interval [a,b].
That is, show that f(tx+(1-t)y) =< tf(x)+(1-t)f(y) for all x and y in [a,b], and all t in [0,1].
(This result is of course common sense, but should really be proved rigorously. Thankfully it is not too hard to do so.)
Im pretty sure I didnt make a mistake in my working tho...
Key word there is conventionally, however this isn't a conventional question, since when did integrand go to prison, come out, go to uni to only quit later and get hired by UPS, and still have time to answer questions on bos