24
$\begingroup$

Set $$ g(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{x^{2k+1}+1} \quad \text{for} \quad x>1. $$

Is it true that $$ \frac{x^{2}+1}{x(x^{2}-1)}+\frac{g'(x)}{g(x)}>0 \quad \text{for}\quad x>1? $$ The answer seems to be positive. I spent several hours in proving this statement but I did not come up with anything reasonable. Maybe somebody else has (or will have) any bright idea?

Motivation? Nothing important, I was just playing around this question: A problem of potential theory arising in biology

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Experimentally it goes down close to zero for large $x$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 6:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For $x$ near 1, good approximations of $g(x)$ and $g'(x)$ can be obtained using Euler-Maclaurin summation. For example, $$g(x) = -\tfrac12\ln2(x-1)^{-1} + \tfrac14\ln2 - (\tfrac1{48}+\tfrac1{24}\ln2)(x-1) + O((x-1)^2). $$ And similarly for $g'(x)$. It could be made into rigorous bounds. A bit tedious though. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 7:28
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is equivalent (by easy manipulation) to say that the function $h(x)=(x-x^{-1})g(x)$ is increasing for $x>1$. I am not sure if that helps. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 13:35
  • $\begingroup$ Another restatement can be done via the logarithmic derivative (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_derivative). Your inequality is equivalent to $$ \mathrm{dlog} \bigl ( (x^3-x)^3 g(x) \bigr) > -\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{x^3-x} $$ $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 13:56

4 Answers 4

14
$\begingroup$

I am not sure at all, please double check.

Denote $u(t)=(1+t)^{-1}$, it is a decreasing convex function on $[0,1]$, but $u(e^s)$ is concave on $(-\infty,0]$. As Neil Strickland notes, what we have to prove is that $(x-1/x)g(x)$ increases, or, if we denote $y=1/x$, that $(1/y-y)g(1/y)$ decreases. We have $$(1/y-y)g(1/y)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{y^{2k}-y^{2k+2}}{1+y^{2k+1}},$$ this is a Riemann sum of the function $u(t)$ corresponding to nodes $t_k=y^{2k}$, $t_0>t_1>\dots$, and intermediate points $s_k=y^{2k+1}=\sqrt{t_kt_{k+1}}\in [t_k,t_{k+1}]$. The Riemann sums converge to the integral, and they are always more than integral since $\int_a^b u(t)dt\leq (b-a)(u(a)+u(b))/2\leq (b-a)u(\sqrt{ab})$ as $u$ is convex and $u(e^s)$ is concave on $(-\infty,0]$. Next, we see that when $y$ increases, all nodes become closer to 1. It suggests to move nodes and see how the Riemann sum $R(t_0,t_1,\dots):=\sum (t_i-t_{i+1})u(\sqrt{t_it_{i+1}})$ behaves. Consider three consecutive nodes $a^2<b^2<c^2$ and increase $b$. What happens to $(b^2-a^2)u(ab)+(c^2-b^2)u(bc)$? Its derivative in $b$ equals $$ -\frac{(c-a)((a-c)^2+3(ac-b^2)+2(abc-b^3)(a+c)+ab^2c(ac-b^2))} {(ab+1)^2 (bc+1)^2}. $$ This is strictly negative if $b^2=ac$ (that holds in our case). It follows that $R(1,y^2,y^4,\dots)$ decreases when $y$ increases, as desired, by $$ \frac{d}{dy} R(1,y^2,y^4,\dots)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} 2ky^{2k-1}\frac\partial{\partial t_k} R(1,y^2,\dots)\geq 0. $$

$\endgroup$
12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's worth to mention that by telescoping, we have $$\sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{y^{2k}-y^{2k+2}}{1+y^{2k+1}} = \frac{1}{1+y} + \sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{y^{2k+2}}{1+y^{2k+3}} - \frac{y^{2k+2}}{1+y^{2k+1}}$$ $$ = \frac{1}{1+y} + (1-y^2) \sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{y^{4k+3}}{(1+y^{2k+1})(1+y^{2k+3})}.$$ $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 23:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fedor, why $\int_{a}^{b}u(t)\leq (b-a)u(\frac{a+b}{2})$? This is not true in general for convex functions. this is also not true for $u(x)=(1+x)^{-1}$. Or am I missing something else? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 1:56
  • $\begingroup$ anyway, in your argument you do not need to use this opposite Hermite--Hadamard inequality :) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 3:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Extremely clever! Seems like this trick with presenting the sum as an approximation of an integral is an instance of some powerful general method, is there such a thing? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 5:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I consider generating functions as Riemann sums along geometric progressions every day. For example, this allows to get maybe the shortest proof of partition asymptotics $\log p(n)\leq 2\sqrt{\zeta(2) n}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 5:55
11
$\begingroup$

The inequality is equivalent to $$S := (x^2+1)g(x) + x(x^2-1)g'(x) > 0.$$ The left hand side here can be expanded to $$S = \sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{(x^2+1)(x^{2k+1}+1) - (2k+1)x^{2k+1}(x^2-1)}{(x^{2k+1}+1)^2} $$ $$= \sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{(x^2+1) - (2k+1)(x^2-1)}{x^{2k+1}+1} + \sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{(2k+1)(x^2-1)}{(x^{2k+1}+1)^2}.$$

Now, the first sum here simplifies to $$\sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{(x^2+1) - (2k+1)(x^2-1)}{x^{2k+1}+1} = \sum_{k\geq 0} \frac{(2k+2)-2k x^2}{x^{2k+1}+1}$$ $$=\sum_{k\geq 1} \left( \frac{2k}{x^{2k-1}+1} - \frac{2k x^2}{x^{2k+1}+1}\right)=(1-x^2)\sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{2k}{(x^{2k-1}+1)(x^{2k+1}+1)}.$$ Hence $$\frac{S}{x^2-1} = \sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{2k+1}{(x^{2k+1}+1)^2} - \sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{2k}{(x^{2k-1}+1)(x^{2k+1}+1)}$$ $$\geq \sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{2k+1}{(x^{2k+1}+1)^2} - \sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{2k}{(x^{2k}+1)^2} = \sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}k}{(x^{k}+1)^2}.$$ Here we used AM-GM inequality $x^{2k-1}+x^{2k+1}\geq 2x^{2k}$ and thus $$(x^{2k-1}+1)(x^{2k+1}+1)=x^{4k}+x^{2k+1}+x^{2k-1}+1\geq (x^{2k}+1)^2.$$ So it remains to prove that for $x>1$, $$\sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}k}{(x^{k}+1)^2} > 0.\qquad(\star)$$

UPDATE #1. Substituting $x=e^{2t}$, we have $$\sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}k}{(x^{k}+1)^2} = \sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}ke^{-2tk}}{4 \cosh(tk)^2} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{k\geq 1} (-1)^{k-1}ke^{-2tk}(1-\tanh(tk)^2)$$ $$ = \frac{e^{2t}}{4(e^{2t}+1)^2} - \frac{1}{4}\sum_{k\geq 1} (-1)^{k-1}ke^{-2tk} \tanh(tk)^2.$$

UPDATE #2. The proof of $(\star)$ is given by Iosif Pinelis.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That last sum seems to rapidly approach $1/16$ as $x \to 1+$, e.g. in GP $$ $$ plot(x=1.001,2,suminf(k=1,(-1)^(k-1)*k/(x^k+1)^2) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ @NoamD.Elkies: The limit at $x\to 1^+$ can be easily seen from the UPDATE#1. Although I've not yet completed the proof of the original statement, it seems to be close. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ I do accept your answer (of course in addition with final steps made by Iosif) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 3:53
10
$\begingroup$

Writing $k=\sum_{j=1}^k 1$ and then summing by parts, one has $$\sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}k}{(x^{k}+1)^2} =\sum_{j\ge 1}(-1)^{j-1}s_j =\sum_{k\ge0}[s_{2k+1}-s_{2k+2}], $$ where $$s_j:=\sum_{k=j}^\infty(-1)^{k-j} a(k)=\sum_{m\ge0}(-1)^m a(m+j) =\sum_{k\ge0}[a(2k+j)-a(2k+1+j)] $$ and $a(q):=\dfrac1{(x^q+1)^2}$. So, $$s_j-s_{j+1}=\sum_{k\ge0}[a(2k+j)-2a(2k+1+j)+a(2k+2+j)]>0, $$ since $a''>0$ and hence $a$ is strictly convex. So, $\sum_{k\geq 1} \dfrac{(-1)^{k-1}k}{(x^{k}+1)^2}>0$, and the result follows by Max Alekseyev's answer.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Great! By the same argument, $\sum_{k\geq 1} (-1)^{k-1} k f(k)$ is positive for any positive convex function $f(k)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 1:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right. Also, I think that iterating this argument one can show that, if $f$ has a higher-order convexity property, then instead of the factor $k$ one can use a polynomial in $k$ of the corresponding degree. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 2:01
3
$\begingroup$

Now I found \begin{align*}\frac{S}{x^2-1}& = \sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{2k+1}{(x^{2k+1}+1)^2} - \sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{2k}{(x^{2k-1}+1)(x^{2k+1}+1)}\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}k\left(\dfrac{1}{x^{2k-1}+1}-\dfrac{1}{x^{2k+1}+1}\right)^2\\ &\ge 0 \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Nice observation! The idea of using two consecutive terms of the sum is amazing which, I believe, it first appeared in Fedor Petrov’s answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2024 at 14:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.