How to show negative entropy function $f(x)=xlog(x)$ is strongly convex?












1












$begingroup$


Let $f: mathbb{R}_+ rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $f(x)=xlog(x)$. How to show it is strongly convex, i.e.,



Definition: Let $f: mathbb{R}^n rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be differentiable. Then $f$ is strongly convex if $exists$ a positive constant $alpha > 0$ such that
$$
langle nabla f(y) - nabla f(x),y-x rangle geq alpha||y-x||^2 ,,,,,,,,,forall x,y in mathbb{R}^n tag{1}
$$

Following $(1)$ we have $(y-x)log(frac{y}{x})geq alpha(y-x)^2
,,,,,
forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$
.



What $alpha$ satisfies the above and how we can handle the inequality $forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$ ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Why don't you calculate the second derivative?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    Jan 17 at 17:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Because I want to better understand the definition to proof the general case:math.stackexchange.com/questions/3055187/… and solve it.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 17:57












  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Also, the second derivative does not specify $alpha$. Actually, I do not know how to use this fact saying strongly convex implies $nabla^2f(x) succeq alpha I$ for this case to get $alpha$.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    The case $x=1,,y=1+z>0$ gives $frac{ln(1+z)}{z}gealpha$, which for sufficiently large $z>0$ contradicts any proposed $alpha>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 17 at 18:27










  • $begingroup$
    @J.G. : I think I should have assumed that $0 leq x leq 1$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:32
















1












$begingroup$


Let $f: mathbb{R}_+ rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $f(x)=xlog(x)$. How to show it is strongly convex, i.e.,



Definition: Let $f: mathbb{R}^n rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be differentiable. Then $f$ is strongly convex if $exists$ a positive constant $alpha > 0$ such that
$$
langle nabla f(y) - nabla f(x),y-x rangle geq alpha||y-x||^2 ,,,,,,,,,forall x,y in mathbb{R}^n tag{1}
$$

Following $(1)$ we have $(y-x)log(frac{y}{x})geq alpha(y-x)^2
,,,,,
forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$
.



What $alpha$ satisfies the above and how we can handle the inequality $forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$ ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Why don't you calculate the second derivative?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    Jan 17 at 17:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Because I want to better understand the definition to proof the general case:math.stackexchange.com/questions/3055187/… and solve it.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 17:57












  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Also, the second derivative does not specify $alpha$. Actually, I do not know how to use this fact saying strongly convex implies $nabla^2f(x) succeq alpha I$ for this case to get $alpha$.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    The case $x=1,,y=1+z>0$ gives $frac{ln(1+z)}{z}gealpha$, which for sufficiently large $z>0$ contradicts any proposed $alpha>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 17 at 18:27










  • $begingroup$
    @J.G. : I think I should have assumed that $0 leq x leq 1$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:32














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Let $f: mathbb{R}_+ rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $f(x)=xlog(x)$. How to show it is strongly convex, i.e.,



Definition: Let $f: mathbb{R}^n rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be differentiable. Then $f$ is strongly convex if $exists$ a positive constant $alpha > 0$ such that
$$
langle nabla f(y) - nabla f(x),y-x rangle geq alpha||y-x||^2 ,,,,,,,,,forall x,y in mathbb{R}^n tag{1}
$$

Following $(1)$ we have $(y-x)log(frac{y}{x})geq alpha(y-x)^2
,,,,,
forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$
.



What $alpha$ satisfies the above and how we can handle the inequality $forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$ ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $f: mathbb{R}_+ rightarrow mathbb{R}$ where $f(x)=xlog(x)$. How to show it is strongly convex, i.e.,



Definition: Let $f: mathbb{R}^n rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be differentiable. Then $f$ is strongly convex if $exists$ a positive constant $alpha > 0$ such that
$$
langle nabla f(y) - nabla f(x),y-x rangle geq alpha||y-x||^2 ,,,,,,,,,forall x,y in mathbb{R}^n tag{1}
$$

Following $(1)$ we have $(y-x)log(frac{y}{x})geq alpha(y-x)^2
,,,,,
forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$
.



What $alpha$ satisfies the above and how we can handle the inequality $forall x,y in mathbb{R}_+$ ?







inequality logarithms convex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 17 at 17:52









SaeedSaeed

1,005310




1,005310












  • $begingroup$
    Why don't you calculate the second derivative?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    Jan 17 at 17:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Because I want to better understand the definition to proof the general case:math.stackexchange.com/questions/3055187/… and solve it.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 17:57












  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Also, the second derivative does not specify $alpha$. Actually, I do not know how to use this fact saying strongly convex implies $nabla^2f(x) succeq alpha I$ for this case to get $alpha$.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    The case $x=1,,y=1+z>0$ gives $frac{ln(1+z)}{z}gealpha$, which for sufficiently large $z>0$ contradicts any proposed $alpha>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 17 at 18:27










  • $begingroup$
    @J.G. : I think I should have assumed that $0 leq x leq 1$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:32


















  • $begingroup$
    Why don't you calculate the second derivative?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    Jan 17 at 17:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Because I want to better understand the definition to proof the general case:math.stackexchange.com/questions/3055187/… and solve it.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 17:57












  • $begingroup$
    @Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Also, the second derivative does not specify $alpha$. Actually, I do not know how to use this fact saying strongly convex implies $nabla^2f(x) succeq alpha I$ for this case to get $alpha$.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    The case $x=1,,y=1+z>0$ gives $frac{ln(1+z)}{z}gealpha$, which for sufficiently large $z>0$ contradicts any proposed $alpha>0$.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 17 at 18:27










  • $begingroup$
    @J.G. : I think I should have assumed that $0 leq x leq 1$?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:32
















$begingroup$
Why don't you calculate the second derivative?
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
Jan 17 at 17:53




$begingroup$
Why don't you calculate the second derivative?
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
Jan 17 at 17:53












$begingroup$
@Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Because I want to better understand the definition to proof the general case:math.stackexchange.com/questions/3055187/… and solve it.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 17:57






$begingroup$
@Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Because I want to better understand the definition to proof the general case:math.stackexchange.com/questions/3055187/… and solve it.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 17:57














$begingroup$
@Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Also, the second derivative does not specify $alpha$. Actually, I do not know how to use this fact saying strongly convex implies $nabla^2f(x) succeq alpha I$ for this case to get $alpha$.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 18:01




$begingroup$
@Dr. Sonnhard Graubner : Also, the second derivative does not specify $alpha$. Actually, I do not know how to use this fact saying strongly convex implies $nabla^2f(x) succeq alpha I$ for this case to get $alpha$.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 18:01












$begingroup$
The case $x=1,,y=1+z>0$ gives $frac{ln(1+z)}{z}gealpha$, which for sufficiently large $z>0$ contradicts any proposed $alpha>0$.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 17 at 18:27




$begingroup$
The case $x=1,,y=1+z>0$ gives $frac{ln(1+z)}{z}gealpha$, which for sufficiently large $z>0$ contradicts any proposed $alpha>0$.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 17 at 18:27












$begingroup$
@J.G. : I think I should have assumed that $0 leq x leq 1$?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 18:32




$begingroup$
@J.G. : I think I should have assumed that $0 leq x leq 1$?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 18:32










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

We have $f'(x)=1+log(x)$. Strict convexity therefore means that there exists a strictly positive $alpha$ such that
$$[log(y)-log(x)](y-x)geqalpha(y-x)^2$$
holds. Without loss of generality I assume $y>x$. Then the above inequality requires that
$$log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x).$$
Although you don't state it, I assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ live on $(0,1)$ (because they are probabilities). Since the slope of the $log$ function on the interval $(0,1)$ is larger than or equal to 1, you can choose any positive $alpha$ smaller than 1.



If $x$ and $y$ live on a general bounded interval $(0,M)$, then the argument goes through with $alpha<1/M$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard S.
    Jan 17 at 19:27










  • $begingroup$
    Smart way of showing that.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 19:32











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3077287%2fhow-to-show-negative-entropy-function-fx-x-logx-is-strongly-convex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

We have $f'(x)=1+log(x)$. Strict convexity therefore means that there exists a strictly positive $alpha$ such that
$$[log(y)-log(x)](y-x)geqalpha(y-x)^2$$
holds. Without loss of generality I assume $y>x$. Then the above inequality requires that
$$log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x).$$
Although you don't state it, I assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ live on $(0,1)$ (because they are probabilities). Since the slope of the $log$ function on the interval $(0,1)$ is larger than or equal to 1, you can choose any positive $alpha$ smaller than 1.



If $x$ and $y$ live on a general bounded interval $(0,M)$, then the argument goes through with $alpha<1/M$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard S.
    Jan 17 at 19:27










  • $begingroup$
    Smart way of showing that.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 19:32
















2












$begingroup$

We have $f'(x)=1+log(x)$. Strict convexity therefore means that there exists a strictly positive $alpha$ such that
$$[log(y)-log(x)](y-x)geqalpha(y-x)^2$$
holds. Without loss of generality I assume $y>x$. Then the above inequality requires that
$$log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x).$$
Although you don't state it, I assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ live on $(0,1)$ (because they are probabilities). Since the slope of the $log$ function on the interval $(0,1)$ is larger than or equal to 1, you can choose any positive $alpha$ smaller than 1.



If $x$ and $y$ live on a general bounded interval $(0,M)$, then the argument goes through with $alpha<1/M$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard S.
    Jan 17 at 19:27










  • $begingroup$
    Smart way of showing that.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 19:32














2












2








2





$begingroup$

We have $f'(x)=1+log(x)$. Strict convexity therefore means that there exists a strictly positive $alpha$ such that
$$[log(y)-log(x)](y-x)geqalpha(y-x)^2$$
holds. Without loss of generality I assume $y>x$. Then the above inequality requires that
$$log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x).$$
Although you don't state it, I assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ live on $(0,1)$ (because they are probabilities). Since the slope of the $log$ function on the interval $(0,1)$ is larger than or equal to 1, you can choose any positive $alpha$ smaller than 1.



If $x$ and $y$ live on a general bounded interval $(0,M)$, then the argument goes through with $alpha<1/M$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



We have $f'(x)=1+log(x)$. Strict convexity therefore means that there exists a strictly positive $alpha$ such that
$$[log(y)-log(x)](y-x)geqalpha(y-x)^2$$
holds. Without loss of generality I assume $y>x$. Then the above inequality requires that
$$log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x).$$
Although you don't state it, I assume that the variables $x$ and $y$ live on $(0,1)$ (because they are probabilities). Since the slope of the $log$ function on the interval $(0,1)$ is larger than or equal to 1, you can choose any positive $alpha$ smaller than 1.



If $x$ and $y$ live on a general bounded interval $(0,M)$, then the argument goes through with $alpha<1/M$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 17 at 18:08

























answered Jan 17 at 18:03









Gerhard S.Gerhard S.

1,05029




1,05029












  • $begingroup$
    I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard S.
    Jan 17 at 19:27










  • $begingroup$
    Smart way of showing that.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 19:32


















  • $begingroup$
    I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    @Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard S.
    Jan 17 at 19:27










  • $begingroup$
    Smart way of showing that.
    $endgroup$
    – Saeed
    Jan 17 at 19:32
















$begingroup$
I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 18:53




$begingroup$
I understand the argument justifying $log(y)-log(x)geqalpha(y-x)$ but could you show it algebraically?
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 18:53












$begingroup$
@Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard S.
Jan 17 at 19:27




$begingroup$
@Saeed: $log$ is concave. Hence, $log(x)leqlog(y)+(1/y)(x-y)$. Since $1/ygeq1/M$, one gets $log(y)-log(x)geq(1/y)(y-x)geq(1/M)(y-x)$.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard S.
Jan 17 at 19:27












$begingroup$
Smart way of showing that.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 19:32




$begingroup$
Smart way of showing that.
$endgroup$
– Saeed
Jan 17 at 19:32


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3077287%2fhow-to-show-negative-entropy-function-fx-x-logx-is-strongly-convex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Mario Kart Wii

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese