3

It is shown in the post

Is this function on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ always positive?

that the modulus $|f|$ of the function $f:\mathbb{R}^{2} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{2} $ given by :

$$f(x):=\alpha\left( |x-y|^{\alpha-2}(x-y)-|x-z|^{\alpha-2}(x-z) \right)$$ where $\alpha >0,\alpha \neq 1$ is strictly positive when $y\neq z$.

I am trying to get a uniform lower bound of $|f|$ given that $|y-z|> 1$. By uniform I mean in uniform in $x$.

Any hints ?

Some thoughts: Let $t=x-y$. Denote $\eta=y-z$ so that $x-z=t+\eta$. Then it suffices to find a (uniform in $t$) lower bound for

$$g(t):=\left| |t|^{\alpha-2}t-|t+\eta|^{\alpha-2}(t+\eta) \right|$$

I had earlier attempted the bound $$\left| |t|^{\alpha-2}t-|t+\eta|^{\alpha-2}(t+\eta) \right|\geq \left| |t|^{\alpha-1}-|t+\eta|^{\alpha-1} \right|$$ but the latter is not bounded away from zero because (as @Calvin Khor pointed out) it attains zero at $t=-\eta/2$.

An update: When $x$ lies on the perpendicular bisector $L$ of $\overline{yz}$ we have $|f(x)|\geq \frac{1}{2^{\alpha-2}}|y-z|^{\alpha-1}$. Why? For every $x$ on the bisector we have $|x-y|=|x-z|$. Therefore, for any $x\in L$, $|f(x)|=|x-y|^{\alpha-2}|x-y-(x-z)|=|x-y|^{\alpha-2}|y-z|$. If $x$ is the midpoint of $\overline{yz}$ then $|x-y|=\frac{1}{2}|y-z|$. If $x \in L$ then $|x-y|>\frac{1}{2}|y-z|$,

Medo
  • 3,588
  • 14
  • 32
  • If $t=-\eta/2$ then $|t|^{\alpha-1} = |t+\eta|^{\alpha-1}$ – Calvin Khor Jul 25 '21 at 08:13
  • Yes. We lose too much if we use the triangle inequality here. So, I must go back to look at $||t|^{\alpha-2}t -|t+\eta|^{\alpha-2}(t+\eta)|$. – Medo Jul 25 '21 at 08:28
  • You know the reverse triangle inequality, $||a| - |b|| \leq |a - b|$ for all vectors $a$ and $b$...? – Andrew D. Hwang Jul 25 '21 at 14:47
  • @Andrew D. Hwang. Yes. It is not bounded below be a positive quantitity; it can attain zero. Read the comments of @ Calvin Khor and my reply above. – Medo Jul 25 '21 at 17:04
  • I suppose if you assume $|t-\eta/2|>c>0$ you can prove something with reverse triangle inequality, and then otherwise $|t-\eta/2|<c$ may be helpful. Related https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3508308/how-do-i-prove-this-well-known-inequality?noredirect=1&lq=1 (but presumably, not useful) – Calvin Khor Jul 26 '21 at 04:04
  • @Calvin Khor. Thanks. The post you shared is very interesting. Notice that we are dealing with vectors, so solving $|\eta|=|t+\eta|$ is a dilemma. We know that $t=-\eta/2$ belongs to the solution set. But it is certainly not the only solution (think about it geometrically). Any way, assuming that $|t-(-\eta/2)|=|t+\eta/2|>1$, how continue then ? – Medo Jul 26 '21 at 15:53
  • @Calvin Khor. Correction to my last comment : I meant solving $|t|=|t+\eta|$ for $t$... the solution is not unique... – Medo Jul 26 '21 at 16:15
  • yes, sorry my mistake as well. Of course what I meant was to avoid the zero set. If I get anything useful I will be back... – Calvin Khor Jul 26 '21 at 16:32
  • 1
    My idea (and the point of my first comment) was along Calvin's lines, to use the reverse triangle inequality away from the perpendicular bisector of the segment $\overline{yz}$ (where the summands have equal magnitude), and to use the fact the summands "point in the same direction" in the rectangular strip "between" $y$ and $z$. <> There may be a more elegant approach than I ended up finding, but the argument does not appear to be as straightforward as I initially thought. – Andrew D. Hwang Jul 26 '21 at 16:45

1 Answers1

1

tl; dr: The magnitude of the vector field $f$ is bounded below if and only if $2 \leq \alpha$.


As in the linked question, let's fix $\alpha > 0$ and write $$ F_{y}(x) = \alpha|x - y|^{\alpha-2}(x - y). $$ The vector field $F_{y}$ points radially away from $y$, and has magnitude $|F_{y}(x)| = \alpha|x - y|^{\alpha-1}$ that is constant on circles centered at $y$. The magnitude is monotone in the distance $|x - y|$, decreasing if $0 < \alpha < 1$ and increasing if $1 < \alpha$.

Since $f(x) = F_{y}(x) - F_{z}(x)$, the summands $F_{y}(x)$ and $-F_{z}(x)$ have equal magnitude on the perpendicular bisector of the segment $\overline{yz}$, where $|x - y| = |x - z|$.

Since $|f| > 0$ everywhere $f$ is defined (away from $y$ and $z$ for all $\alpha$, and everywhere in the plane if $1 < \alpha$) and the magnitude is continuous in $x$, the extreme value theorem guarantees there is a positive lower bound on $|f|$ if and only if there is a positive lower bound "at infinity". (If the field is undefined at $y$ and $z$, the magnitude is unbounded at these points.)


To proceed further, let's put $2c = |y - z|$ and choose Cartesian coordinates $(x_{1}, x_{2})$ so that $y = (-c, 0)$ and $z = (c, 0)$, so that $$ f(x_{1}, x_{2}) = \alpha[|(x_{1} + c, x_{2})|^{\alpha-2}(x_{1} + c, x_{2}) - |(x_{1} - c, x_{2})|^{\alpha-2}(x_{1} - c, x_{2})]. $$ Introducing the expressions \begin{align*} A_{m} &= |(x_{1} + c, x_{2})|^{\alpha-2} - |(x_{1} - c, x_{2})|^{\alpha-2}, \\ A_{p} &= |(x_{1} + c, x_{2})|^{\alpha-2} + |(x_{1} - c, x_{2})|^{\alpha-2}, \end{align*} we have $$ f(x) = \alpha(A_{m} x_{1} + A_{p} c, A_{m} x_{2}). $$

Along the perpendicular bisector, i.e., the line $x_{1} = 0$, we have $A_{m} = 0$ and $A_{p} = 2|c^{2} + x_{2}^{2}|^{(\alpha-2)/2}$, so $$ f(0, x_{2}) = 2c\alpha|c^{2} + x_{2}^{2}|^{(\alpha-2)/2}(1, 0). $$ If $0 < \alpha < 2$, the magnitude $|f(0, x_{2})| = 2c\alpha|c^{2} + x_{2}^{2}|^{(\alpha-2)/2}$ has no positive lower bound for real $x_{2}$, so a fortiori $|f(x)|$ has no positive lower bound in the plane.

If $\alpha = 2$, then $$ f(x_{1}, x_{2}) = \alpha[(x_{1} + c, x_{2}) - (x_{1} - c, x_{2})] = \alpha(2c, 0) $$ is constant as a vector field.

If $2 < \alpha$, the magnitude of each summand is convex. Qualitatively, we expect a positive lower bound on $|f|$ because:

  • If $x$ is near either ray on the line through $y$ and $z$, the summands have substantially different magnitude, so the reverse triangle inequality gives a positive lower bound;
  • If $x$ is near the perpendicular bisector, the preceding expression gives a positive lower bound;
  • If $x$ is elsewhere in the plane, the summands are not close to parallel, so their magnitudes do not cancel.

[Added: This outline is not how the estimate below proceeds, it's just offered as evidence that we should look for a positive lower bound if $2 < \alpha$. The estimate below is corrected and expanded; initially I expanded the power functions to first order, but the second order term is needed to obtain the stated accuracy.]

Again, we need only establish a positive lower bound for sufficiently large $|x|$. To this end, let's write, for $0 < p = \alpha - 2$ real and $|x|\gg 1$, \begin{align*} |(x_{1} \pm c, x_{2})|^{p} &= ((x_{1} \pm c)^{2} + x_{2}^{2})^{p/2} \\ &= (|x|^{2} \pm 2cx_{1} + c^{2})^{p/2} \\ &= |x|^{p}\, \Bigl|1 + \frac{\pm2cx_{1}+c^{2}}{|x|^{2}}\Bigr|^{p/2}. \end{align*} Setting \begin{align*} u &= \frac{\pm2cx_{1} + c^{2}}{|x|^{2}} = O\Bigl(\frac{1}{|x|}\Bigr), \\ u^{2} &= \frac{4c^{2}x_{1}^{2} \pm4c^{3}x_{1} + c^{4}}{|x|^{4}} = \frac{4c^{2}x_{1}^{2}}{|x|^{4}} + O\Bigl(\frac{1}{|x|^{3}}\Bigr) \end{align*} in the second-order Taylor approximation $$ (1 + u)^{p/2} = 1 + \tfrac{1}{2}pu + \tfrac{1}{8}p(p - 2)u^{2} + O(u^{3}), $$ we have $$ |(x_{1} \pm c, x_{2})|^{p} = |x|^{p}\, \Bigl[1 + \frac{p}{2}\, \frac{\pm2cx_{1}+c^{2}}{|x|^{2}} + \frac{p(p - 2)}{8}\, \frac{4c^{2} x_{1}^{2}}{|x|^{4}} + O\Bigl(\frac{1}{|x|^{3}}\Bigr)\Bigr]. $$ Substituting, and using the notation above, \begin{align*} A_{m} = |(x_{1} + c, x_{2})|^{p} - |(x_{1} - c, x_{2})|^{p} &= |x|^{p}\, \Bigl[\frac{2pcx_{1}}{|x|^{2}} + O\Bigl(\frac{1}{|x|^{3}}\Bigr)\Bigr], \\ A_{p} = |(x_{1} + c, x_{2})|^{p} + |(x_{1} - c, x_{2})|^{p} &= |x|^{p}\, \Bigl[2 + \frac{pc^{2}}{|x|^{2}}\Bigl(1 + \frac{(p - 2)x_{1}^{2}}{|x|^{2}}\Bigr) + O\Bigl(\frac{1}{|x|^{3}}\Bigr)\Bigr] \\ &= |x|^{p}\, \Bigl[2 + O\Bigl(\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\Bigr)\Bigr]. \end{align*} Thus, with $p = \alpha - 2 > 0$, \begin{align*} f(x) &= \alpha(A_{m} x_{1} + A_{p} c, A_{m} x_{2}) \\ &= \alpha|x|^{\alpha-2} \biggl(\frac{2pc x_{1}}{|x|^{2}} x_{1} + 2c + O\Bigr(\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\Bigr), \frac{2pc x_{1}}{|x|^{2}} x_{2} + O\Bigr(\frac{1}{|x|^{2}}\Bigr)\biggr). \end{align*} Modulo lower-order terms (i.e., in the limit as $|x| \to \infty$), the vector in parentheses has first component at least $2c$, so its magnitude is at least $2c$. Consequently $$ |f(x)| > c\alpha|x|^{\alpha-2} $$ for sufficiently large $|x|$.

[Added: Here is an extreme value theorem argument to show $|f|$ has a positive lower bound. The preceding estimate shows there exists an $R > 0$ such that

  • If $|x| > R$, then $|f(x)| > c\alpha|x|^{\alpha-2}$, and
  • $c\alpha R^{\alpha-2} > |f(0)|$.

By the extreme value theorem, the continuous, positive function $|f(x)|$ has a positive absolute minimum in the closed disk of radius $R$ about $0$. That is, there exists an $x_{0}$ with $|x_{0}| \leq R$ such that $|f(x)| \geq |f(x_{0})| > 0$ for all $x$ with $|x| \leq R$. Particularly, $|f(0)| \geq |f(x_{0})|$.

If instead $|x| > R$, then by the choice of $R$ we have $$ |f(x)| > c\alpha|x|^{\alpha-2} > c\alpha R^{\alpha-2} > |f(0)| \geq |f(x_{0})|. $$ We have therefore shown $|f(x)| \geq |f(x_{0})| > 0$ for all $x$ in the plane, i.e., that $|f(x)|$ has a positive lower bound.]

  • Thanks a lot for your answer. I am reading it now...It will take some time :) – Medo Jul 26 '21 at 16:56
  • I will post several questions to you. So, I beg your patience. You say "If x is near either ray on the line through y and z, the summands have substantially different magnitude, so the reverse triangle inequality gives a positive lower bound". Actaully the summands have equal magnitude when $x$ lies at the midpoint of $\bar{yz}$. – Medo Jul 26 '21 at 17:16
  • In the case $\alpha>2$. Why does it suffice to look at large $|x|$ ? – Medo Jul 26 '21 at 17:18
  • 1
    Agreed about your second comment: The summands have equal magnitudes along the perpendicular bisector of the segment $yz$, and have "maximally different" magnitudes along the two unbounded rays on the line through $y$ and $z$. (Right...? :) <> For the third, my apology for the sparse claim. This is effectively the extreme value theorem. Briefly, any function that grows without bound at infinity achieves an absolute minimum. Since we know $|f| > 0$ everywhere, the minimum value is strictly positive. – Andrew D. Hwang Jul 26 '21 at 19:58
  • 1
    On re-examination, I hadn't carried out the expansion of $(1 + u)^{p/2}$ far enough; that's fixed. Since an edit was already necessary, I added the claimed extreme value theorem argument. <> As G. H. Hardy says in the apocryphal story, coming back into the lecture hall covered in chalk, Yes, it's trivial. – Andrew D. Hwang Jul 28 '21 at 13:54