∑∣akbk∣≤∥a∥p∥b∥q (p1+q1=1) — Cauchy–Schwarz is the case p=q=2. Proved via Young's inequality.
k=1∑n∣akbk∣≤(k=1∑n∣ak∣p)1/p(k=1∑n∣bk∣q)1/q
ab≤pap+qbq(Young)
Examples & Exercises
For conjugate exponents 1/p+1/q=1 (1<p,q<∞), prove Young's inequality ab≤pap+qbq (a,b≥0) completely, using the concavity of log.
ab≤pap+qbq,equality⟺ap=bq
p=2, n=8: Young's inequality feeds each term akbk≤2ak2+2bk2, and summing gives Hölder (Cauchy–Schwarz).Show proof
If a=0 or b=0 both sides are trivial (0≤ the right side), so take a,b>0. Then ab=exp(loga+logb)=exp(p1log(ap)+q1log(bq)). Since log is concave, the weighted Jensen inequality log(pX+qY)≥p1logX+q1logY (X,Y>0) holds.
With X=ap, Y=bq this gives p1log(ap)+q1log(bq)≤log(pap+qbq). Applying the monotone exp to both sides, exp(p1log(ap)+q1log(bq))=ab≤pap+qbq — Young's inequality proved.
Equality case: log is strictly concave, so Jensen gives equality only when X=Y, i.e. ap=bq. This equality condition becomes Hölder's equality case in problem 3 below.
Derive Hölder's inequality ∑k=1n∣akbk∣≤(∑∣ak∣p)1/p(∑∣bk∣q)1/q completely from Young's inequality by the normalization argument.
∑AkBk≤∑(pAkp+qBkq)=p1+q1=1
p=3 (q=1.5), n=8: left side H8≈2.7179, right side ≈4.245 — the gap is positive and the inequality holds.Show proof
If ∥a∥p=0 then every ak=0 and both sides are 0; likewise for ∥b∥q=0. So assume ∥a∥p,∥b∥q>0. Define the normalized sequences Ak=∣ak∣/∥a∥p, Bk=∣bk∣/∥b∥q; then ∑Akp=1 and ∑Bkq=1.
Apply Young's inequality to each k: AkBk≤pAkp+qBkq. Summing over k=1,…,n gives ∑AkBk≤p1∑Akp+q1∑Bkq=p1+q1=1.
Multiplying both sides by ∥a∥p∥b∥q gives ∑∣akbk∣=∥a∥p∥b∥q∑AkBk≤∥a∥p∥b∥q — Hölder's inequality proved. The case p=q=2 is Cauchy–Schwarz. Sliding p in the scene shows how this right side inflates and deflates.
Prove that equality in Hölder's inequality holds exactly when ∣ak∣p is proportional to ∣bk∣q: ∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q for all k and some constant C≥0.
equality in Ho¨lder⟺Akp=Bkq∀k⟺∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q
p=2, n=8: ak=1/k is not proportional to the constant sequence bk=1, so the gap is nonzero — showing why the equality condition fails.Show proof
In problem 2's proof the inequality happened in exactly one place: Young's inequality AkBk≤pAkp+qBkq applied to each term (its sum p1∑Akp+q1∑Bkq=1 is an identity). So equality overall holds if and only if Young's inequality is an equality for every k.
By problem 1's equality condition, this is equivalent to Akp=Bkq for every k. Unwinding Ak=∣ak∣/∥a∥p, Bk=∣bk∣/∥b∥q gives ∥a∥pp∣ak∣p=∥b∥qq∣bk∣q — i.e. ∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q with C=∥a∥pp/∥b∥qq≥0 independent of k.
The converse holds too: ∣ak∣p=C∣bk∣q gives Akp=Bkq after normalization, making every Young's inequality an equality. In the scene, ak=1/k is not constant, so with bk=1 the gap can never be 0 — the gap closing as p→1+ is a collapse of the right side itself, not proportionality.