Intuition behind how the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality's proof was obtainedCauchy-Schwarz inequality proof (but not the usual one)Please explain the intuition behind the dual problem in optimization.Intuition on fundamental theorem of arithmeticWhat is the “distance from the nearest integer”? (is that a kind of norm?)Intuition behind the derivative of dirac delta functionIntuition behind the proof of the Inverse Fourier Transform?What is meant in the quotation of Terry Tao?Is it usual to have no intuition to certain proofs and simply do them mechanically?Intuition behind the formula for $sum i^2$Idea behind the proof of Whitehead's Theorem and Compression LemmaGeometric interpretation of Hölder's inequality
Transformation of random variables and joint distributions
Query about absorption line spectra
Hot bath for aluminium engine block and heads
About a little hole in Z'ha'dum
Why has "pence" been used in this sentence, not "pences"?
Is it improper etiquette to ask your opponent what his/her rating is before the game?
How must one send away the mother bird?
Diode in opposite direction?
Proving a function is onto where f(x)=|x|.
Is XSS in canonical link possible?
How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
Bob has never been a M before
Have I saved too much for retirement so far?
How to color a curve
How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?
Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?
Engineer refusing to file/disclose patents
What is the grammatical term for “‑ed” words like these?
What's the difference between 違法 and 不法?
Create all possible words using a set or letters
How to decide convergence of Integrals
Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?
Do the concepts of IP address and network interface not belong to the same layer?
Intuition behind how the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality's proof was obtained
Cauchy-Schwarz inequality proof (but not the usual one)Please explain the intuition behind the dual problem in optimization.Intuition on fundamental theorem of arithmeticWhat is the “distance from the nearest integer”? (is that a kind of norm?)Intuition behind the derivative of dirac delta functionIntuition behind the proof of the Inverse Fourier Transform?What is meant in the quotation of Terry Tao?Is it usual to have no intuition to certain proofs and simply do them mechanically?Intuition behind the formula for $sum i^2$Idea behind the proof of Whitehead's Theorem and Compression LemmaGeometric interpretation of Hölder's inequality
$begingroup$
I'm studying multivariable calculus. Usually, when I study, I go through a book until I find a theorem, and then try to prove it. I was unable to, so I read the proof, which is the following:
Let $x, y in mathbbR^m, alpha in mathbbR$. Then $(x+alpha
y)bullet(x+alpha y) = vert vert x+alpha yvertvert^2 geq0$.
Using the properties a the inner product we get:
$(x+alpha y)bullet(x+alpha y) = xbullet x+alpha xbullet y +
alpha ybullet x + alpha^2ybullet y
= vertvert xvertvert^2+2(xbullet y)alpha + alpha²vertvert yvertvert^2 geq 0$.
That last inequality is true iff the discriminant of the polynomial with respect to
$alpha$ is less than or equal to 0. Therefore $vert
xbullet yvert - vert vert xvertvert²vertvert yvertvert^2
leq 0$, from which comes the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Q.E.D
I can follow every step of the proof. I also get the intuition of why the inequality should be true. However, the proof seems "empty" to me. I don't understand what someone who wanted to prove this would do to find it. What's the intuition behind using $x+alpha y$?
The reason I ask this is because, after I read the proof, the way used to prove it was so beyond everything that I tried, that I am almost sure that I'd never be able to prove this on my own. How to deal with these kind of situations?
multivariable-calculus soft-question intuition
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm studying multivariable calculus. Usually, when I study, I go through a book until I find a theorem, and then try to prove it. I was unable to, so I read the proof, which is the following:
Let $x, y in mathbbR^m, alpha in mathbbR$. Then $(x+alpha
y)bullet(x+alpha y) = vert vert x+alpha yvertvert^2 geq0$.
Using the properties a the inner product we get:
$(x+alpha y)bullet(x+alpha y) = xbullet x+alpha xbullet y +
alpha ybullet x + alpha^2ybullet y
= vertvert xvertvert^2+2(xbullet y)alpha + alpha²vertvert yvertvert^2 geq 0$.
That last inequality is true iff the discriminant of the polynomial with respect to
$alpha$ is less than or equal to 0. Therefore $vert
xbullet yvert - vert vert xvertvert²vertvert yvertvert^2
leq 0$, from which comes the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Q.E.D
I can follow every step of the proof. I also get the intuition of why the inequality should be true. However, the proof seems "empty" to me. I don't understand what someone who wanted to prove this would do to find it. What's the intuition behind using $x+alpha y$?
The reason I ask this is because, after I read the proof, the way used to prove it was so beyond everything that I tried, that I am almost sure that I'd never be able to prove this on my own. How to deal with these kind of situations?
multivariable-calculus soft-question intuition
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Cauchy-schwarz boils down to the fact that, if you project one vector onto the other, the square of the length of the perpendicular component is greater than or equal to $0$, see my answer here.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm studying multivariable calculus. Usually, when I study, I go through a book until I find a theorem, and then try to prove it. I was unable to, so I read the proof, which is the following:
Let $x, y in mathbbR^m, alpha in mathbbR$. Then $(x+alpha
y)bullet(x+alpha y) = vert vert x+alpha yvertvert^2 geq0$.
Using the properties a the inner product we get:
$(x+alpha y)bullet(x+alpha y) = xbullet x+alpha xbullet y +
alpha ybullet x + alpha^2ybullet y
= vertvert xvertvert^2+2(xbullet y)alpha + alpha²vertvert yvertvert^2 geq 0$.
That last inequality is true iff the discriminant of the polynomial with respect to
$alpha$ is less than or equal to 0. Therefore $vert
xbullet yvert - vert vert xvertvert²vertvert yvertvert^2
leq 0$, from which comes the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Q.E.D
I can follow every step of the proof. I also get the intuition of why the inequality should be true. However, the proof seems "empty" to me. I don't understand what someone who wanted to prove this would do to find it. What's the intuition behind using $x+alpha y$?
The reason I ask this is because, after I read the proof, the way used to prove it was so beyond everything that I tried, that I am almost sure that I'd never be able to prove this on my own. How to deal with these kind of situations?
multivariable-calculus soft-question intuition
$endgroup$
I'm studying multivariable calculus. Usually, when I study, I go through a book until I find a theorem, and then try to prove it. I was unable to, so I read the proof, which is the following:
Let $x, y in mathbbR^m, alpha in mathbbR$. Then $(x+alpha
y)bullet(x+alpha y) = vert vert x+alpha yvertvert^2 geq0$.
Using the properties a the inner product we get:
$(x+alpha y)bullet(x+alpha y) = xbullet x+alpha xbullet y +
alpha ybullet x + alpha^2ybullet y
= vertvert xvertvert^2+2(xbullet y)alpha + alpha²vertvert yvertvert^2 geq 0$.
That last inequality is true iff the discriminant of the polynomial with respect to
$alpha$ is less than or equal to 0. Therefore $vert
xbullet yvert - vert vert xvertvert²vertvert yvertvert^2
leq 0$, from which comes the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Q.E.D
I can follow every step of the proof. I also get the intuition of why the inequality should be true. However, the proof seems "empty" to me. I don't understand what someone who wanted to prove this would do to find it. What's the intuition behind using $x+alpha y$?
The reason I ask this is because, after I read the proof, the way used to prove it was so beyond everything that I tried, that I am almost sure that I'd never be able to prove this on my own. How to deal with these kind of situations?
multivariable-calculus soft-question intuition
multivariable-calculus soft-question intuition
edited yesterday
YuiTo Cheng
2,1212837
2,1212837
asked yesterday
RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇORUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
744
744
2
$begingroup$
Cauchy-schwarz boils down to the fact that, if you project one vector onto the other, the square of the length of the perpendicular component is greater than or equal to $0$, see my answer here.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
yesterday
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Cauchy-schwarz boils down to the fact that, if you project one vector onto the other, the square of the length of the perpendicular component is greater than or equal to $0$, see my answer here.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
Cauchy-schwarz boils down to the fact that, if you project one vector onto the other, the square of the length of the perpendicular component is greater than or equal to $0$, see my answer here.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
yesterday
$begingroup$
Cauchy-schwarz boils down to the fact that, if you project one vector onto the other, the square of the length of the perpendicular component is greater than or equal to $0$, see my answer here.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Proving theorems about general vector spaces, or general inner product spaces, can begin by considering a familiar $2$- or $3$-dimensional space. But then you need to abstract the intuition so it's pure algebra, now diagrams required. So your question comes down to what sort of preamble may have helped here.
If you think about vectors in a space you can visualise, all the theorem says is that the angle $theta$ between two vectors satisfies $-1lecosthetale 1$, which by the cosine rule is equivalent to the triangle inequality. Since the cosine rule can be stated in terms of dot products, it makes sense to see what you learn from one more equivalent result, $Vert x-yVert^2ge 0$.
But $Vert x-alpha yVert^2ge 0$ is a natural generalisation, and connects the issue to extremising quadratics, with the extremum giving us the most inequality we can get. And we don't need to think about a specific vector space to use $Vert vVert^2ge 0$, so it's a general starting point.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know about anybody else, but I share your dissatisfaction with the standard slick proof, and I personally find it helpful to think instead of expressing $x$ as a sum of a multiple of $y$ and a vector orthogonal to $y$. This kind of resolution of a vector into two mutually orthogonal components is a common and natural operation.
If $lambda$ is real, then $x - lambda y$ is orthogonal to $y$ if and only if (in your notation) $(x - lambda y) bullet y = 0$, i.e.,
$$
lambda |y|^2 = x bullet y.
$$
For any value of $lambda$ satisfying that condition ($lambda$ may be chosen arbitrarily if $y = 0$, and there is a unique solution for $lambda$ if $y ne 0$), write $u = x - lambda y$ and $v = lambda y$, so that $x = u + v$ and $u bullet v = 0$. Then:
beginalign*
|x|^2 & = (u + v) bullet (u + v) \
& = u bullet u + 2u bullet v + v bullet v \
& = |u|^2 + |v|^2 \
& geqslant |v|^2.
endalign*
Therefore, using the definitions of $v$ and $lambda$:
$$
|x|^2|y|^2 geqslant |v|^2|y|^2 = lambda^2|y|^4 = (x bullet y)^2 = |x bullet y|^2,
$$
and the result follows. So the selection of the value $-lambda$ for $alpha$ does make some intuitive sense (to me, at least).
You could arrive at this value of $alpha$ less intuitively by "completing the square" in the expression you derived for $|x + alpha y|^2$, thus, multiplying by $|y|^2$, to avoid a possible division by zero:
beginalign*
|x + alpha y|^2|y|^2 & = |x|^2|y|^2 + 2(x bullet y)alpha|y|^2 + alpha^2|y|^4 \
& = (alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y)^2 + |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2 \
& = |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2,
endalign*
if
$$alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y = 0.
$$
So the proof you quoted can be seen as the proof by resolution into orthogonal components in heavy disguise.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3159210%2fintuition-behind-how-the-cauchy-schwarz-inequalitys-proof-was-obtained%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Proving theorems about general vector spaces, or general inner product spaces, can begin by considering a familiar $2$- or $3$-dimensional space. But then you need to abstract the intuition so it's pure algebra, now diagrams required. So your question comes down to what sort of preamble may have helped here.
If you think about vectors in a space you can visualise, all the theorem says is that the angle $theta$ between two vectors satisfies $-1lecosthetale 1$, which by the cosine rule is equivalent to the triangle inequality. Since the cosine rule can be stated in terms of dot products, it makes sense to see what you learn from one more equivalent result, $Vert x-yVert^2ge 0$.
But $Vert x-alpha yVert^2ge 0$ is a natural generalisation, and connects the issue to extremising quadratics, with the extremum giving us the most inequality we can get. And we don't need to think about a specific vector space to use $Vert vVert^2ge 0$, so it's a general starting point.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proving theorems about general vector spaces, or general inner product spaces, can begin by considering a familiar $2$- or $3$-dimensional space. But then you need to abstract the intuition so it's pure algebra, now diagrams required. So your question comes down to what sort of preamble may have helped here.
If you think about vectors in a space you can visualise, all the theorem says is that the angle $theta$ between two vectors satisfies $-1lecosthetale 1$, which by the cosine rule is equivalent to the triangle inequality. Since the cosine rule can be stated in terms of dot products, it makes sense to see what you learn from one more equivalent result, $Vert x-yVert^2ge 0$.
But $Vert x-alpha yVert^2ge 0$ is a natural generalisation, and connects the issue to extremising quadratics, with the extremum giving us the most inequality we can get. And we don't need to think about a specific vector space to use $Vert vVert^2ge 0$, so it's a general starting point.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proving theorems about general vector spaces, or general inner product spaces, can begin by considering a familiar $2$- or $3$-dimensional space. But then you need to abstract the intuition so it's pure algebra, now diagrams required. So your question comes down to what sort of preamble may have helped here.
If you think about vectors in a space you can visualise, all the theorem says is that the angle $theta$ between two vectors satisfies $-1lecosthetale 1$, which by the cosine rule is equivalent to the triangle inequality. Since the cosine rule can be stated in terms of dot products, it makes sense to see what you learn from one more equivalent result, $Vert x-yVert^2ge 0$.
But $Vert x-alpha yVert^2ge 0$ is a natural generalisation, and connects the issue to extremising quadratics, with the extremum giving us the most inequality we can get. And we don't need to think about a specific vector space to use $Vert vVert^2ge 0$, so it's a general starting point.
$endgroup$
Proving theorems about general vector spaces, or general inner product spaces, can begin by considering a familiar $2$- or $3$-dimensional space. But then you need to abstract the intuition so it's pure algebra, now diagrams required. So your question comes down to what sort of preamble may have helped here.
If you think about vectors in a space you can visualise, all the theorem says is that the angle $theta$ between two vectors satisfies $-1lecosthetale 1$, which by the cosine rule is equivalent to the triangle inequality. Since the cosine rule can be stated in terms of dot products, it makes sense to see what you learn from one more equivalent result, $Vert x-yVert^2ge 0$.
But $Vert x-alpha yVert^2ge 0$ is a natural generalisation, and connects the issue to extremising quadratics, with the extremum giving us the most inequality we can get. And we don't need to think about a specific vector space to use $Vert vVert^2ge 0$, so it's a general starting point.
answered yesterday
J.G.J.G.
31.8k23250
31.8k23250
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
$begingroup$
Wouldn't any real angle $theta$ satisfy $-1 leq cos theta leq 1$ ? I'm not very familiar with cosine rule or geometric proofs though
$endgroup$
– RUBEN GONÇALO MOROUÇO
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
$begingroup$
@RUBENGONÇALOMOROUÇO It would, yes. One could argue that knowing that is equivalent to knowing every other theorem mentioned herein.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know about anybody else, but I share your dissatisfaction with the standard slick proof, and I personally find it helpful to think instead of expressing $x$ as a sum of a multiple of $y$ and a vector orthogonal to $y$. This kind of resolution of a vector into two mutually orthogonal components is a common and natural operation.
If $lambda$ is real, then $x - lambda y$ is orthogonal to $y$ if and only if (in your notation) $(x - lambda y) bullet y = 0$, i.e.,
$$
lambda |y|^2 = x bullet y.
$$
For any value of $lambda$ satisfying that condition ($lambda$ may be chosen arbitrarily if $y = 0$, and there is a unique solution for $lambda$ if $y ne 0$), write $u = x - lambda y$ and $v = lambda y$, so that $x = u + v$ and $u bullet v = 0$. Then:
beginalign*
|x|^2 & = (u + v) bullet (u + v) \
& = u bullet u + 2u bullet v + v bullet v \
& = |u|^2 + |v|^2 \
& geqslant |v|^2.
endalign*
Therefore, using the definitions of $v$ and $lambda$:
$$
|x|^2|y|^2 geqslant |v|^2|y|^2 = lambda^2|y|^4 = (x bullet y)^2 = |x bullet y|^2,
$$
and the result follows. So the selection of the value $-lambda$ for $alpha$ does make some intuitive sense (to me, at least).
You could arrive at this value of $alpha$ less intuitively by "completing the square" in the expression you derived for $|x + alpha y|^2$, thus, multiplying by $|y|^2$, to avoid a possible division by zero:
beginalign*
|x + alpha y|^2|y|^2 & = |x|^2|y|^2 + 2(x bullet y)alpha|y|^2 + alpha^2|y|^4 \
& = (alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y)^2 + |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2 \
& = |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2,
endalign*
if
$$alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y = 0.
$$
So the proof you quoted can be seen as the proof by resolution into orthogonal components in heavy disguise.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know about anybody else, but I share your dissatisfaction with the standard slick proof, and I personally find it helpful to think instead of expressing $x$ as a sum of a multiple of $y$ and a vector orthogonal to $y$. This kind of resolution of a vector into two mutually orthogonal components is a common and natural operation.
If $lambda$ is real, then $x - lambda y$ is orthogonal to $y$ if and only if (in your notation) $(x - lambda y) bullet y = 0$, i.e.,
$$
lambda |y|^2 = x bullet y.
$$
For any value of $lambda$ satisfying that condition ($lambda$ may be chosen arbitrarily if $y = 0$, and there is a unique solution for $lambda$ if $y ne 0$), write $u = x - lambda y$ and $v = lambda y$, so that $x = u + v$ and $u bullet v = 0$. Then:
beginalign*
|x|^2 & = (u + v) bullet (u + v) \
& = u bullet u + 2u bullet v + v bullet v \
& = |u|^2 + |v|^2 \
& geqslant |v|^2.
endalign*
Therefore, using the definitions of $v$ and $lambda$:
$$
|x|^2|y|^2 geqslant |v|^2|y|^2 = lambda^2|y|^4 = (x bullet y)^2 = |x bullet y|^2,
$$
and the result follows. So the selection of the value $-lambda$ for $alpha$ does make some intuitive sense (to me, at least).
You could arrive at this value of $alpha$ less intuitively by "completing the square" in the expression you derived for $|x + alpha y|^2$, thus, multiplying by $|y|^2$, to avoid a possible division by zero:
beginalign*
|x + alpha y|^2|y|^2 & = |x|^2|y|^2 + 2(x bullet y)alpha|y|^2 + alpha^2|y|^4 \
& = (alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y)^2 + |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2 \
& = |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2,
endalign*
if
$$alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y = 0.
$$
So the proof you quoted can be seen as the proof by resolution into orthogonal components in heavy disguise.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know about anybody else, but I share your dissatisfaction with the standard slick proof, and I personally find it helpful to think instead of expressing $x$ as a sum of a multiple of $y$ and a vector orthogonal to $y$. This kind of resolution of a vector into two mutually orthogonal components is a common and natural operation.
If $lambda$ is real, then $x - lambda y$ is orthogonal to $y$ if and only if (in your notation) $(x - lambda y) bullet y = 0$, i.e.,
$$
lambda |y|^2 = x bullet y.
$$
For any value of $lambda$ satisfying that condition ($lambda$ may be chosen arbitrarily if $y = 0$, and there is a unique solution for $lambda$ if $y ne 0$), write $u = x - lambda y$ and $v = lambda y$, so that $x = u + v$ and $u bullet v = 0$. Then:
beginalign*
|x|^2 & = (u + v) bullet (u + v) \
& = u bullet u + 2u bullet v + v bullet v \
& = |u|^2 + |v|^2 \
& geqslant |v|^2.
endalign*
Therefore, using the definitions of $v$ and $lambda$:
$$
|x|^2|y|^2 geqslant |v|^2|y|^2 = lambda^2|y|^4 = (x bullet y)^2 = |x bullet y|^2,
$$
and the result follows. So the selection of the value $-lambda$ for $alpha$ does make some intuitive sense (to me, at least).
You could arrive at this value of $alpha$ less intuitively by "completing the square" in the expression you derived for $|x + alpha y|^2$, thus, multiplying by $|y|^2$, to avoid a possible division by zero:
beginalign*
|x + alpha y|^2|y|^2 & = |x|^2|y|^2 + 2(x bullet y)alpha|y|^2 + alpha^2|y|^4 \
& = (alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y)^2 + |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2 \
& = |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2,
endalign*
if
$$alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y = 0.
$$
So the proof you quoted can be seen as the proof by resolution into orthogonal components in heavy disguise.
$endgroup$
I don't know about anybody else, but I share your dissatisfaction with the standard slick proof, and I personally find it helpful to think instead of expressing $x$ as a sum of a multiple of $y$ and a vector orthogonal to $y$. This kind of resolution of a vector into two mutually orthogonal components is a common and natural operation.
If $lambda$ is real, then $x - lambda y$ is orthogonal to $y$ if and only if (in your notation) $(x - lambda y) bullet y = 0$, i.e.,
$$
lambda |y|^2 = x bullet y.
$$
For any value of $lambda$ satisfying that condition ($lambda$ may be chosen arbitrarily if $y = 0$, and there is a unique solution for $lambda$ if $y ne 0$), write $u = x - lambda y$ and $v = lambda y$, so that $x = u + v$ and $u bullet v = 0$. Then:
beginalign*
|x|^2 & = (u + v) bullet (u + v) \
& = u bullet u + 2u bullet v + v bullet v \
& = |u|^2 + |v|^2 \
& geqslant |v|^2.
endalign*
Therefore, using the definitions of $v$ and $lambda$:
$$
|x|^2|y|^2 geqslant |v|^2|y|^2 = lambda^2|y|^4 = (x bullet y)^2 = |x bullet y|^2,
$$
and the result follows. So the selection of the value $-lambda$ for $alpha$ does make some intuitive sense (to me, at least).
You could arrive at this value of $alpha$ less intuitively by "completing the square" in the expression you derived for $|x + alpha y|^2$, thus, multiplying by $|y|^2$, to avoid a possible division by zero:
beginalign*
|x + alpha y|^2|y|^2 & = |x|^2|y|^2 + 2(x bullet y)alpha|y|^2 + alpha^2|y|^4 \
& = (alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y)^2 + |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2 \
& = |x|^2|y|^2 - (x bullet y)^2,
endalign*
if
$$alpha|y|^2 + x bullet y = 0.
$$
So the proof you quoted can be seen as the proof by resolution into orthogonal components in heavy disguise.
answered yesterday
Calum GilhooleyCalum Gilhooley
5,064630
5,064630
1
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
(+1) for this approach
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
$begingroup$
One can argue more directly that $|x-lambda y|^2=(x-lambda y)bullet x=|x|^2-lambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2geqslantlambda(xbullet y)$, therefore $|x|^2|y|^2geqslantlambda|y|^2(xbullet y)=(xbullet y)^2$; but this loses the nice intuition of Pythagoras's theorem, and its direct corollary that the projection of $x$ on $y$ is shorter than $x$ (although this can be recovered by writing $lambda(xbullet y)$ as $lambda^2|b|^2=|lambda b|^2$); and the proof veers towards being, once again, "slick" and unmemorable - which is why I forgot having once done it this way!
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3159210%2fintuition-behind-how-the-cauchy-schwarz-inequalitys-proof-was-obtained%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
$begingroup$
Cauchy-schwarz boils down to the fact that, if you project one vector onto the other, the square of the length of the perpendicular component is greater than or equal to $0$, see my answer here.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
yesterday