January 16, 2024Just a test article to check if LaTeX formulas render properly.
Given that ex1−ax1=ex2−ax2=0, x1=x2, we are to prove:
x1+x2<34lna+2Define f(x)=ex−ax. Since f(x1)=f(x2)=0, we have x1−lnx1=lna and x2−lnx2=lna.
Define g(x)=x−lnx. Thus, g(x1)=g(x2)=lna. Since g′(x)=xx−1, g(x) is strictly decreasing on (0,1) and strictly increasing on (1,+∞). Without loss of generality, assume 0<x1<1<x2.
Substituting lna=x1−lnx1 into the target inequality, we transform it into:
x2<3x1−4lnx1+2Define h(x)=3x−4lnx+2. For x∈(0,1), h′(x)=3xx−4<0. Since h(x) is strictly decreasing on (0,1), h(x1)>h(1)=1. Because x2>1, h(x1)>1, and g(x) is strictly increasing on (1,+∞), the inequality is equivalent to:
x1−lnx1<g(3x1−4lnx1+2)Define F(x)=g(3x−4lnx+2)−(x−lnx) for x∈(0,1). Computing the derivative yields:
F′(x)=3x(x−4lnx+2)−2M(x)where M(x)=x2+4x−2(2x+1)lnx−5.
For M(x) on (0,1):
M′(x)=2x−4lnx−x2 M′′(x)=x22(x−1)2≥0Since M′′(x)≥0, M′(x) is strictly increasing. With limx→1−M′(x)=0, we have M′(x)<0. Thus, M(x) is strictly decreasing. With limx→1−M(x)=0, we have M(x)>0.
Because M(x)>0 on (0,1), it follows that F′(x)<0. F(x) is strictly decreasing on (0,1). Since limx→1−F(x)=0, F(x)>0 for all x∈(0,1).
Therefore, the equivalent inequality holds:
3x1−4lnx1+2>x2Substituting −4lnx1=4(lna−x1):
34lna−3x1+2>x2 x1+x2<34lna+2