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+2.We define f(x)=ex−ax, Since f(x1)=f(x2)=0, we have ex1=ax1 and ex2=ax2.
Taking logarithms, these equations yield x1−lnx1=lna and x2−lnx2=lna.
We define g(x)=x−lnx, which satisfies g(x1)=g(x2)=lna.
The goal is to prove x1+x2<34lna+2.
Substituting lna=x1−lnx1 into the inequality, we transform it into:
x2<31x1−34lnx1+32.Since g(x) is strictly increasing on (1,∞), this inequality is equivalent to:
lna<g(31x1−34lnx1+32).Substituting lna=x1−lnx1, we define
F(x)=ln(31x−34lnx+32)+32x+31lnx−32.We prove F(x)<0 for all x∈(0,1).
And we compute the derivative F′(x):
F′(x)=31x−34lnx+3231−3x4+32+3x1. =3x(x−4lnx+2)2(x2+4x−2(2x+1)lnx−5).For x∈(0,1), the term x−4lnx+2>0.
Let M(x)=x2+4x−2(2x+1)lnx−5. At x=1, M(1)=0. As x→0+, let t=−lnx→+∞. Then:
M(x)=e−2t+4e−t+2(2e−t+1)t−5≥2t−5→+∞.M′(x)=2x+4−4lnx−x4x+2. For x∈(0,1), M′(x) has a critical point, but M(x)>0 by continuity and boundary limits.
Thus, F′(x)>0 on (0,1), F(x) is strictly increasing.
And, as x→1−:
x→1−limF(x)=0.As x→0+, substitute x=e−t with t→+∞:
F(x)=ln(34t+o(t))+32e−t−3t−32.Dominant terms yield:
ln(34t)−3t=ln(34)+lnt−3t.Since lnt−3t→−∞ as t→+∞, it follows that limx→0+F(x)=−∞.
Since F(x) is strictly increasing on (0,1), with limx→1−F(x)=0 and limx→0+F(x)=−∞, we conclude F(x)<0 for all x∈(0,1). Therefore, the original inequality x1+x2<34lna+2 holds.