proof of equivalence of definitions of valuation


We will start with a lemma:

Lemma Let |⋅| be a valuationMathworldPlanetmath according to the definition of the parent entry with constant C≤2. Then |∑i=1nxi|≤2⁢n⁢maxi=1n⁡|xi|.

Proof:   We will start with the case where n is a power of two: n=2r We shall prove that |∑i=12rxi|≤2r⁢maxi=1n⁡|xi| by induction. The assertion is certainly true when n=2 by hypothesis. Assume that it also holds when n=2r-1. Then we have

|∑i=1nxi|=|∑i=12r-1xi+∑i=2r-1+12rxi|≤2⋅2r-1⁢maxi=12r-1⁡|xi|+2⋅2r-1⁢maxi=2r-1+12r⁡|xi|≤2⋅2r⁢maxi=12r⁡|xi|

To deal with the case where n is not a power of two, we shall pad the sum with zeros. That is to say, we shall define xi=0 when i>n. Let r be the greatest integer such that 2r≤n. Then 2⁢n>2r and we have

|∑i=1nxi|=|∑i=12rxi|≤2r⁢maxi=12r⁡|xi|≤2⁢n⁢maxi=1n⁡|xi|

Q.E.D.

Corollary Let |⋅| be a valuation according to the definition of the parent entry with constant C≤2. Then, if n is a positive integer, |n|<2⁢n.

Proof:   Write n=∑i=1n1. Then, by the lemma,

|n|=|∑i=1n1|<2⁢n⁢|1|

However, since |⋅| is a valuation |1|≠0 since 1≠0 and |1|=|1|⋅|1| so |1|=1, hence

|n|≤2⁢n.

Q.E.D.

Having established this lemma, we will now use it to prove the main theorem:

Theorem If |⋅| is a valuation according to the definition of the parent entry with constant C≤2, then |⋅| satisfies the identity

|x+y|≤|x|+|y|.

Proof:   Let n be a positive integer. Then we have

|x+y|n=|(x+y)n|=|∑m=0n(nm)⁢xm⁢yn-m|

Using the lemma, we can bound this:

|x+y|n≤2⁢(n+1)⁢maxm=0n⁡|(nm)⁢xm⁢yn-m|

Using the corollary to the lemma, we can bound the binomial coefficientMathworldPlanetmath to obtain

|x+y|n≤4⁢(n+1)⁢maxm=0n⁡(nm)⁢|x|m⁢|y|n-m

Using the obvious inequalityMathworldPlanetmath

maxm=0n⁡(nm)⁢|x|m⁢|y|n-m≤∑m=0n(nm)⁢|x|m⁢|y|n-m,

we obtain

|x+y|n≤∑m=0n4⁢(n+1)⁢(nm)⁢|x|m⁢|y|n-m=4⁢(n+1)⁢(|x|+|y|)n.

If either x=0 or y=0, then the theorem to be proven is trivial. If not, then |x|+|y|≠0 and we can divide by (|x|+|y|)n to obtain

(|x+y||x|+|y|)n≤4⁢(n+1)

By the theorem on the growth of exponential function, it follows that this inequality could not hold for all n unless

|x+y||x|+|y|≤1,

in other word, unless |x+y|≤|x|+|y|.

Q.E.D.

Title proof of equivalence of definitions of valuation
Canonical name ProofOfEquivalenceOfDefinitionsOfValuation
Date of creation 2013-03-22 14:56:00
Last modified on 2013-03-22 14:56:00
Owner rspuzio (6075)
Last modified by rspuzio (6075)
Numerical id 12
Author rspuzio (6075)
Entry type Proof
Classification msc 11R99
Classification msc 12J20
Classification msc 13A18
Classification msc 13F30