A trickier lower bound proof
[formalised mathematics
analysis
]
Last summer, I treated an example of reasoning about a function that contained a (removable) singularity. That post ended with a challenge: to do the same thing for a much trickier function. Last week, Alexander Pach responded with a solution, which I am delighted to present below.
A recap
The task last time was to find the minimum of xlnx for x≥0. Although strictly speaking it is undefined when x=0, it tends to 0 as x approaches 0 from above, and happily, 0 is the value Isabelle attaches to it anyway. We had to show the function’s continuity with separate proofs for the cases x=0 and x>0. We then obtained its derivative (for x strictly positive) and by elementary reasoning about its sign proved that the desired minimum was −1/e.
The challenge
The previous post suggested trying a similar experiment for xsin(1/x). This function also has a removable singularity at 0 and its continuity proof (in Isabelle) is the same as the one for xlnx. However, this function is a horror:
Its derivative, namely sin(1/x)−cos(1/x)/x, doesn’t look nice either. The lower bound does not appear to be expressible by a simple formula, so Alexander set up a framework for proving that a given number was a lower bound. He then calculated it to 78 decimal places!
-0.217233628211221657408279325562470734223044915435587482365449027714505343589063(39)
You can download his theory here.