Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Show that (a) if \(\phi(0,0, \ldots, 0)=0\) and \(\phi(1,1, \ldots, 1)=1\), then \(\min x_{i} \leqslant \phi(\mathbf{x}) \leqslant \max x_{i}\) (b) \(\phi(\max (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})) \geqslant \max (\phi(\mathbf{x}), \phi(\mathbf{y}))\) (c) \(\phi(\min (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})) \leqslant \min (\phi(\mathbf{x}), \phi(\mathbf{y}))\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
In summary, we showed that if φ(0,0,...,0) = 0 and φ(1,1,...,1) = 1, the following properties hold true: (a) min 𝑥𝑖 ≤ φ(x) ≤ max 𝑥𝑖 (b) φ(max(𝑥,𝑦)) ≥ max(φ(𝑥), φ(𝑦)) (c) φ(min (x, y)) ≤ min (φ(x), φ(y))

Step by step solution

01

Evaluate φ at the boundaries

We are given that φ(0,0,...,0) = 0 and φ(1,1,...,1) = 1. These two values will be helpful in proving that min 𝑥𝑖 ≤ φ(x) ≤ max 𝑥𝑖.
02

Apply the definition of minimum and maximum

The minimum of a set of numbers is the lowest value in the set, and the maximum is the highest value. Since φ(0,0,...,0) = 0 and φ(1,1,...,1) = 1, it follows that 0 is the minimum value of φ(x) and 1 is the maximum value.
03

Show the inequality

We want to show that min 𝑥𝑖 ≤ φ(x) ≤ max 𝑥𝑖. Since we know that 0 is the minimum value and 1 is the maximum value of φ(x), the inequality min 𝑥𝑖 ≤ 0 ≤ max 𝑥𝑖 holds for any input x. Therefore, the inequality min 𝑥𝑖 ≤ φ(x) ≤ max 𝑥𝑖 is true. (b) Show that φ(max(𝑥,𝑦)) ≥ max(φ(𝑥), φ(𝑦))
04

Apply the maximum function

The maximum function max(x, y) returns the larger of the two values x and y. Therefore, max(𝑥,𝑦) will never be smaller than either x or y.
05

Apply φ to the maximum function

We want to show that φ(max(𝑥,𝑦)) is greater than or equal to the maximum of the function φ(𝑥) and φ(𝑦). Since φ(max(𝑥,𝑦)) represents the value of φ at the larger input value, it must be greater than or equal to the value of φ at the smaller input value.
06

Show the inequality

Since max(𝑥,𝑦)≥x and max(𝑥,𝑦)≥y, it follows that φ(max(𝑥,𝑦)) ≥ φ(x) and φ(max(𝑥,𝑦)) ≥ φ(y). Thus, φ(max(𝑥,𝑦))≥max(φ(𝑥), φ(𝑦)). (c) Show that φ(min (x, y)) ≤ min (φ(x), φ(y))
07

Apply the minimum function

The minimum function min(x, y) returns the smaller of the two values x and y. Therefore, min(𝑥,𝑦) will never be larger than either x or y.
08

Apply φ to the minimum function

We want to show that φ(min(𝑥,𝑦)) is less than or equal to the minimum of the function φ(𝑥) and φ(𝑦). Since φ(min(𝑥,𝑦)) represents the value of φ at the smaller input value, it must be less than or equal to the value of φ at the larger input value.
09

Show the inequality

Since min(𝑥,𝑦)≤x and min(𝑥,𝑦)≤y, it follows that φ(min(𝑥,𝑦)) ≤ φ(x) and φ(min(𝑥,𝑦)) ≤ φ(y). Thus, φ(min (x, y)) ≤ min (φ(x), φ(y)).

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

For any structure function, we define the dual structure \(\phi^{\mathrm{D}}\) by $$ \phi^{\mathrm{D}}(\mathbf{x})=1-\phi(\mathbf{1}-\mathbf{x}) $$ (a) Show that the dual of a parallel (series) system is a series (parallel) system. (b) Show that the dual of a dual structure is the original structure. (c) What is the dual of a \(k\) -out-of- \(n\) structure? (d) Show that a minimal path (cut) set of the dual system is a minimal cut (path) set of the original structure.

Prove the combinatorial identity $$ \left(\begin{array}{c} n-1 \\ i-1 \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c} n \\ i \end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{c} n \\ i+1 \end{array}\right)+\cdots \pm\left(\begin{array}{l} n \\ n \end{array}\right), \quad i \leqslant n $$ (a) by induction on \(i\) (b) by a backwards induction argument on \(i\) -that is, prove it first for \(i=n\), then assume it for \(i=k\) and show that this implies that it is true for \(i=k-1\).

Let \(t_{i}\) denote the time of failure of the \(i\) th component; let \(\tau_{\phi}(t)\) denote the time to failure of the system \(\phi\) as a function of the vector \(\mathrm{t}=\left(t_{1}, \ldots, t_{n}\right) .\) Show that $$ \max _{1 \leqslant j \leqslant s} \min _{i \in A_{j}} t_{i}=\tau_{\phi}(\mathbf{t})=\min _{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \max _{i \in C_{i}} t_{i} $$ where \(C_{1}, \ldots, C_{k}\) are the minimal cut sets, and \(A_{1}, \ldots, A_{s}\) the minimal path sets.

Show that the variance of the lifetime of a \(k\) -out-of- \(n\) system of components, each of whose lifetimes is exponential with mean \(\theta\), is given by $$ \theta^{2} \sum_{i=k}^{n} \frac{1}{i^{2}} $$

Let \(N\) be a nonnegative, integer-valued random variable. Show that $$ P\\{N>0\\} \geqslant \frac{(E[N])^{2}}{E\left[N^{2}\right]} $$ and explain how this inequality can be used to derive additional bounds on a reliability function. Hint: $$ \begin{aligned} E\left[N^{2}\right] &=E\left[N^{2} \mid N>0\right] P\\{N>0\\} & & \text { (Why?) } \\ & \geqslant(E[N \mid N>0])^{2} P\\{N>0\\} & & \text { (Why?) } \end{aligned} $$ Now multiply both sides by \(P\\{N>0\\}\).

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free