# An inequality for $L^p$-functions [on hold]

I am interested in the following inequality: $$\int\limits_\Omega \left\vert f_1 - f_2 \right\vert^p ~ d\mu \le C_p \left[ \int\limits_\Omega \left\vert f_1 \right\vert^p ~ d\mu + \int\limits_\Omega \left\vert f_2 \right\vert^p ~ d\mu - 2\int\limits_\Omega \left\vert \frac{f_1 + f_2}{2} \right\vert^p ~ d\mu \right]^{\min(1,p/2)}.$$ This is supposed to hold for functions $f_1,f_2 \in L^p$ (for an arbitrary measure space) such that $\Vert f_i \Vert_p \le 1$, $i=1,2$, and with $1 < p < \infty$. (In fact, the expressions make no sense when $p=\infty$, and for $p=1$ we immediately run into a contradiction when choosing one of the functions to vanish identically.)The constant $C_p$ should depend only on $p$.

I stumbled on this in the book Topics in almost everywhere convergence by Adriano Garsia. It is a crucial part of a proof, yet the only given hint as to why this is true is that it is obtained by expressing the RHS integrand $$\left\vert f_1 \right\vert^p + \left\vert f_2 \right\vert^p - 2 \left\vert \frac{f_1 + f_2}{2} \right\vert^p$$ as an integral involving the second derivative of $\left\vert x \right\vert^p$. I am not sure what to make of this and, having thought about it, I do not think it is that obvious. However, I don't think it is a very deep result, either.

My question is: Can anyone give me a reference where this is shown? Or can anyone point me a little more to the right direction, so that I might be able to prove it myself?

Thanks in advance, I appreciate any thoughts!

-

## put on hold as off-topic by Willie Wong, Stefan Kohl, Lucia, Wolfgang, Bill JohnsonMay 2 at 15:52

• This question does not appear to be about research level mathematics within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I suggest you look for "uniform convexity of L^p spaces" or the "modulus of convexity of L^P spaces". – Dirk Sep 8 '13 at 14:15
Thank you Dirk, exactly what I needed! – Henry Wegener Sep 8 '13 at 15:24
So, to whom it may concern: This is basically Clarkson's inequality. The constant C_p can be chosen as 2^p for 1<p<2 and 2^(p-1) for p>2. :-) – Henry Wegener Sep 8 '13 at 15:35
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is 2.5 years old and already answered in the comments. – Willie Wong May 2 at 13:10