I am not sure if this question is too specific on notations (I think the question is intuitive, but basically the only reference I know with this kind of notations is Bingham, Goldie & Teugels book Regular Variation), so let me introduce some things.
Firstly, let $f$ be a measurable positive real function defined in $[a, +\infty)$ for some real $a \geqslant 0$.
- MATUSZEWSKA INDICES:
Say that $f$ is almost increasing when there is $M\geqslant a$ and $m>0$ such that $$ f(y) \geqslant mf(x),\quad \forall y\geqslant x\geqslant M. $$
The definition of almost decreasing is similar. Now define the upper ($\alpha$) and lower ($\beta$) Matuszewska indices of $f$ as
$$ \alpha(f) := \inf\{\alpha \in \mathbb{R} : x^{-\alpha} f(x) \text{ is almost decreasing}\},$$ $$ \beta(f) := \sup\{\beta \in \mathbb{R} : x^{-\beta} f(x) \text{ is almost increasing}\}.$$
These indices basically bound $f$ between two growth orders "neglecting" some slowly varying functions, i.e. $$ \frac{x^{\beta(f)}}{L_1(x)} \ll f(x) \ll x^{\alpha(f)} L_2(x),$$ for some non-decreasing $L_1(x), L_2(x) = o(x^{\varepsilon})$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$.
- $O$-REGULAR VARIATION:
$f$ is said to be $O$-regularly varying when $$ \forall \lambda > 0, f(\lambda x) = \Theta(f(x)),$$ that is, for all $\lambda >0$ there is $M=M(\lambda)>0$ such that: $$ \forall x > M, \exists c_1=c_1(\lambda),c_2 = c_2(\lambda)~: ~c_1 f(x) \leqslant f(\lambda x) \leqslant c_2f(x).$$
This is (un?)surprisingly equivalent to say that $f$ has both Matuszewska indices finite (in $(-\infty, +\infty)$).
My question is:
Q: Let $f$ be a measurable, positive, increasing real function in $[0,\infty)$. If $f$ is $O$-regularly varying and $f(x) \gg x^{1/n}$ for some integer $n \geqslant 1$, then the lower Matuszewska index $\beta(f)$ is $> 1/2n$?
To me it is a somewhat intuitive statement (at a first glance I would even say that $\beta(f) \geqslant 1/n$), but I could not prove it or find it explicitly stated on Bingham's et al. book and other references (Feller's Probability books and some papers). I was looking for some help to develop a better intuition on this statement (being it true or false!). Any tips and/or references would be welcome.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: What I tried: https://i.sstatic.net/qGooL.png (These calculations didn't help...)
(Here $A\equiv f$ and $h\equiv n$. Sorry, too lazy to fix!)