Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

Weierstrass Product Inequality

If 0 ≤ a, b, c, d ≤ 1, prove that

  (1 - a)(1 - b)(1 - c)(1 - d) + a + b + c + d ≥ 1

Proof

Let the function on the left side of the inequality be called f(a, b, c, d) . Obviously it is a function of four variables. Suppose that all but one of the variables, say b,c, and d, are set at some fixed values and a is allowed to vary over its range from 0 to 1. With b, c, and d fixed, f is just a function of a:

  f(a) = (1 - a)K + a + M,

where K and M are constants determined by the fixed values of b,c, and d. In fact, f(a) is a linear function of a, with a linear graph, and it is clear from the graph that it attains a minimum value at an endpoint of its range, i.e., at a =  0 or a =  1; and, within useful limits, we can deduce which it is.

Rearranging things, we have f(a) = (1 - K)a + K + M, where 0 ≤ K = (1 - b)(1 - c)(1 - d) ≤ 1, since 0 ≤ b, c, d ≤ 1. Thus the slope 1 - K of the graph cannot be negative. It is immaterial whether the slope is zero or positive, for in either case the minimum value of f(a) occurs at a = 0.

But the inequality does not favor the variable a; the same result must also hold for b,c, and d, and we conclude that the minimum value of f(a, b, c, d) is given by f(0, 0, 0, 0) (perhaps not uniquely, but that doesn't matter).

Accordingly,

  f(a, b, c, d) ≥ f(0, 0, 0, 0) = 1 · 1 · 1 · 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1

as required.

Of course one of the beauties of this approach is that the number of variables is inconsequential and therefore, without further ado, all other cases follow as immediate corollaries.

References

  1. R. Honsberger, More Mathematical Morsels, MAA, 1991

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28676823Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

product of fractions
Posted by ke_45
3 messages
08:37 AM, May-06-08

Distance to the horizon
Posted by Monty
3 messages
04:38 PM, May-08-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Nim Games - a query
Posted by Akash Kumar
1 messages
08:53 AM, Apr-15-08

A typo in
Posted by alexwajn
1 messages
11:36 PM, Apr-19-08