CTK Exchange Front Page Movie shortcuts Personal info Awards Reciprocal links Terms of use Privacy Policy Cut The Knot! MSET99 Talk Games & Puzzles Arithmetic/Algebra Geometry Probability Eye Opener Analog Gadgets Inventor's Paradox Did you know?... Proofs Math as Language Things Impossible My Logo Math Poll Other Math sit's Guest book News sit's Recommend this site
|Store|

CTK Exchange

 Subject: "Proof of inequality" Previous Topic | Next Topic
 Conferences The CTK Exchange High school Topic #259 Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend Reading Topic #259
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-17-03, 11:44 AM (EST)

"Proof of inequality"

 LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-03 AT 05:46 AM (EST) This problem has been posted as topic #118 some 1-1/2 year ago but without any reply.The server will not let me reply to this topic.---------------------------------------------------------------------I tried so many ways to prove the inequality for strictly positive reals a,b and c:64·a·b·c·(a + b + c)3 <= 27.(b + c)2·(c + a)2·(a + b)2Can you give me a hint?Thank you.With respectfully regards.Frc---------------------------------------------------------------------The inequality can be written as{(a + b + c)/3}3/(abc) £ {(a + b)/2}2/(ab)·{(b + c)/2}2/(bc)·{(c + a)/2}2/(ca) We have the 3rd power of the arithmetic and geometric mean ratio for the triple (a, b, c) on the left and a product of the 2nd powers of the arithmetic and geometric mean ratios for the doubles (a, b), (b, c), and (c, a) on the right. However, the inequality between the geometric and arithmetic means for the triple works against the inequalities between the geometric and arithmetic means for the doubles and consequently, these inequalities cannot be used in the proof.We can scale the inequality by the 4th power of a, b, or c to make at least one number equal to one. Let's scale it by c4. Denote x = a/c > 0 and y = b/c > 0. We have to provexy·{(x + y + 1)/3}3 £ {(x + 1)/2}2·{(y + 1)/2}2·{(x + y)/2}2For x = y = 1, the inequality becomes an equality. I will prove that for x ³ 0, y ³ 0, the following function has a minimum (equal to zero) only at x = y = 1 and x = y = 0:F(x, y) = {(x + 1)/2}2·{(y + 1)/2}2·{(x + y)/2}2 - xy·{(x + y + 1)/3}3For a minimum, both partial derivatives must vanish:¶F/¶x = (x + 1)/2·{(y + 1)/2}2·(x + y)/2·(2x + y + 1)/2 - y·{(x + y + 1)/3}3 - xy·{(x + y + 1)/3}2 = 0¶F/¶y = {(x + 1)/2}2·(y + 1)/2·(x + y)/2·{2y + x + 1)/2 - x·{(x + y + 1)/3}3 - xy·{(x + y + 1)/3}2 = 0This is a set of 2 non-linear equations for 2 unknowns, which we denote¶F/¶x = P(x,y) = 0¶F/¶y = Q(x,y) = 0This set of 2 equations can be solved by the method of succesive approximation (see the topic #226 - Solving the Equations in the College Math conference):xk+1 = xk - Dx(xk, yk)/J(xk, yk)yk+1 = yk - Dy(xk, yk)/J(xk, yk)where J(x,y) is the Jacobian|¶P/¶x, ¶P/¶y||¶Q/¶x, ¶Q/¶y|and Dx, Dy two other determinants for use in the Cramer's rule:|P, ¶P/¶y||Q, ¶Q/¶y||¶P/¶x, P||¶Q/¶x, Q|I got the following 9 different root pairs with various initial approximations (to get all possible roots):(0, 0)(1, 1)(0.597311, 0.597311)(0, -1)(-1, 0)(-0.377067, -0.377067)(-0.602960, -0.602960)(-0.501094, -0.017834)(-0.017834, -0.501094)Since x ³ 0, y ³ 0, we have to consider only the non-negative roots (1st, 2nd and, 3rd). We have to determine if these 2 roots correspond to minima, maxima, or neither. For a function f(x) of one variable, we have a minimum if the second derivative f"(x) > 0 and a maximum if f"(x) < 0. Similarly, for a function F(x, y) of 2 variables, if the determinant from the second partial derivatives is greater than zero, we have either a local minimum (if both ¶2F/¶2x > 0 and ¶2F/¶2y > 0) or a local maximum (if both ¶2F/¶2x < 0 and ¶2F/¶2y < 0). If the determinant from the second partial derivatives is less than zero, we have a saddle point.|¶2F/¶2x, ¶2F/¶x¶y||¶2F/¶x¶y, ¶2F/¶2y|This determinant is just the Jacobian J(x, y) = ¶(P, Q)/¶(x, y). Substituting the 3 non-negative roots into the Jacobian, we findJ(0, 0) = 0.000943073 > 0 (minimum)¶2F/¶2x = 0.03125 > 0¶2F/¶2y = 0.03125 > 0J(1, 1) = 0.0833333 > 0 (minimum)¶2F/¶2x = 0.333333 > 0¶2F/¶2y = 0.333333 > 0J(0.597311, 0.597311) = -0.01464714 < 0 (saddle point)On top of that, F(x, 0) ³ 0 on the x-axis, F(0, y) ³ 0 on the y-axis, and F(0, 0) = 0 at the origin. Therefore, the original function F(x, y) has only 2 minima in the 1st quadrant at (0, 0) and (1, 1). By direct inspection F(0, 0) = F(1, 1) = 0. Therefore, F(x, y) > 0 for any other x > 0, y > 0.Any other attempt of a proof that I tried failed, and I made quite a few.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID
Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-17-03 TOP
RE: Proof of inequality sfwc Aug-18-03 1
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-19-03 2
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-22-03 3
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-22-03 4
RE: Proof of inequality Sumudu Aug-24-03 5
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-25-03 8
RE: Proof of inequality sfwc Aug-30-03 10
RE: Proof of inequality Sumudu Aug-24-03 6
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-24-03 7
RE: Proof of inequality Sumudu Aug-25-03 9
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Aug-31-03 13
RE: Proof of Inequality Joe Aug-31-03 11
RE: Proof of Inequality Vladimir Sep-01-03 14
RE: Proof of Inequality Joe Sep-03-03 16
RE: Proof of inequality Joe Aug-31-03 12
RE: Proof of inequality Vladimir Sep-01-03 15
RE: Proof of inequality Joe Sep-03-03 17

 Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
sfwc
Member since Jun-19-03
Aug-18-03, 09:25 PM (EST)

1. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #0

 LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-03 AT 05:06 PM (EST) Try multiplying it out and applying AM/GM to the whole thing, rather than just the individual parts. It goes a little something like this:I denote addition by @ due to my problems with getting a + signlet S(l,m,n) = a^l*b^m*c^n @ a^m*b^n*c^l @ a^n*b^l*c^mby AM/GM:a^4*b*c =< (a^4*b^2 @ a^4*c^2)/2 => 2S(4,1,1) <= S(4,0,2) @ S(4,2,0) <1>a^3*b^2*c =< (a^4*c^2 @ b^4*a^2)/2=>S(3,2,1) =< S(4,0,2) <2>a^3*b^2*c =< (a^3*c^3 @ a^3*b^3 @ a^3*b^3)/3=> S(3,2,1) =< S(3,3,0) <3>a^2*b^2*c^2 =< (a^3*b^3 @ b^3*c^3 @ c^3*a^3)/3=> S(2,2,2) =< S(3,3,0) <4>by symmetry on <2> and <3>:S(3,1,2) =< S(4,2,0) <5>S(3,1,2) =< S(3,3,0) <6>now take 5*<1> @ 22*<2> @ 8*<3> @ 38*<4> @ 22*<5> @ 8*<6>:10S(4, 1, 1) @ 30S(3, 2, 1) @ 38S(2,2,2) @ 30S(3,1,2) =< 27S(4,0,2) @ 27S(4,2,0) @ 54S(3,3,0)=> 64S(4,1,1) @ 192S(3,2,1) @ 192S(3,1,2) @ 128S(2,2,2) =< 27S(4,2,0) @ 27S(4,0,2) @ 54S(4,1,1) @ 54S(3,3,0) @ 162S(3,2,1) @ 162S(3,1,2) @ 90S(2,2,2)now factorising both sides yields the desired result.Thankyousfwc<><

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-19-03, 01:38 AM (EST)

2. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #1

 LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-03 AT 05:43 AM (EST) I tried to multiply it through several times, it was a rather ugly exercise, and it did not seem to lead anywhere.As for the 9 different root pairs: I have 4 local minima, 1 local maximum, and 4 saddle points of the function F(x, y). All the 4 minima are equal to zero, the single maximum is greater than zero, and thee 4 saddle points are also greater than zero: 1. minimum:F(0, 0) = 0J(0, 0) 0.000943073 > 0¶2F/¶2x = ¶2F/¶2y = 0.03125 > 02. minimum:F(1, 1) = 0 J(1, 1) = 0.0833333 > 0¶2F/¶2x = ¶2F/¶2y = 0.333333 > 03. minimum:F(-1, 0) = 0J(-1, 0) = 0¶2F/¶2x = 0.03125 > 0¶2F/¶2y = 04. minimum:F(0, -1) = 0J(0, -1) = 0¶2F/¶2x = 0¶2F/¶2y = 0.03125 > 01. maximum:F(-0.377067, -0.377067) = 0.00125982 > 0J(-0.377067, -0.377067) = 0.000135991 > 0¶2F/¶2x = ¶2F/¶2y = -0.0138876 < 01. saddleF(0.597311, 0.597311) = 0.00548305 > 0J(0.597311, 0.597311) = -0.0146471 < 02. saddleF(-0.602960, -0.602960) = 0.0.000682242 > 0J(-0.602960, -0.602960) =-0.000367897 < 03. saddleF(-0.501094, -0.017834) = 0.00097343 > 0J((-0.501094, -0.017834) = -0.000290349 < 04. saddleF(-0.017834, -0.501094) = 0.00548305 > 0J(-0.017834, -0.501094) = -0.0146471 < 0I can therefore claim that F(x, y) ³ 0 everywhere, not just for x > 0 and y > 0. I got this inequality by dividing the original inequality for a, b, c by c4 > 0 (i.e., assuming c ¹ 0). By direct inspection, the original inequality becomes an equality for a = b = c = 0. Therefore, I can claim that the original inequality for a, b, c holds for any real a, b, c, not just for a > 0, b > 0, c > 0.The only problem I have with my proof is that I did not prove (and do not know how to prove) that I got all the possible root pairs of the 2 equations P(x, y) = 0 and Q(x, y) = 0 and consequently, all the possible local extrema of the function F(x, y). I made a 3D plot of this function and it clearly does not have any more extrema, but how to prove it?

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-22-03, 06:02 AM (EST)

3. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #2

 LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-03 AT 11:06 PM (EST) I already know a lot about the roots. First, let's look for all roots on the line y = x.P(x, y) = (x + 1)/2·{(y + 1)/2}2·(x + y)/2·(2x + y + 1) - y·(4x + y + 1)/3·{(x + y + 1)/3}2 = 0Q(x, y) = (y + 1)/2·{(x + 1)/2}2·(x + y)/2·(2y + x + 1) - x·(4y + x + 1)/3·{(x + y + 1)/3}2 = 0Since P(x, y) = Q(y, x), it does not matter whether I substitue y = x to P(x, y) = 0 or Q(x, y) = 0:P(x, x) = {(x + 1)/2}3·x·(3x + 1) - x·(5x + 1)·{(2x + 1)/3}2 = 0The first root is x = 0. Factoring it out yields27·(x + 1)3·(3x + 1) - 16·(2x + 1)2·(5x + 1) = 81x4 - 50x3 - 60x2 + 11 = 0I already know that x = 1 is a root. Factoring it out yields81x3 + 31x2 - 29x - 11 = 0Finding roots of this 3rd order polynomial by the method of successive approximations: xk+1 = xk - (81xk3 + 31xk2 - 29xk - 11)/(3·81xk2 + 2·31xk - 29)I get 3 different real roots:x = 0.597311x = -0.377067x = -0.602960Together with x = 0 and x = 1, these are just the 5 roots I got before, for which the x-root was the same as the y-root. There are no other roots on the line y = x. To find the remaining roots, I can assume x ¹ y. Next, I make 2 combinations of P(x, y) and Q(x, y) to cancel out any identical factors (but not factors symmetrical with respect to x and y):P(x, y) - Q(x, y) = 0x·(4y + x + 1)·P(x, y) - y·(4x + y + 1)·Q(x, y) = 0Using the following identit's:(y + 1)·(2x + y + 1) = (x + y + 1)2 - x2(x + 1)·(2y + x + 1) = (x + y + 1)2 - y2I simplify the 1st equation to:1/32·(x + 1)·(y + 1)·(x + y)·{(x + y + 1)2 - x2} - 1/32·(x + 1)·(y + 1)·(x + y)·{(x + y + 1)2 - y2} == 1/27·(x + y + 1)2·(y2 - x2 + y - x)1/32·(x + 1)·(y + 1)·(x + y)·(y2 - x2) = 1/27·(x + y + 1)3·(y - x)and factoring out (x - y) yields27·(x + 1)·(y + 1)·(x + y)2 = 32·(x + y + 1)3Then I simplify the 2nd equation to:{(x + y + 1)2 - x2}·x·(4y + x + 1) = {(x + y + 1)2 - y2}·y·(4x + y + 1) (x + y + 1)3·(x - y) = 4xy·(x2 - y2) + x4 - y4 + x3 - y3and factoring out (x - y) yields(x + y + 1)3 = 2xy·(x + y) + (x + y)3 + (x + y)2 - xy2·(x + y)2 + 3·(x + y) + 1 = xy·{2·(x + y) - 1}Now I make a substitutionu = x + yv = x - y(x + 1)·(y + 1) = {(u + 2)2 - v2}/4xy = (u2 - v2)/4From the 1st equation I get27·{(u + 2)2 - v2)·u2 - 128·(u + 1)3v2 = (u + 2)2 - 128/27·(u + 1)3/u2and from the 2nd equation I get2u2 + 3u + 1 = (u2 - v2)/4·(2u - 1)v2 = u2 - 4·(2u2 + 3u + 1)/(2u - 1)Eliminating v2 from these 2 equations I get a 4th order polynomial exclusively in u:u2 - 4·(2u2 + 3u + 1)/(2u - 1) = (u + 2)2 - 128/27·(u + 1)3/u24·(u + 1)·(2u - 1)·u2 - 4·(2u2 + 3u + 1)·u2 = 128/27·(u + 1)3·(2u - 1)I already know that the pairs (x, y) = (0, -1) and (x, y) = (-1, 0) are the roots of P(x,y) and Q(x, y) equations. In both cases, u = x + y = -1. The last equation must have this root. Consequently, the quadratic polynomial 2u2 + 3u + 1 must be factorable by (u + 1):2u2 + 3u + 1 = (u + 1)·(2u + 1)Factoring (u + 1) from the equation yields(2u - 1)·u2 - (2u + 1)·u2 = 32/27·(u + 1)2·(2u - 1)27u3 = 8·(2u3 + 3u2 - 1)11u3 - 24u2 + 8 = 0Finding roots of this 3rd order polynomial by the method of successive approximations uk+1 = uk - (11uk3 - 24uk2 + 8)/(3·11uk2 - 2·24uk)I get 3 different real roots:u = 2u = 0.700746u = -0.518928Seeing that the 1st root is an integer, I can factor it out and solve the remaining quadratic equation:11u3 - 24u3 + 8 = (u - 2)·(11u2 - 2u - 4) = 0u = (1 ± 3Ö5)/11The other variable v is real only for the last root u = (1 - 3Ö5)/11 = -0.518928:v2 = u2 - 4·(2u2 + 3u + 1)/(2u - 1) = (u + 2)2 - 128/27·(u + 1)3/u2v = Ö(-16) = ± 4iv = Ö(-40.2005) = ± 6.340385 iv = Ö(0.233540) = ± 0.483260The other root for which x ¹ y was u = -1, implying v = ± 1. For real x = (u + v)/2 and y = (u - v)/2, I can use only 2 of the u-roots:(u, v) = (-0.518928, -0.483260) (u, v) = (-0.518928, +0.483260) (u, v) = (-1, +1) (u, v) = (-1, -1) (x, y) = (-0.50109, -0.0178338)(x, y) = (-0.0178338, -0.50109)(x, y) = (0, -1) (x, y) = (-1, 0)All root pairs of the partial derivatives P(x, y) and Q(x, y) of the original function F(x, y) have been accounted for. There are no more real roots of P(x, y) and Q(x, y), and consequently, no more local extrema of F(x, y). The original inequality holds for all real a, b, c, not just for a > 0, b > 0, c > 0. ···

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-22-03, 06:14 AM (EST)

4. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #1

 LAST EDITED ON Sep-01-03 AT 09:07 PM (EST) Hi,I am really impressed how fast you figured it out. As for the disappearing "+" characters, check the last message in topic #348 - Integration - in the College Math conference.Regards, Vladimir-------------------------------------------------------------------Your proof in a more readable way:Let S(k,m,n) = akbmcn + ambnck + anbkcmBy AM/GM:a4bc £ (a4b2 + a4c2)/2 => 2·S(4,1,1) £ S(4,0,2) + S(4,2,0) <1>a3b2c £ (a4c2 + b4a2)/2=> S(3,2,1) £ S(4,0,2) <2>a3b2c £ (a3c3 + a3b3 + a3b3)/3=> S(3,2,1) £ S(3,3,0) <3>a2b2c2 £ (a3b3 + b3c3 + c3a3)/3=> S(2,2,2) £ S(3,3,0) <4>By symmetry on <2> and <3>:S(3,1,2) £ S(4,2,0) <5>S(3,1,2) £ S(3,3,0) <6>Now take 5·<1> + 22·<2> + 8·<3> + 38·<4> + 22·<5> + 8·<6>:10·S(4,1,1) + 30·S(3,2,1) + 38·S(2,2,2) + 30·S(3,1,2) £ 27·S(4,0,2) + 27·S(4,2,0) + 54·S(3,3,0)=>64·S(4,1,1) + 192·S(3,2,1) + 192·S(3,1,2) + 128·S(2,2,2) £ £ 27·S(4,2,0) + 27·S(4,0,2) + 54·S(4,1,1) + 54·S(3,3,0) + 162·S(3,2,1) + 162·S(3,1,2) + 90·S(2,2,2)Now factorising both sides yields the desired result.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Sumudu
guest
Aug-24-03, 08:18 PM (EST)

5. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #4

 Here's a different way to do it (I think it's pretty good, there are probably some areas that could be improved though):Let X = a + b, Y = a + c, and Z = b + ca,b,c > 0 implies X + Y > Z, X + Z > Y, and Y + Z > XTherefore, there exists a triangle with sides of length X, Y, and Z.Let x, y, and z represent the angles opposite these sides.Since x + y + z = 180°, cos(z) = -cos(x+y)Let A = (x + y)/2, B = (x - y)/2cos2(A) - cos(A)cos(B) + 1/4 >= cos2(A) - cos(A)cos(B) + cos2(B)/4 = (cos(A) - cos(B)/2)2 >= 0So cos(A)cos(B) - cos2(A) <= 1/42cos(A)cos(B) - 2cos2(A) <= 1/22cos(A)cos(B) - cos2(A) + sin2(A) <= 3/2(cos(A)cos(B) - sin(A)sin(B)) + (cos(A)cos(B) + sin(A)sin(B)) - (cos2(A) - sin2(A)) <= 3/2cos(A+B) + cos(A-B) - cos(2A) <= 3/2cos(x) + cos(y) - cos(x+y) <= 3/2cos(x) + cos(y) + cos(z) <= 3/23 + cos(x) + cos(y) + cos(z) <= 9/2(3 + cos(x) + cos(y) + cos(z))/3 <= 3/2((1 + cos(x)) + (1 + cos(y)) + (1 + cos(z)))/3 <= 3/2By AM-GM:(1 + cos(x))(1 + cos(y))(1 + cos(z)) <= 27/82YZ(1 + cos(x))2XZ(1 + cos(y))2XY(1 + cos(z)) <= 27X2Y2Z2By the Cosine Law:X2 = Y2 + Z2 - 2YZcos(x)So that (Y+Z)2 - X2 = 2YZ(1 + cos(x))The left hand side is a difference of squares, factoring gives2YZ(1 + cos(x)) = (X + Y + Z)(-X + Y + Z) = 4c(a + b + c)Similarly: 2XZ(1 + cos(y)) = 4b(a + b + c)and 2XY(1 + cos(z)) = 4a(a + b + c)Returning to the inequality, substitution back to a,b,c gives:64abc(a+b+c)3 <= 27(a+b)2(a+c)2(b+c)2, which is what we wanted to prove.The main part that I think needs work is proving cos(x) + cos(y) + cos(z) <= 3/2 (with x + y + z = 180°) - there must be a neater way of doing it.-Sumudu

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-25-03, 05:49 AM (EST)

8. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #5

 LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-03 AT 05:54 PM (EST) Hello Sumudu,Your proof is the best because it is natural.Suppose 0 £ x £ p, 0 £ y £ p, 0 £ z £ p, and x + y + z = p. Then1 £ cos(x) + cos(y) + cos(z) £ 3/2Proof:------Since z = p - (x + y), cos(z) = -cos(x + y). Define function F(x, y) asF(x, y) = cos(x) + cos(y) - cos(x + y)and let's look for the maximum. Both partial derivatives must vanish:¶F/¶x = -sin(x) + sin(x + y) = 0¶F/¶y = -sin(y) + sin(x + y) = 0sin(x) = sin(x + y) = sin(y)Since 0 £ x £ p, 0 £ y £ p, and 0 £ x + y £ p, then either x = y or x = p - y. In the first case, the 2 possibilities are:1. x = y ¹ 0, z ¹ 02. x = y = 0, z = pOnly the 1st possibility is acceptable for a triangle with angles x, y, z. Then by symmetry (i.e., by cyclic permutation) of x, y, and z, it must be x = y = z. Since x + y + z = p, 3x = p, x = y = z = p/3. In the second case, the 2 possibilities are:3. x = 0, y = p, z = 04. x = p, y = 0, z = 0Neither of the last 2 possibilities is acceptable for a triangle with angles x, y, z. The second partial derivatives of function F(x, y) are¶2F/¶2x = -cos(x) + cos(x + y)¶2F/¶2y = -cos(y) + cos(x + y)and determinant D(x, y) of the second partial derivatives is|¶2F/¶2x, ¶2F/¶x¶y| =|¶2F/¶x¶y, ¶2F/¶2y|= cos(x)·cos(y) - {cos(x) + cos(y)}·cos(x + y)When D(x, y) > 0, we have a local extremum (minimum for ¶2F/¶2x > 0 and ¶2F/¶2y > 0, maximum for ¶2F/¶2x < 0 and ¶2F/¶2y < 0). When D(x, y) < 0, we have a saddle point.1. maximumx = y = p/3F(p/3, p/3) = 1/2 + 1/2 - (-1/2) = 3/2D(p/3, p/3) = 1/2·1/2 - (1/2 + 1/2)·(-1/2) = 3/4 > 0¶2F/¶2x (p/3, p/3) = -1/2 + (-1/2) = -1 < 0¶2F/¶2y (p/3, p/3) = -1/2 + (-1/2) = -1 < 02. saddle pointx = y = 0F(0, 0) = 1 + 1 - 1 = 1D(0, 0) = 1·1 - (1 + 1)·1 = -1 < 03. saddle pointx = 0, y = pF(0, p) = 1 + (-1) - (-1) = 1D(0, p) = 1·(-1) - {1 + (-1)}·(-1) = -1 < 04. saddle pointx = p, y = 0F(p, 0) = (-1) + 1 - (-1) = 1D(p, 0) = (-1)·1 - {(-1) + 1}·(-1) = -1 < 0We have a single local maximum in the coordinate triangle <(0, 0), (p, 0), (0, p)> at x = y = p/3. Value of this maximum is F(p/3, p/3) = 3/2. On the triangle boundary, F(x, y) = 1:1. x-axisx Î <0, p>, y = 0F(x, 0) = cos(x) + cos(0) - cos(x + 0) = cos(0) = 12. y-axisx = 0, y Î <0, p>F(0, y) = cos(0) + cos(y) - cos(0 + y) = cos(0) = 13. line x + y = py = p - x, cos(y) = -cos(x)F(x, p - x) = cos(x) - cos(x) - cos(p) = -cos(p) = -(-1) = 1Therefore, 1 £ F(x, y) £ 3/2 for any x, y in the coordinate triangle <(0, 0), (p, 0), (0, p)>.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
sfwc
Member since Jun-19-03
Aug-30-03, 06:18 AM (EST)

10. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #8

 Thanks, Vladimir. You have restored my faith in the + sign.It is possible to prove cos x + cos y + cos z with a little less algebra, but it unfortunately involves case-splitting:case 1: one of x, y and z, let us say x, is > 2 pi/3Then cos x + cos y + cos z < -1/2 + 1 + 1 = 3/2case 2: all of x, y and z are <= 2 pi/3on this range, the function cos is lower than it's tangent at pi/3, which has gradient g, say.(since cos is concave on <0, pi/2> the gradient is greater then g on the range <0, pi/3> and less than g on the range . By symmetry, the gradient at pi - x is equal to that at x for each x, so in particular it is less than g on . Combining these gives the result. Although g is easily calculated in this case, I have left it uncalculated for the sake of generality)That is, cos x <= 1/2 + g*(x - pi/3) with similar results for y and z. We deduce:cos x + cos y + cos z =< 3/2 + g*(x + y + z - pi)<=> cos x + cos y + cos z =< 3/2since x + y + z = piThankyousfwc<><

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Sumudu
guest
Aug-24-03, 08:18 PM (EST)

6. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #0

 My plus signs didn't show up (I'm new here anyway) - I'll post that again once it comes up.a+b-Sumudu

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-24-03, 05:49 AM (EST)

7. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #6

 The plus signs always disappear in the "postview" after you press the button (when the server says the message has been submitted for approval), but they show up all right when the message is accepted. That is, unless you make another "error" - see the last message in the College Math topic 348 - Integration.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Sumudu
guest
Aug-25-03, 08:10 AM (EST)

9. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #7

 Oh ok, now what you wrote in the "Integration" topic makes sense to me.I suppose I do prefer my method of proving the cos inequality, I was considering doing it by calculus but opted to find an elementary (so to speak) solution instead.Took me far too long though ...

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Aug-31-03, 11:52 PM (EST)

13. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #9

 Perhaps if you reverse your proof, it looks more natural. Make a substitutiona = (x + y)/2b = (x - y)/2cos(x) + cos(y) - cos(x + y) = = cos(a + b) + cos(a - b) - cos(2a) = = 2·cos(a)·cos(b) - (2·cos2(a) - 1) = = 2·{cos(a)·cos(b) - cos2(a)} + 1 = = 2·{1/4·cos2(b) - (1/2·cos(b) - cos(a))2} + 1 ££ 2·(1/4·1 - 0) + 1 = 3/2The substitution requires some ingenuity, but the rest is routine and natural. Moreover, it is immediately clear that the requirements for equality are cos(b) = 1, b = 0, x = y and cos(a) = 1/2, a = p/3, x + y = 2p/3. Consequently, x = y = p/3 and z = p - (x + y) = p/3.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Joe
guest
Aug-31-03, 05:21 PM (EST)

11. "RE: Proof of Inequality"
In response to message #0

 Problem: Let a,b,c>0. Prove 27*(b+c)^2*(c+a)^2*(a+b)^2>=64*abc*(a+b+c)^3.Proof: Since the inequality is homogenous, we may assume without loss of generality that a+b+c=1.27*(b+c)^2*(c+a)^2*(a+b)^2>=64*abc*(a+b+c)^3<==>(1-a)^2*(1-b)^2*(1-c)^2>=64/27*abc<==>(1-a-b-c+bc+ca+ab-abc)^2>=64/27*abc<==>(bc+ca+ab-abc)^2>=64/27*abc<==>(1/a+1/b+1/c-1)sqrt(abc)>=8sqrt(3)/9Smoothing will prove this inequality.If a=b=c=1/3, then the inequality holds.If a,b,c are not all equal, then without loss of generality, let a<1/30. Hence (1/a+1/b+1/c-1)sqrt(abc) is decreased. Repeating this argument with b and c, we decrease it once again. Now we have a=b=c, which makes the inequality true.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Sep-01-03, 06:11 PM (EST)

14. "RE: Proof of Inequality"
In response to message #11

 LAST EDITED ON Sep-01-03 AT 11:08 PM (EST) >(bc+ca+ab-abc)^2>=64/27*abc ><==>(1/a+1/b+1/c-1)sqrt(abc)>=8sqrt(3)/9You can square-root an inequality, if the the larger side (after square-rooting) is greater than or equal to zero. You should have pointed out here that 1/a > 1, 1/b > 1, 1/c > 1 as a result of a + b + c = 1 and a > 0, b > 0, c > 0. Therefore, 1/a + 1/b + 1/c - 1 > 0 and square-rooting is allowed. >Since a0.Too fast. Since b > b' and a < a', b - a > b' - a'.(a + b - a' - b')/(ab) = (a - 2·sqrt(ab) + b - a' + 2·sqrt(a'b') - b')/(ab) = {(sqrt(b) - sqrt(a))^2 - (sqrt(b') - sqrt(a'))^2}/(ab) > 0>Hence (1/a+1/b+1/c-1)sqrt(abc) is decreased. (1/a + 1/b + 1/c - 1)·sqrt(abc) > (1/a' + 1/b' + 1/c - 1)·sqrt(a'b'c)>Repeating this argument with b and c, we decrease it once again. Now we have a=b=c, ... How? Now you have a' = 1/3, 1/3 < b' < 1, and 0 < c = 1 - (a + b) < 2/3. It can be c < 1/3, c = 1/3, or c > 1/3. I do not see it.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Joe
guest
Sep-03-03, 04:46 PM (EST)

16. "RE: Proof of Inequality"
In response to message #14

 Ok. I should have mentioned that both sides are positive. Sorry.As for the smoothing argument, I guess mine doesn't work, and I don't see a fix right now. But I guess if I had to continue the proof of (1/a 1/b 1/c-1)sqrt(abc)>=8sqrt(3)/9, I would let c=1-a-b and turn it into a two variable inequality. Then proceed from there. Or you could substitute that right from the beginning.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Joe
guest
Aug-31-03, 05:21 PM (EST)

12. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #0

 Another proof is to expand everything out (which is actually a very feasible approach if you are taking the Olympiad, since they are usually several hours long). This method along with AM-GM usually works for all homogenous polynomial inequalities, although sometimes the Schur inequality may be required also. For more information, see the following guide on inequalities written by one of the USA IMO coaches https://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a4-for-students/ineqs-080299.ps. You will need both GSView and PostScript to view the PS file.Proofs by expanding everything out is very tedious but almost always will work.Denote by cyc(f) the sum f(a,b,c)+f(b,c,a)+f(c,a,b).27*(b+c)^2*(c+a)^2*(a+b)^2>=64*abc*(a+b+c)^3<==>27*(b^2+2bc+c^2)*(c^2+2ca+a^2)*(a^2+2ab+b^2)>=64*abc*(a^3+b^3+c^3+3a^2*b+3a^2*c+3b^2*c+3b^2*a+3c^2*a+3c^2*b+6abc)<==>27cyc(a^4b^2+a^4c^2+2a^3b^3)>=114a^2b^2c^2+10abc*cyc(a^3)+30abc*cyc(a^2b+b^2a) (***)By AM-GM the following inequalities hold:5(a^4b^2+a^4c^2)>=10a^4bc6(a^4c^2+a^3c^3+b^4a^2+b^4a^2+a^4b^2)>=30a^3b^2c6(a^4b^2+a^3b^3+c^4a^2+c^4a^2+a^4c^2)>=30a^3c^2bSumming the 3 cyclic permutations of each of the above three, we get 21cyc(a^4b^2+a^2b^4)+12cyc(a^3b^3)>=10abc*cyc(a^3)+30abc*cyc(a^2b+b^2a) (*)Also by AM-GM, 6cyc(a^4b^2+a^2b^4)+42cyc(a^3b^3)>=114a^2b^2c^2 (**)Adding (*) and (**) gives the desired (***).

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Member since Jun-22-03
Sep-01-03, 09:12 PM (EST)

15. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #12

 >Denote by cyc(f) the sum f(a,b,c)+f(b,c,a)+f(c,a,b). >27*(b+c)^2*(c+a)^2*(a+b)^2>=64*abc*(a+b+c)^3 ><==>27*(b^2+2bc+c^2)*(c^2+2ca+a^2)*(a^2+2ab+b^2)>=64*abc*(a^3+b^3+c^3+3a^2*b+3a^2*c+3b^2*c+3b^2*a+3c^2*a+3c^2*b+6abc) ><==>27cyc(a^4b^2+a^4c^2+2a^3b^3)>=114a^2b^2c^2+10abc*cyc(a^3)+30abc*cyc(a^2b+b^2a) >(***) >>By AM-GM the following inequalities hold: >5(a^4b^2+a^4c^2)>=10a^4bc >6(a^4c^2+a^3c^3+b^4a^2+b^4a^2+a^4b^2)>=30a^3b^2c >6(a^4b^2+a^3b^3+c^4a^2+c^4a^2+a^4c^2)>=30a^3c^2b >>Summing the 3 cyclic permutations of each of the above >three, we get >21cyc(a^4b^2+a^2b^4)+12cyc(a^3b^3)>=10abc*cyc(a^3)+30abc*cyc(a^2b+b^2a) >(*) >>Also by AM-GM, >6cyc(a^4b^2+a^2b^4)+42cyc(a^3b^3)>=114a^2b^2c^2 (**) >>Adding (*) and (**) gives the desired (***). -------------------------------------------------------------------Let me rewrite it in a more readable way. Denote by cyc(f) the sumcyc(f) = f(a, b, c) + f(b, c, a) + f(c, a, b)27·(b + c)2·(c + a)2·(a + b)2 ³ 64·abc·(a + b + c)3 Û27·(b2 + 2bc + c2)·(c2 + 2ca + a2)·(a2 + 2ab + b2) ³³ 64·abc·(a3 + b3 + c3 + 3a2b + 3a2c + 3b2c + 3b2a + 3c2a + 3c2b + 6abc) Û27·cyc(a4b2 + a4c2 + 2a3b3) ³ 114·a2b2c2 + 10·abc·cyc(a3) + 30·abc·cyc(a2b + b2a) (***) By AM-GM the following inequalities hold: 5·(a4b2 + a4c2) ³ 10·a4bc 6·(a4c2 + a3c3 + b4a2 + b4a2 + a4b2) ³ 30·a3b2c 6·(a4b2 + a3b3 + c4a2 + c4a2 + a4c2) ³ 30·a3c2b Summing the 3 cyclic permutations of each of the above three, we get 21·cyc(a4b2 + a2b4) + 12·cyc(a3b3) ³ 10·abc·cyc(a3) + 30·abc·cyc(a2b + b2a) (*) Also by AM-GM, 6·cyc(a4b2 + a2b4) + 42·cyc(a3b3) ³ 114a2b2c2 (**) Adding (*) and (**) gives the desired (***). --------------------------------------------------------------------No matter what I do, by summing the 3 cyclic permutations of each of the above three, I get the 1st coefficient 5 + 6·4 = 29 and not 21: 29·cyc(a4b2 + a2b4) + 12·cyc(a3b3) ³ 10·abc·cyc(a3) + 30·abc·cyc(a2b + b2a) (*) and then (*) and (**) does not add up to (***). What is wrong ???

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Joe
guest
Sep-03-03, 04:46 PM (EST)

17. "RE: Proof of inequality"
In response to message #15

 Hmm.. I'm getting pertty confused with all this cyclic stuff. Sorry if I made a mistake. But the proof should work except for very rare inequalities.

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

 Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
 Select another forum or conference Lobby The CTK Exchange (Conference)   |--Early math (Public)   |--Middle school (Public)   |--High school (Public)   |--College math (Public)   |--This and that (Public)   |--Guest book (Public)

You may be curious to have a look at the old CTK Exchange archive.
Please do not post there.