| 
11-11-2008, 01:44 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: R³
Posts: 182
Country: Thanks: 49
Thanked 39 Times in 35 Posts
| | An algebric inequality For  , prove
thanks.
__________________
Last edited by bkarpuz; 11-11-2008 at 02:09 AM.
Reason: \geq\to\leq
| 
11-11-2008, 02:07 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 490
Country: Thanks: 32
Thanked 459 Times in 295 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by bkarpuz For  , prove
thanks. | the inequality in this form is not true for all positive reals x, y, z, because it fails if you put z = 1, x = y, and then let x go to infinity! are you sure it's not  instead of  ? | 
11-11-2008, 02:09 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: R³
Posts: 182
Country: Thanks: 49
Thanked 39 Times in 35 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by NonCommAlg the inequality in this form is not true for all positive reals x, y, z, because it fails if you put z = 1, x = y, and then let x go to infinity! are you sure it's not  instead of  ? | I correct it now.
__________________ | 
11-11-2008, 02:52 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 490
Country: Thanks: 32
Thanked 459 Times in 295 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by bkarpuz For  , prove
thanks. | because of symmetry, we may assume that  then obviously:  hence by Chebyshev's inequality we'll have:  but by AM-GM we have:
imagine how many inequalities you can create using only Chebyshev's inequality + AM-GM inequality! i guess i'm back to high school again! | | The following users thank NonCommAlg for this useful post: | |  | 
11-11-2008, 03:03 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: R³
Posts: 182
Country: Thanks: 49
Thanked 39 Times in 35 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by NonCommAlg because of symmetry, we may assume that  then obviously:  hence by Chebyshev's inequality we'll have:  but by AM-GM we have:
imagine how many inequalities you can create using only Chebyshev's inequality + AM-GM inequality! i guess i'm back to high school again!  | I was thinking of a different solution.
I know that this inequality can be shown by special inequalities, the first one dropped in my mind was Muirhead's inequality (again because of the symmetry), which you may find in Muirhead's inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
If there is any other solutions, I would like to see.
Thanks NonCommAlg.
__________________ | 
11-11-2008, 03:32 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 490
Country: Thanks: 32
Thanked 459 Times in 295 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by bkarpuz I was thinking of a different solution.
I know that this inequality can be shown by special inequalities, the first one dropped in my mind was Muirhead's inequality (again because of the symmetry), which you may find in Muirhead's inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
If there is any other solutions, I would like to see.
Thanks NonCommAlg. | when i was a high school kid, we were trained to avoid using Muirhead's inequality as much as we can! i never knew why? i guess i'm still under the infulence! lol
anyway, yes, Muirhead's inequality will also solve the problem because if you multiply both sides of the inequality by  you'll get:
which is true because  majorizes | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 PM. | | |
 | |  |