| 
June 25th, 2007, 01:02 AM
|  | Grand Panjandrum | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: South of England
Posts: 11,265
Country: Thanks: 655
Thanked 3,580 Times in 2,885 Posts
| | Problem 28 Proposition 1: If  then
Q1. Prove Proposition 1 is true
Q2. Prove Proposition 1 is false
There is a Q3 for when Q1 and Q2 have been settled.
RonL
__________________ Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
Giordano Bruno | 
June 25th, 2007, 01:47 AM
|  | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Medgidia, Romania
Posts: 1,158
Country: Thanks: 22
Thanked 617 Times in 558 Posts
| | If  then  . So the proposition is true.
If  then let  .
Then  . So the proposition is false. | 
June 25th, 2007, 04:41 AM
|  | Grand Panjandrum | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: South of England
Posts: 11,265
Country: Thanks: 655
Thanked 3,580 Times in 2,885 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by red_dog If  then  . So the proposition is true.
If  then let  .
Then  . So the proposition is false. |
Q3. For  is the inequality tight, if not can you find a tight version.
RonL
__________________ Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
Giordano Bruno | 
June 25th, 2007, 07:06 AM
|  | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Medgidia, Romania
Posts: 1,158
Country: Thanks: 22
Thanked 617 Times in 558 Posts
| | For  the inequality is not tight.
We have  .
The equality stands for  . | 
June 25th, 2007, 07:22 AM
|  | Bar0n | | Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: South African Republic
Posts: 1,947
Country: Thanks: 1,603
Thanked 1,416 Times in 864 Posts
| | Hehehe, looks like this guy knows what he's doing, eh CaptainBlack?
__________________ If you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program. - Linus Torvalds | 
June 25th, 2007, 07:40 AM
|  | Generous Contributor | | Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Angelica, NY
Posts: 7,605
Country: Thanks: 643
Thanked 2,305 Times in 2,093 Posts
| | "tight"?
-Dan
__________________ Got a Physics question? Come on over to To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - The Litany Against Fear, "Dune" by Frank Herbert | 
June 25th, 2007, 09:37 AM
|  | Grand Panjandrum | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: South of England
Posts: 11,265
Country: Thanks: 655
Thanked 3,580 Times in 2,885 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by red_dog For  the inequality is not tight.
We have  .
The equality stands for  . | You need to fill in some of the detail so others can follow this more easily.
RonL
__________________ Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
Giordano Bruno | 
June 25th, 2007, 08:34 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18
Country: Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | | 
June 25th, 2007, 08:45 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by mathisfun1 | Actually that is Cauchy-Swartz | 
June 25th, 2007, 10:06 PM
|  | Grand Panjandrum | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: South of England
Posts: 11,265
Country: Thanks: 655
Thanked 3,580 Times in 2,885 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by mathisfun1 | Show us how.
I see how it follows from the Cauchy Scwartz inequality:
Then putting  and  , with  , we have:
RonL
__________________ Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
Giordano Bruno | 
June 25th, 2007, 10:10 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlank Show us how. | In the link I gave I use a complicated factorization and the AM-GM inequality to derive the special case of Cauchy-Swartz inequality. Perhaps, that is what the user means. | 
June 25th, 2007, 10:48 PM
|  | Grand Panjandrum | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: South of England
Posts: 11,265
Country: Thanks: 655
Thanked 3,580 Times in 2,885 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker In the link I gave I use a complicated factorization and the AM-GM inequality to derive the special case of Cauchy-Swartz inequality. Perhaps, that is what the user means. | May be, but he should still make it explicit.
Perhaps we should have a Wiki page on inequalities and their derivation/proof?
RonL
__________________ Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
Giordano Bruno | 
June 25th, 2007, 11:36 PM
|  | MHF Contributor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Medgidia, Romania
Posts: 1,158
Country: Thanks: 22
Thanked 617 Times in 558 Posts
| | The inequality  can be proved like this:
Multiplying with 2, the inequality is equivalent to  . | 
June 26th, 2007, 05:53 AM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18
Country: Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | According to AM-GM,  . Do the same for the other pairs of variables and add to get the desired inequality.
Credit must be given where credit is due -- I picked up this trick from the AoPS book Vol 2. | | 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 12:49 PM. | | |