Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $n$ be a positive integer and $x:=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$. For non-negative $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n$, consider the function value of $f(x)=x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n$ subject to the constraint $x_1x_2\cdots x_n=1.$ What I want to know is, does $f(x)$ have:

  1. A global maximum?

  2. A global minimum?

share|cite|improve this question
What does your title have to do with the body of the question?? – The Chaz 2.0 Apr 13 '12 at 15:09
sorry, that's the topic of another question,, i forgot to change the title – Mathematics Apr 13 '12 at 15:11
Did you try to do the cases $n=2$ and $n=3$? They should give a good indication. – t.b. Apr 13 '12 at 15:14
well, may be you get it wrong, it is not an induction question, – Mathematics Apr 13 '12 at 15:16
I wasn't talking about induction at all. But those cases are very tractable and give a good idea of what happens in the general case. – t.b. Apr 13 '12 at 15:17

Maybe you can see that PROBLEM from this inequality:$\frac{x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n}{n}\geq \sqrt[n]{x_1x_2\cdots x_n}=1$, so $x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n\geq n$, it has global minimum $1$,but it does not have global maximum, because $x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n$ can be greater than any given positive number $M$. To see this you can take $x_1=M,x_2=1/M, x_3=1,\ldots,x_n=1.$

share|cite|improve this answer
of course i did, however, we should be at least able to conclude whether it has a global max or min by just looking at the domain – Mathematics Apr 13 '12 at 15:24
Maybe you can see that $\frac{x_1+x_2+……+x_n}{n}\geq \sqrt[n]{x_1x_2……x_n}=1$, so $x_1+x_2+……+x_n\geq n$,it has global minimum and does not have global maximum. – Riemann Apr 13 '12 at 15:44
There is one exception to this, if n=1 then there is a global maximum. – JB King Apr 13 '12 at 16:26
yes, of course! But $n=1$ is trivial. – Riemann Apr 14 '12 at 1:54

It has no global maximum, since, for example, you can let $x_3=x_4=\cdots=x_n$ and $x_2=1/x_1$, and then the product is $1$ and the sum is bigger than $x_1$, and you can make $x_1$ as big as you want.

If you draw the picture in the case $n=2$, you'll probably expect it does have a global minimum. When $x_1=\cdots=x_n=1$, then $x_1+\cdots+x_n=n$, and if you're not sure that's the minimum, just consider the set of all points where the sum is $\le 1$, and try to reason to the conclusion that that's a compact set. The whole graph of $x_1\cdots x_n=1$ is a closed set since it's the inverse image of a single point under a continuous function. Once a set in Euclidean space is closed and bounded, it's compact.

share|cite|improve this answer
why the inverse image of a single point under a continuous function closed? As i remember, the complement of open is close. – Mathematics Apr 15 '12 at 1:36
The function $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\mapsto x_1\cdots x_n$ is continuous. The graph of $x_1\cdots x_n=1$ is the inverse-image, under that function, of the set $\{1\}$, which is closed. Therefore the graph itself is a closed set. – Michael Hardy Apr 15 '12 at 18:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.