Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Despite many attempts, no one at StackOverflow has succeeded in solving that old question about proving a deceptively simple-looking inequality.

I propose now a weaker and slightly simpler inequality (no more squares) which may perhaps be easier to prove.

Let $x_1,x_2, \ldots ,x_n$ be positive numbers whose product is $1$. Prove or find a counterexample :

$$ \prod_{k=1}^n \big(\frac{1+x_k}{2}\big) \leq \bigg( \frac{x_1+x_2+x_3+ \ldots x_n}{n}\bigg)^{n-1} $$

(this inequality follows from the old one by putting $x_i=a_i^2$ and using Cauchy-Schwarz).

share|improve this question
1  
Using the equal variable method (See math.stackexchange.com/questions/51835/…), it suffices to show the case where $x_1 \leq 1 \leq x_2 = \cdots = x_n$. Did you try to do that? –  user27126 Jan 17 '13 at 19:08
    
I also think the EV-method works. Take the inverse of this inequality, then Log both sides and apply Corollary 1.6 from Cîrtoaje's article cited above for the function $f(x)=Log(\frac{2}{1+x})$ –  ivan Jan 23 '13 at 7:04
    
@ivan : Corollary 1.6 tells us that the extremal value that interests us will be attained at a point where $x_1=x_2=\ldots x_{n-1}<x_n$, but that’s not the end of the story, is it ? What this does is reduce the $n$-variable problem to a two-variables problem. –  Ewan Delanoy Jan 23 '13 at 7:19
    
Yes, you are right. It reduces the inequality to a nasty looking two variable problem. –  ivan Jan 23 '13 at 12:26

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

As mentioned in comment, one can use equal variable method for $f(x) = \log \left(\frac{1+x}{2}\right)$. Note that $$g(x) = f'(1/x) = \frac{x}{x+1}$$ is strictly concave for $x > 0$. By corollary 1.6, the maximum of LHS is reached when $0 < x_1 \leq 1 \leq x_2 = \cdots = x_n = t$. Substitute $x_1 = \frac{1}{t^{n-1}}$, we have to prove $$\left(\frac{(n-1)t + \frac{1}{t^{n-1}}}{n}\right)^{n-1} \ge \left(\frac{1+t}{2}\right)^{n-1}\left(\frac{1+\frac{1}{t^{n-1}}}{2}\right)$$ for $t \ge 1$. By AMGM applied to $(n-2)$ $(1+t)/2$, and $(1+t)(1+t^{-(n-1)})/4$, we see that $$RHS \leq \left(\frac{(n-2)\left(\frac{1+t}{2}\right) + \frac{1+t+t^{-(n-1)} + t^{-(n-2)}}{4}}{n-1}\right)^{n-1}$$ So it suffices to show that $$\frac{(n-1)t + \frac{1}{t^{n-1}}}{n} \ge \frac{(n-2)\left(\frac{1+t}{2}\right) + \frac{1+t+t^{-(n-1)} + t^{-(n-2)}}{4}}{n-1}$$ Clearing denominator and simplify, $$\Leftrightarrow 4(n-1)^2 t + 4(n-1)t^{-(n-1)} \ge 2n(n-2)t + 2n(n-2) + n (1+t+t^{-(n-1)} + t^{-(n-2)})$$ $$\Leftrightarrow (2n^2-5n+4)t + (3n-4)t^{-(n-1)} \ge 2n^2 - 3n + nt^{-(n-2)} \hspace{5mm} (*)$$ We prove the last inequality now. AM-GM gives $$\frac{n(n-2)}{(n-1)} t^{-(n-1)} + \frac{n}{n-1} \ge nt^{-(n-2)}$$ and $$(2n^2-5n+4)t + \frac{2n^2-5n+4}{n-1}t^{-(n-1)} \ge (2n^2-5n+4)\frac{n}{n-1}$$ (*) follows from adding up the last two inequalities.

share|improve this answer
    
@EwanDelanoy, I don't understand what you are saying. If we multiply as you said, we get $(n-2) + t^{n-1} \ge (n-1)t$, apparently true by AMGM. In fact, eventually I didn't use $t \ge 1$ in the whole proof. –  user27126 Jan 25 '13 at 17:24
    
I was indeed wrong in my former comment (which is why I’ve just deleted it). I’m fully convinced now, answer accepted. –  Ewan Delanoy Jan 26 '13 at 9:26
    
@EwanDelanoy, no problem. Unfortunately this method does not apply to the original problem, and I am clueless how to approach it without a tool like EV theorem. –  user27126 Jan 26 '13 at 9:44

I am going to propose something that might work for the reduced 2-variable problem (see the comments above). We need to prove that given $xy^n=1$ then:$$f(x,y)=\left(\frac{x+n y}{n+1}\right)^n-\frac{1+x}{2}\left(\frac{1+y}{2}\right)^n\geq 0$$ Effectively we need to show $f(y^{-n},y)\geq 0$. Now consider the polynomial $y^{n^2}f(y^{-n},y)$. It has a double root at $y=1$.

Moreover it looks like its coefficients can be computed effectively. I suggest it can be shown that there are only 4 sign alternations for this polynomial. Hence using the Descartes' rule of signs the number of positive roots is either 2 (in which case we are done because of the double root at 1) or 4.

If there are 4 roots the remaining 2 roots are both either bigger then 1 or smaller then 1. Hence we are done for at least one of the cases $y>1$ or $y<1$.

This may be enough to establish the general case.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.