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.

My real problem is about graph theory, but I've boiled it down to this statement. The issue is, I can't figure out if it's true or false. Can anyone shed some light on the matter? Thanks!

Let $a_1$, $a_2$, ... $a_n$, $b_1$, $b_2$, ... $b_n$ be distinct, positive, real numbers. If $$\sum_{i=1}^na_i < \sum_{j=1}^nb_j$$ then $$\sum_{i=1}^na_i^2 < \sum_{j=1}^nb_j^2$$ Any guidance is appreciated!

share|improve this question
2  
There are issues already with integers. For example, $1+10\lt 6+6$, but $1^2+10^2 \gt 6^2+6^2$. –  André Nicolas Feb 27 '13 at 5:46
add comment

3 Answers 3

For example, $\displaystyle 1+\frac{1}{9}< \frac{4}{9}+ \frac{8}{9}$ but $\displaystyle 1+ \frac{1}{9^2}> \frac{4^2}{9^2}+\frac{8^2}{9^2}$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

It's not necessarily true. For example, 1+1.00001>1.5+0.0001, But$(1.5)^2+(0.00001)^2>1^2+(1.0001)^2$

The reason it's not true is that if we have a few large no.s in the $a_i$ Then those large no.s are increased significantly by squaring.

share|improve this answer
    
distinct positive numbers? –  Inquest Feb 27 '13 at 5:43
    
0 is not positive. –  p.koch Feb 27 '13 at 5:43
    
There, they're distinct now(and positive). –  Ishan Banerjee Feb 27 '13 at 5:45
    
$0$ is very close to being positive. –  Gerry Myerson Feb 27 '13 at 5:47
    
@GerryMyerson but 0.00001 is definitely positive –  Ishan Banerjee Feb 27 '13 at 5:48
add comment

No. If one $a$ is large and all the rest are small, while the $b$'s are about the same size it will fail. A specific example is $n=10, a_1=1000, \text {else } a_i=i, b_i=i+100$

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.