Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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


$$ A = \cfrac {r_1 + r_2 + r_3 + \ldots + r_n}{n} $$

be the average of the real numbers $r_1, \ldots , r_n$. Prove there exists $i$ such that $r_i \ge A$.

So this is obviously true because the average is always going to be smaller than, or equal to, the largest number in the series (say, $r_i$).

However I'm not sure how to prove it by contradiction. I believe we would first make the assumption that there does NOT exist an $i$ such that $r_i \ge A$ (and then prove this to be false).

I'm not sure about the math to prove it, or how to write it. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

share|cite|improve this question
Suppose each $r_i < A$. Then $r_1 + r_2 + \dots+r_n < A + A + \dots + A$. What does that contradict? – Michael Biro Mar 7 '13 at 20:02
The question says nothing about $r_n$ being the largest element. Are you sure it's obvious that $A \le r_n$? – Erick Wong Mar 7 '13 at 20:03
Use "obvious" very sparingly! Usually if it is truly obvious, it does not require much, if any, explanation. Otherwise it is kind of annoying :) – rschwieb Mar 7 '13 at 20:08
@ErickWong Yeah I just realized that. I meant to say that the average will be smaller than the biggest number. I'll edit my question – Tur1ng Mar 7 '13 at 20:35

Proof by contradiction always involves starting from the negation of the conclusion and arguing towards a contradiction.

So, begin by assuming that such an $i$ does not exist. In other words, $r_i < A$ for all $i$.

Can you put a (strict) upper bound on the sum $r_i + \cdots r_n$? What does that inequality tell you about $\dfrac{r_1 + \cdots + r_n}{n}$? Why is that a contradiction?

share|cite|improve this answer
Strictly speaking, a proof by contradiction always starts with assuming *both the truth of the hypothesis AND the negation of the conclusion, then arguing toward contradiction. To assume only the negation of the conclusion/desired result, and arguing to the conclusion that the assumption must therefore be false is proving the contrapositive: where you prove $p \rightarrow q$ by proving $\lnot q \rightarrow p$. – amWhy Mar 7 '13 at 20:22
oops: proof by contrapositive: proving $\lnot q \rightarrow \lnot p$ and therefore, $p \rightarrow q$. – amWhy Mar 7 '13 at 21:34

There is no need to prove it by contradiction.

Let $m = \max_i r_i$. Then $A = \frac{r_1+\cdots r_n}{n} \leq \frac{m+\cdots m}{n} = m$. Since $m = r_k$ for some $k$, we have $A \le r_k$ for some $k$.

If you must have contradiction, let $m$ be as above. If $m <A$, then you have $A = \frac{r_1+\cdots r_n}{n} = m < A$, which is an immediate contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
I removed my previous comment because it looks like an irrelevant non-sequitur now that you've changed your answer so much. – Sammy Black Mar 7 '13 at 20:39
@SammyBlack: No, your comment was a relevant non sequitur. – copper.hat Mar 8 '13 at 0:44

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.