0
$\begingroup$

Let $a_1,a_2,a_3,....a_n\geq0$ and $a_{n+1}=a_1$ with $a_1+a_2+a_3+....+a_n=2m$,then find the greatest possible value of $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\ a_i\cdot a_{i+1}$$

I tried Cauchy-Schwarz but did not achieve success.How should I get its greatest value. Please suggest me some method.The answer given in the book is $m^2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Did you try Lagrange multiplier? $\endgroup$ – user99914 Sep 23 '15 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ Upper limit of sum is $n$given not $n-1$@jameselmore $\endgroup$ – Vinod Kumar Punia Sep 23 '15 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ @VinodKumarPunia, sorry for not running that change by you first. You just didn't define a value for $a_{n+1}$, so the limit doesn't make much sense $\endgroup$ – jameselmore Sep 23 '15 at 12:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @VinodKumarPunia I corrected your question. As several people commented, your problem doesnt make sense if $a_{n+1}$ is not defined $\endgroup$ – Ewan Delanoy Sep 23 '15 at 12:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $a_1=a_2=a_3=\frac{2m}{3}$ then $\sum_{i=1}^{3}\ a_i.a_{i+1}=\frac{4m^2}{3}\ne m^2.$ So, the answer in your book is not correct, unless something more is missed. Could you want to bound $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\ a_i.a_{i+1}?$ $\endgroup$ – mfl Sep 23 '15 at 12:47
3
$\begingroup$

The question is equivalent to proving that $$4(a_1a_2+a_2a_3+...+a_na_1) \leq (a_1+a_2+...+a_n)^2.$$

Yes, we can prove it. WLOG, let $a_1=\max \{a_1,a_2,...,a_n\}$, then $$\begin{eqnarray} 4(a_1a_2+a_2a_3+...+a_na_1) &\leq& 4a_1(a_2+a_4+a_5+...+a_n)+4a_2a_3 \\ &\leq& 4(a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_4+a_5+...+a_n) \\ &\leq& (a_1+a_2+...+a_n)^2. \text{(AM-GM)} \end{eqnarray}$$

The equality holds if and only if $a_1=a_2=m, a_3=a_4=...=a_n=0$.

Edited:

However, this argument works only if $n>3$. If $n=3$, mfl has given a counterexample such that $a_1=a_2=a_3=2m/3$. To see what is wrong, notice that if $n>3$, $a_3$ won't appear in this part of the third formula $(a_2+a_4+a_5+...+a_n)$ and the proof works well. However, once we consider $n=3$, then $a_n=a_3$ - something wrong happens. As a result, the inequality doesn't holds anymore.

For $n=1$, it is trivial, since the sum is fixed. It equals to $a_1^2=4m^2$.

For $n=2$, it is still trivial. You only need to use $\text {AM-GM}$ inequality: $$a_1a_2+a_2a_1=2a_2a_1\leq \frac{(a_1+a_2)^2}{2}=2m^2.$$ The equality holds if and only if $a_1=a_2=m$.

For $n=3$, $a_2+a_3=2m-a_1$. $$\begin{eqnarray} a_1a_2+a_2a_3+a_3a_1 &=&a_1(2m-a_1)+a_2a_3 \\ &\leq& a_1(2m-a_1)+\frac{(2m-a_1)^2}{4} \\ &=&\frac{-3a_1^2}{4}+ma_1+m^2 \\ &=&-\frac{3}{4}(a_1-\frac{2m}{3})^2+\frac{4m^2}{3} \\ &\leq& \frac{4m^2}{3}. \end{eqnarray}$$ The equality holds if and only if $a_1=a_2=a_3=\frac{2m}{3}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @mfl There is indeed a mistake in my answer (and the question). See the addition part in answer. $\endgroup$ – Asydot Sep 23 '15 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ @mfl The argument has been fixed and now I think you can see that I didn't bound wrong formula. ;) $\endgroup$ – Asydot Sep 23 '15 at 14:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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