6
$\begingroup$

I have a finite sequence of positive numbers $(a_i)_1^n$ for which:

  1. $a_1>a_n$,
  2. $a_j\geq a_{j+1}\geq\cdots\geq a_n$ for some $j\in\{2,\ldots,n-1\}$,
  3. $a_1>a_2>\cdots>a_{j-1}$,
  4. $a_j\geq a_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$.

I conjecture that:

$$(a_n+a_2+\cdots+a_j)\left(\sum_{i=j+1}^{n-1}{\frac{a_i^2}{(a_1+\cdots+a_i)(a_n+a_2+\cdots + a_i)}}+\frac{a_1+a_n}{a_1+\cdots+a_n}\right) \geq (a_n+a_1+\cdots+a_j)\left(\sum_{i=j+1}^{n-1}{\frac{a_i^2}{(a_1+\cdots+a_i)(a_n+a_1+\cdots + a_i)}}+\frac{a_n}{a_1+\cdots+a_n}\right).$$

I have an unappealing brute-force proof when $n\in\{3,4,5\}$ but I can't prove it in general. I have tried calculus to no avail, and it doesn't seem like a good fit for any of the standard inequalities.Does this look even remotely similar to anything already done? I appreciate that it's a rather ugly inequality but some suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

The proof when $n=3$ is outlined below. By condition 2. we know that $j=2$ so that

\begin{align*} (a_3+a_2)\left(\frac{a_1+a_3}{a_1+a_2+a_3}\right)-(a_3+a_1+a_2)\left(\frac{a_3}{a_1+a_2+a_3}\right)=\frac{a_2(a_1-a_3)}{a_1+a_2+a_3}>0 \end{align*} where we have used condition 1, which states that $a_1>a_3$.The proofs when $n=4$ and $n=5$ are likewise, only uglier. When $n=5$ the trick is to find common denominators then simply pair each negative term with some larger positive term. It's horrible, but it works. Perhaps a general proof would involve a similar argument but more formalised?

If a full proof can't be found then I'd be happy for a proof in the special case where $j=2$ and $j=3$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Compare $a_1$ times smaller sum against the terms in the larger sum that come from having $a_1$ in the numerator of the rightmost fraction inside the sum (it's a bit messy to write down, but you should be able to get the desired inequality from those pieces, as the rest is shared by both sums). $\endgroup$ – Justin Benfield Apr 14 '16 at 3:52
  • $\begingroup$ Condition (2) says "where $2\leq j\leq n-1$" -- is that supposed to mean "for all $j$" in that range? Or is there supposed to be some particular $j$ in that range for which the statement holds? Is Condition (3) then supposed to be stating that this particular $a_j$ is at least as large as any other $a_i$? (Otherwise, for which $j$ is Condition (3) supposed to hold?) $\endgroup$ – r.e.s. Apr 14 '16 at 4:56
  • $\begingroup$ I will clarify. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. $\endgroup$ – Auslander Apr 14 '16 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ So the inequality is only required to hold for some $j$ satisfying Conditions (2) and (3)? $\endgroup$ – r.e.s. Apr 14 '16 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is right. The $j$ is determined by the sequence itself. Suppose we have the sequence $\{4,2,1,6,4,5,3\}$. Then $j$ could be $4$ or $5$. But in both instances, the left hand side is greater than the right hand side. $\endgroup$ – Auslander Apr 14 '16 at 5:33
3
+50
$\begingroup$

Your conjecture fails for $n \ge 7$ (and maybe for some smaller $n$). The following results are from programming your inequality in Sage and testing a variety of patterned sequences.

1. First family of counterexamples

Let $S(a,b) = [a, a-1, a-2, ..., 1, b, b-1, b-2,..., 1]$, of length $a+b$, for positive integers $a,b$.

For any $a \ge 2$, there is some $b^* \gt a$ such that for any $b \ge b^*$, $S(a, b)$ is a counterexample. (The quantity $\ \text{LHS}-\text{RHS}\ $ is a decreasing function of $b$, and falls below $0$ at $b=b^*$.)

Such counterexamples include $S(2, b\ge 11), S(3, b\ge 14), S(4, b\ge 16), S(5,b\ge 19)$, and so on. (I haven't determined a formula for $b^*$.)

The smallest counterexample of this form appears to be $$S(2,11) = [2, 1, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]$$ for which
$$\text{LHS} = \frac{79582008868974649241}{15735265132809166560} = 5.0575... < 5.0608... = \frac{1185342437701}{234217526928} = \text{RHS} $$

2. Second (shorter) family of counterexamples

Another family of counterexamples is $[2, b, b, b, b, b, 1]$ with $b \ge 5$. The smallest counterexample of this form appears to be $[2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1]$, for which
$$\text{LHS} = \frac{3515219}{1225224} = 2.869... < 2.881... = \frac{30446902}{10567557} = \text{RHS} $$


Here's the core of the program (note the indexing adjustments due to Python lists being $0$-based):

def lhs(L,j):
    n = len(L)
    tot = (L[0] + L[n-1])/sum(L)
    for i in [j+1..n-2]: tot += L[i]^2 / ( sum(L[0:i+1])*( L[n-1] + sum(L[1:i+1]) ) )
    return (L[n-1] + sum(L[1:j+1]))*tot

def rhs(L,j):
    n = len(L)
    tot = L[n-1]/sum(L)
    for i in [j+1..n-2]: tot += L[i]^2 / ( sum(L[0:i+1])*( L[n-1] + sum(L[0:i+1]) ) )
    return (L[n-1] + sum(L[0:j+1]))*tot 

for b in [3..8]:
    L = [2,b,b,b,b,b,1]; left = lhs(L,1); right = rhs(L,1)
    print b, left.n(), right.n(), (left-right).n()

> 3 1.96695167577521 1.92603768780239 0.0409139879728115
> 4 2.41522132314971 2.40469223123685 0.0105290919128582
> 5 2.86904190580661 2.88116752055371 -0.0121256147470981
> 6 3.32586148147269 3.35536963036963 -0.0295081488969435
> 7 3.78448484495198 3.82769776396051 -0.0432129190085339
> 8 4.24427752155089 4.29855086580553 -0.0542733442546420
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm getting the same thing. This counterexample takes my paper one step forward and two steps back. Thanks for the step forward though! $\endgroup$ – Auslander Apr 15 '16 at 5:06
0
$\begingroup$

Edit: nvm, denominators of the first fraction in the sums are different.

Both sums share:

$(a_n+a_2+\cdots+a_j)\left(\sum_{i=j+1}^{n-1}{\frac{a_i^2}{(a_1+\cdots+a_i)(a_n+a_2+\cdots + a_i)}}+\frac{a_n}{a_1+\cdots+a_n}\right)$

If you subtract that out of the first sum, the following remains:

$(n-j-1)(a_n+a_2+\cdots+a_j)\left(\dfrac{a_1}{a_1+\cdots+a_i}\right)$ (why?)

Likewise for the 2nd sum:

$a_1\left(\sum_{i=j+1}^{n-1}{\frac{a_i^2}{(a_1+\cdots+a_i)(a_n+a_2+\cdots + a_i)}}+\frac{a_n}{a_1+\cdots+a_n}\right)$

remains. (why?)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You write that both sums share: $$(a_n+a_2+\cdots+a_j)\left(\sum_{i=j+1}^{n-1}{\frac{a_i^2}{(a_1+\cdots+a_i)(a_n+a_2+\cdots + a_i)}}+\frac{a_n}{a_1+\cdots+a_n}\right).$$ I can't see how this is true - the denominator in each sum is slightly different. $\endgroup$ – Auslander Apr 14 '16 at 4:41
  • $\begingroup$ You're right, didn't catch that...does make things more complicated. $\endgroup$ – Justin Benfield Apr 14 '16 at 10:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yep. Wish it were that easy! But thanks for looking at it. I'll keep thinking. $\endgroup$ – Auslander Apr 14 '16 at 12:07

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.