Proof of Simple Inequality for Positive Real Values x_1,x_2,...,x_n

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the inequality \( g \equiv \sqrt[n]{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}} < \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{n} \equiv a \) for positive real numbers \( x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{n} \). It establishes that equality holds only when all \( x_{i} \) are equal. The proof utilizes known results, such as \( x + \frac{1}{x} \geq 2 \) for \( x > 0 \) and the condition \( x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n} = 1 \) leading to \( x_{1} + x_{2} + \ldots + x_{n} \geq n \). The discussion also explores cases where the product of \( x_{i} \) is less than or greater than 1, ultimately confirming that \( a \geq g \) with equality when all \( x_{i} \) equal \( g \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of inequalities in real analysis
  • Familiarity with geometric and arithmetic means
  • Knowledge of the AM-GM inequality
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Arithmetic Mean-Geometric Mean (AM-GM) inequality in detail
  • Explore the implications of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in similar contexts
  • Learn about the properties of symmetric functions in inequalities
  • Investigate advanced topics in real analysis, particularly in inequalities
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding inequalities and their proofs in mathematical contexts.

sat
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Let [itex]x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}[/itex] be real and positive. Show that
[tex]g\equiv \sqrt[n]{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}} < \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{n} \equiv a[/tex]
except when [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots = x_{n}[/itex] in which case [itex]a=g[/itex].

We are given the results (from previous exercises) that
[tex]\forall x>0 : x+\frac{1}{x} \geq 2[/tex]
and if [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}=1[/itex], then
[tex]x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}\geq n[/tex]
and this is equality if and only if [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots=x_{n}=1[/itex].

Clearly if [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}=1[/itex], then the last result applies directly, and[itex]a>1 = g[/itex]. When [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}\neq 1[/itex] things are more difficult.

I can show that, for [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}<1[/itex], [itex]a>g^{n}=x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}[/itex], but [itex]g>g^{n}[/itex] which doesn't help. To do that I used the first `given' result to derive that
[tex]x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots + x_{n} \geq 2n - \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots + x_{n}}{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}}[/tex]
and took it from there.

I'm also not making much progress with the case [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}>1[/itex]. I have tried doing things like `forcing' the expressions to equal unity by introducing [itex]x_{1}^{-1}[/itex] etc and increasing [itex]n[/itex] accordingly but the problem is then to show that [itex]a[/itex] is greater than the new mean including these reciprocals and that the geometric mean is less than this.

Any ideas would be apprectiated. (It's probably something very simple which I'm overlooking.)

The problems are from Shilov "Introductory Real and Complex Analysis", p24 if anyone has that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi!
sat said:
if [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}=1[/itex] (1), then
[tex]x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}\geq n[/tex]
and this is equality if and only if [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots=x_{n}=1[/itex].


Set [itex]P=x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}[/itex] then
[tex]g\equiv \sqrt[n]{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}} =\sqrt[n]{P}[/tex]

For the real numbers [itex]w_{i}=x_{i}/g[/itex] we have

[itex]w_{1}w_{2}\ldots w_{n}=(x_{1}/g)(x_{2}/g)\ldots (x_{n}/g)=P/g^n=1[/itex]

So, (1) holds for wi. Then

[tex]w_{1}+w_{2}+\ldots+w_{n}\geq n[/tex] (this is an equality if and only if [tex]w_{i}=1 <=> x_{i}=g[/tex])


[tex]\frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{g}\geq n[/tex]

[tex]\frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{n}\geq g[/tex]

That is,
[tex]a\geq g[/tex] and this is an equality if and only if [tex]x_{i}=g=\sqrt[n]{P}, \forall i[/tex]
 
Thanks. That seems to solve the problem of making it work for [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}\neq 1[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K