Can Sum to Product Inequalities Hold for Non-Negative Reals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inequality involving non-negative real numbers, specifically whether the sum of these numbers being less than or equal to 1/2 implies that the product of their complements is greater than or equal to 1/2. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and proof techniques, particularly induction.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an inequality involving non-negative reals and their complements, suggesting a proof is needed.
  • Another participant expresses appreciation for a proposed solution, indicating a positive reception to contributions.
  • Several participants inquire about proving the statement using induction, suggesting a desire for formal proof methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion does not reach a consensus on the proof of the inequality, as multiple requests for an inductive proof indicate ongoing exploration and uncertainty regarding the validity of the statement.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not provided specific assumptions or definitions that might clarify the conditions under which the inequality holds. The discussion lacks detailed mathematical steps or formal proofs.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in inequalities, mathematical proofs, and induction methods may find this discussion relevant.

lfdahl
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
747
Reaction score
0
Given non-negative reals, $\alpha_i$, where $i = 1,2,...,n.$

Prove, that

$\alpha_1+\alpha_2+...+\alpha_n \leq \frac{1}{2}$ $\Rightarrow$ $(1-\alpha_1)(1-\alpha_2)...(1-\alpha_n) \geq \frac{1}{2}.$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Immediate consequence of Weiertrass inequality:

$$\prod_{1 \le k \le n}(1-a_k) \ge 1-\sum_{1 \le k \le n}a_k \ge 1-\frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}.$$

There's an elegant proof of Weierstrass inequality.
 
June29 said:
Immediate consequence of Weiertrass inequality:

$$\prod_{1 \le k \le n}(1-a_k) \ge 1-\sum_{1 \le k \le n}a_k \ge 1-\frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}.$$

There's an elegant proof of Weierstrass inequality.
Thankyou for a clever solution, June29, and for your participation!(Cool)
 
Can anyone prove the above statement by induction? (Wave)
 
lfdahl said:
Can anyone prove the above statement by induction? (Wave)

It's obviously true for $n=1$ since we have $ {\alpha}_1 \leqslant \frac{1}{2} = 1-\frac{1}{2} \implies 1-\alpha_1 \geqslant \frac{1}{2}. $

Now, suppose it's true for $n = k \in \mathbb{N}$. We shall prove that it's true for $n=k+1$. $\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2} & \leqslant 1- \sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k+1}\alpha_j = 1-\alpha_{k+1}-\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k}\alpha_j \leqslant 1-\alpha_{k+1}-\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k}\alpha_j+a_{k+1}\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \alpha_j \\& =\left(1-\alpha_{k+1}\right)\left(1-\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \alpha_j\right)
\leqslant \left(1-\alpha_{k+1}\right) \prod_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \left(1-\alpha_j \right) = \prod_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k+1} \left(1-\alpha_j \right) \end{aligned} $

So it's true for $n=k+1$. Since it's true for $n=1, k+1$, it's true for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
June29 said:
It's obviously true for $n=1$ since we have $ {\alpha}_1 \leqslant \frac{1}{2} = 1-\frac{1}{2} \implies 1-\alpha_1 \geqslant \frac{1}{2}. $

Now, suppose it's true for $n = k \in \mathbb{N}$. We shall prove that it's true for $n=k+1$. $\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \frac{1}{2} & \leqslant 1- \sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k+1}\alpha_j = 1-\alpha_{k+1}-\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k}\alpha_j \leqslant 1-\alpha_{k+1}-\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k}\alpha_j+a_{k+1}\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \alpha_j \\& =\left(1-\alpha_{k+1}\right)\left(1-\sum_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \alpha_j\right)
\leqslant \left(1-\alpha_{k+1}\right) \prod_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} \left(1-\alpha_j \right) = \prod_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k+1} \left(1-\alpha_j \right) \end{aligned} $

So it's true for $n=k+1$. Since it's true for $n=1, k+1$, it's true for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.

A nice solution, June29! Thankyou for your participation!

Please remember to hide your solution in SP tags. Other forum users might try to solve the challenge preferably without knowing your solution. Thankyou in advance!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K