MHB Can the Inequality of the Sum be Proven Using the Cube Root of -1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anemone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality Sum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that if the sum of cubes of a sequence of numbers, each greater than or equal to -1, equals zero, then the sum of the numbers themselves is less than or equal to n/3. Participants share their solutions, noting similarities with the official solution. A key point raised is the multiplication of x^3 by 4/3, which simplifies the equation and relates to the roots of -1. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical reasoning behind these steps. The problem presents an interesting challenge in inequality and algebraic manipulation.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Assume that $x_1,\,x_2,\,\cdots,\,x_n\ge -1$ and $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^3=0$. Prove that $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n x_i\le \dfrac{n}{3}$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Interesting problem. Here is my solution.

It suffices to show that $\max\limits_{x\in [-1,\infty)} (x - \frac43 x^3) = \frac13$, since then we may estimate $$\sum x_i = \sum x_i - \frac{4}{3}\sum x_i^3 = \sum \left(x_i - \frac{4}{3}x_i^3\right) \le \sum \frac{1}{3} = \frac{n}{3}$$ Note that for all $x \ge -1$, \[\begin{align}\frac13 - \left(x - \frac43 x^3\right) &= \frac{4x^3 - 3x + 1}{3}\\ &= \frac{4[(1 + x)^3 - 3(1 + x)^2 + 3(1 + x) - 1] - 3(1 + x) + 4}{3}\\ &= \frac{4(1 + x)^3 - 12(1 + x)^2 + 9(1 + x)}{3}\\ &= \frac{(1 + x)[2(1 + x) - 3]^2}{3}\end{align}\] is nonnegative, and equals zero if $x = -1$ or $x = \frac12$, proving the claim.
 
Thanks for your participation, in which your solution is almost the same as the official solution, very well done, Euge!
 
Euge said:
Interesting problem. Here is my solution.

It suffices to show that $\max\limits_{x\in [-1,\infty)} (x - \frac43 x^3) = \frac13$, since then we may estimate $$\sum x_i = \sum x_i - \frac{4}{3}\sum x_i^3 = \sum \left(x_i - \frac{4}{3}x_i^3\right) \le \sum \frac{1}{3} = \frac{n}{3}$$ Note that for all $x \ge -1$, \[\begin{align}\frac13 - \left(x - \frac43 x^3\right) &= \frac{4x^3 - 3x + 1}{3}\\ &= \frac{4[(1 + x)^3 - 3(1 + x)^2 + 3(1 + x) - 1] - 3(1 + x) + 4}{3}\\ &= \frac{4(1 + x)^3 - 12(1 + x)^2 + 9(1 + x)}{3}\\ &= \frac{(1 + x)[2(1 + x) - 3]^2}{3}\end{align}\] is nonnegative, and equals zero if $x = -1$ or $x = \frac12$, proving the claim.
Is there any reason why we took 4/3 to be multiplied by x^3? I know it simplifies nicely after that. Is the reason because -1 will then be its root?
 
DaalChawal said:
Is there any reason why we took 4/3 to be multiplied by x^3? I know it simplifies nicely after that. Is the reason because -1 will then be its root?

Yes indeed, there is a reason:

My idea was to find $\alpha$ such that $x - \alpha x^3$ has maximum $\frac13$ at some point in $[-1,\infty)$, and $\alpha = \frac43$ accomplishes that. We would then have $x_i - \frac{4}{3}x_i^3 \le \frac{1}{3}$ for each $i$ so that $\sum x_i = \sum (x_i - \frac{4}{3}x^3)$ must be no greater than $\frac{n}{3}$.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top