MHB Elementary proof of generalized power mean inequality

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the generalized power mean inequality, specifically showing that the geometric mean \( G \) lies between the power means \( M_q \) and \( M_p \) for integers \( q < 0 < p \) when the numbers \( x_1, \ldots, x_n \) are not all equal. The proof utilizes the definitions of the geometric mean and power means, demonstrating that \( G < M_p \) and \( G > M_q \) through inequalities derived from part (a) of the problem. The approach avoids calculus, aligning with the context of Apostol's book. The conversation highlights the simplicity of the proof while addressing the challenge of finding a non-calculus method. The discussion concludes with an affirmation of the effectiveness of the proof presented.
Ragnarok7
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
This is problem 20b from chapter I 4.10 of Apostol's Calculus I.

The geometric mean $$G$$ of $$n$$ positive real numbers $$x_1,\ldots, x_n$$ is defined by the formula $$G=(x_1x_2\ldots x_n)^{1/n}$$.

Let $$p$$ and $$q$$ be integers, $$q<0<p$$. From part (a) deduce that $$M_q<G<M_p$$ when $$x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n$$ are not all equal.


(Part (a) was to show that $$G\leq M_1$$ and that $$G=M_1$$ only when $$x_1=x_2=\ldots =x_n$$. I.e., the AM-GM inequality.)

Generalized mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia mentions it is proved using Jensen's inequality, and all the proofs I have found have used this. But since this comes from the opening of Apostol's book, where calculus has not been developed, I'm wondering if there is a non-calculus way of proving this. Does anyone have any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ragnarok said:
This is problem 20b from chapter I 4.10 of Apostol's Calculus I.

The geometric mean $$G$$ of $$n$$ positive real numbers $$x_1,\ldots, x_n$$ is defined by the formula $$G=(x_1x_2\ldots x_n)^{1/n}$$.

Let $$p$$ and $$q$$ be integers, $$q<0<p$$. From part (a) deduce that $$M_q<G<M_p$$ when $$x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n$$ are not all equal.


(Part (a) was to show that $$G\leq M_1$$ and that $$G=M_1$$ only when $$x_1=x_2=\ldots =x_n$$. I.e., the AM-GM inequality.)

Generalized mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia mentions it is proved using Jensen's inequality, and all the proofs I have found have used this. But since this comes from the opening of Apostol's book, where calculus has not been developed, I'm wondering if there is a non-calculus way of proving this. Does anyone have any ideas?

Hi Ragnarok,

To prove the result, we must show that $G < M_p$ and $G > M_q$ when $x_1\ldots,x_n$ are not all equal. For definiteness, I'll let

$$G(a_1,...,a_n) := (a_1\cdots a_n)^{\frac{1}{n}}$$ and $$M_r(a_1,...,a_n) := \left(\frac{a_1^r + \cdots + a_n^r}{n}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}},$$

for all n-tuples $(a_1,\ldots a_n)$ of positive real numbers. Then

$$[G(x_1,\ldots,x_n)]^p = G(x_1^p,\ldots, x_n^p) < M_1(x_1^p,\ldots,x_n^p) = [M_p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)]^p,$$

where the first inequality follows from part (a) and the fact that $x_1^p,\ldots,x_n^p$ are not all equal. Hence, taking $p^{th}$-roots,

$$G(x_1,\ldots,x_n) < M_p(x_1,\ldots,x_n),$$

or $G < M_p$. To prove $G > M_q$, we use a similar argument:

$$[G(x_1,\ldots,x_n)]^q = G(x_1^q,\ldots,x_n^q) < M_1(x_1^q,\ldots,x_n^q) = [M_q(x_1,...,x_n)]^q.$$

The strict inequality is due to part (a) and the fact that $x_1^q,\ldots, x_n^q$ are not all equal. Since $-q > 0$, we take $(-q)^{th}$ roots and then reciprocate to obtain

$$G(x_1,\ldots,x_n) > M_q(x_1,...,x_n),$$

i.e., $G > M_q$.
 
Thank you so much Euge! That is a great proof and I didn't think it could be so simple!

I just realized that I forgot to define $$M_p$$. I'll do it now just for completeness. If $$p$$ is a nonzero integer, then the $$p$$th-power mean of $$n$$ positive real numbers $$x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n$$ is $$M_p=\left(\frac{x_1^p\ldots +x_n^p}{n}\right)^{1/p}$$.
 
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K