If abc=1 prove 1/[a^{3}(b+c)] + 1/[b^{3}(a+c)] + 1/[c^{3}(b+a)] >= 3/2 where a, b, c are positive real numbers. Please give me a hint.
I think that a>0, b>0, c>0...because if this is not true then for a=5, b=-1, c=-1/5 the left part is equal to -31.465, which is smaller than 3/2... So...I'll use this well known inequality (I don't know the english name)... (a1+a2+..+an)/n>=(a1*a2*...*an)^(1/n)...where a1,...an>0 and n>=2... Let n=3 and a1=1/(a^3*(b+c)), a2=1/(b^3*(a+c)), a3=1/(c^3*(a+b))... We obtain (a1+a2+a3)/3>(a1*a2*a3)^(1/3)... Let S=a1+a2+a3... S/3>(a1*a2*a3)^(1/3)...evidently a1*a2*a3=1/[(a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)]...because a^3*b^3*c^3=1... So...S/3>(1/[(a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)])^(1/3)... S>3*(1/[(a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)])^(1/3)... It's simple to prove now that (1/[(a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)])^(1/3)>1/2...the same inequality I used before...good luck...
wow bogdan, thank you! yes, a, b, c are positive real numbers and I forgot to include that in the question. I only call it AM>=GM. prove 1/[(a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)])^(1/3)>=1/2 ==> Prove (a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c) <=8 use AM>=GM again (a+b)/2 >=sqrt(ab)...........(1) (a+c)/2 >=sqrt(ac)...........(2) (c+b)/2 >=sqrt(cb)...........(3) (1)*(2)*(3) the result follows
Unfortunately...it is so very wrong... (a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)>=8, not <=8... There is a solution...use Cauchy-Buniakowsky-Schwartz inequaltity and then AM>GM...
This problem is very strange...I strongly believe I've seen it somewhere in a contest...in the Balcaniad math contest...or something...but that sugestion (Cauchy inequality and AM>GM) is good...because I have it in a book...and that's the only hint the author gives...
If I remember correctly, it's an IOM question, 1995. I think the Cauchy-Buniakowsky-Schwartz inequaltity is different from Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. I haven't heard of C-B-S inequality before. Do you have any link or some explainations about what CBS inequality is?
No...the two are the same... IOM ? Are you crazy ? Do you know what a headache this inequality gave me ? I can't do much more simple inequalities...and I tried this... I have this problem in a book for preparing math contests...and the explanation is : use cauchy-...-...- inequality and AM>GM...that's all...and...what a luck...I have a book with IOMs but 1990-1994...
well, frankly speaking, I needed to take out my textbook before I could remember what C-S inequality is! hehe, I'm not that good in mathematics. I just saw this question and thought it might be an interesting one. I think I got the solutions of IMO questions in 1995 somewhere in my computer but I was too lazy to find it. same here. I need to stop here now, and revise for my pure math test today! Perhaps we can do a little discussion on inequalities later.
usually applying substitutions in harder inequality problems can simplify the questions a bit, but to find suitable substitions is difficult. yes, the solution is so nice!
We have to prove (a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)<=8, but using AM>GM we obtain (a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)>=8...exactly the opposite...I've seen another inequality like this...in a IMO romanian team selection test...where after applying AM>GM twice I obtained the opposite inequality...and took 0 points...
I think there must be something wrong in the proof, we can't get logically correct answers which contratict each other.
I've just shown you the mistake...(a+b)*(b+c)*(a+c)>=8, not viceversa...we wanted the opposite inequality...there's the mistake...we made the expression too small...and now the new expression is less than 3/2...got it ?
Bogdan, I think you've misunderstood me or I wasn't explain my question clearly. I meant how come we can prove (a+b)*(b+c)*(a+c)>=8 and (a+b)*(b+c)*(a+c)<=8 at the same time ? (I know we have to prove (a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)<=8, not the other way round.) Like we get the wrong answer if we use AM>=GM while it is ok when using other methods. So what's wrong if we use AM>=GM? If the question is modified a bit, say if abc=1 (a,b,c are positive real numbers) which of the following is correct 1/[a^{3}(b+c)] + 1/[b^{3}(a+c)] + 1/[c^{3}(b+a)] >= 3/2 or 1/[a^{3}(b+c)] + 1/[b^{3}(a+c)] + 1/[c^{3}(b+a)] <= 3/2 we can't have z>=3/2 and z<=3/2 at the same time while z is not necessarily equals 3/2.
No... We took E>X, and then expected to prove X>3/2......well..this is not true for every X...got it ?
something must have gone wrong in our proof. This step is wrong, which leads the rest of our proof a contradiction. (one of the counter examples, a=1.1, b=2.2, c=3.3) I'm sorry,true_omega, that I didn't include that a, b, c are positive real numbers at the very beginning. I've edited it already.
i did not say the only way is for two of the variables to equal -1 i said the only other way. the solution would be for each variable to equal positive 1 whereas 1*1*1 of course equals 1