Inequality If abc=1

  1. If abc=1
    1/[a3(b+c)] + 1/[b3(a+c)] + 1/[c3(b+a)] >= 3/2
    where a, b, c are positive real numbers.

    Please give me a hint.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. 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,>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...
    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...
    Last edited: May 1, 2003
  4. 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)
    the result follows
  5. 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...
  6. This problem is very strange...I strongly believe I've seen it somewhere in a 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...
  7. 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?
  8. 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...
  9. 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.
  10. Last edited: May 1, 2003
  11. 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!
    Last edited: May 2, 2003
  12. No...there are only a few "feasable" substitutions...x=1/a...x=a+b...x=a-b...things like these...
  13. what's wrong in the above steps ?
  14. 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 a IMO romanian team selection test...where after applying AM>GM twice I obtained the opposite inequality...and took 0 points...
  15. I think there must be something wrong in the proof, we can't get logically correct answers which contratict each other.
  16. 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/ it ?
  17. 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/[a3(b+c)] + 1/[b3(a+c)] + 1/[c3(b+a)] >= 3/2
    1/[a3(b+c)] + 1/[b3(a+c)] + 1/[c3(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.
    Last edited: May 4, 2003
  18. No...
    We took E>X, and then expected to prove X>3/2......well..this is not true for every it ?
  19. Re: Inequality

  20. 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.
    Last edited: May 6, 2003
  21. 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
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?