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

This makes it possible to prove that the sum of x_i is less than or equal to n/3. In summary, the problem involves proving that the sum of values x_i, which are all greater than -1 and have a sum of 0 when cubed, is less than or equal to n/3. To ensure this, we multiply x^3 by 4/3 so that the resulting sum is also greater than or equal to -1.
  • #1
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
3,883
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
Thanks for your participation, in which your solution is almost the same as the official solution, very well done, Euge!
 
  • #4
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?
 
  • #5
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 $\frac{n}{3}$.
 

What is "inequality of the sum"?

"Inequality of the sum" refers to the mathematical concept that states the sum of two numbers is always greater than or equal to the difference between the two numbers.

How is "inequality of the sum" used in real-world applications?

"Inequality of the sum" is used in various fields such as economics, physics, and statistics to compare and analyze data sets, make predictions, and solve equations.

What are the key principles of "inequality of the sum"?

The key principles of "inequality of the sum" include the commutative property, which states that the order of addition does not affect the result, and the transitive property, which states that if a is greater than b and b is greater than c, then a is greater than c.

What is the difference between "inequality of the sum" and "inequality of the product"?

The difference between "inequality of the sum" and "inequality of the product" is that the former deals with the sum of two numbers while the latter deals with the product of two numbers. Additionally, the inequality of the sum states that the sum is greater than or equal to the difference, while the inequality of the product states that the product is greater than or equal to the difference.

How can "inequality of the sum" be proven?

"Inequality of the sum" can be proven using various mathematical techniques such as algebraic manipulation, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction. It can also be proven using geometric proofs and visual representations.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
723
Replies
3
Views
724
Replies
2
Views
822
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
671
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Back
Top