MHB Is There a Solution to the Challenge of Inequality?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a mathematical inequality involving the variables k, l, m, and n, constrained between 0 and 1, and their product equating to the product of their complements. A mistake was acknowledged regarding a minus sign that was overlooked in the initial formulation. The participants express appreciation for the valid proof provided by lfdahl, highlighting its uniqueness compared to existing proofs. The conversation emphasizes collaboration and sharing knowledge within the community. Overall, the thread showcases a constructive exchange focused on resolving a mathematical challenge related to inequality.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Given that $0<k,\,l,\,m,\,n<1$ and $klmn=(1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)$, show that $(k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)\ge1$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I´m so sorry for my mistake: A minus-sign was overlooked, and the coupling of the four variables k, l, m, n is not obvious. Sorry!

Given:
\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n),\: \: \: \: 0 < k,l,m,n < 1\]

This equality is only possible, if LHS and RHS have equal factors* (not necessarily in the same order).

\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)\\\\ =1 - (k+l+m+n)+(k+m)(l+n)+mk+nl-(klm+kln+kmn+lmn)+klmn\\\\ \Rightarrow (k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk(1-n-l)+nl(1-m-k)\]

Using (*): WLOG I can take $k = 1-l$, and $n = 1-m$. Thus, the variables are coupled pairwise. I could as well take $k = 1-n$ and $l = 1-m$. The outcome will be exactly the same. But taking $k = 1-m$ and $l = 1-n$ doesn´t work. I don´t know why ...
(- well, it works, because the $\ge$ is still valid).\[(k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk((1-l)-n)+nl(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+mk(k-(1-m))+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1-mk(1-m-k)+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)(1-m-k+mk-mk)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)^2 \geq 1\]
 
Last edited:
lfdahl said:
I´m so sorry for my mistake: A minus-sign was overlooked, and the coupling of the four variables k, l, m, n is not obvious. Sorry!

Hey lfdahl, seriously, there's no need to apologize!(Smile) And everything is fine and perfect with your valid proof!:cool:

lfdahl said:
Given:
\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n),\: \: \: \: 0 < k,l,m,n < 1\]

This equality is only possible, if LHS and RHS have equal factors* (not necessarily in the same order).

\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)\\\\ =1 - (k+l+m+n)+(k+m)(l+n)+mk+nl-(klm+kln+kmn+lmn)+klmn\\\\ \Rightarrow (k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk(1-n-l)+nl(1-m-k)\]

Using (*): WLOG I can take $k = 1-l$, and $n = 1-m$. Thus, the variables are coupled pairwise. I could as well take $k = 1-n$ and $l = 1-m$. The outcome will be exactly the same. But taking $k = 1-m$ and $l = 1-n$ doesn´t work. I don´t know why ...
(- well, it works, because the $\ge$ is still valid).\[(k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk((1-l)-n)+nl(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+mk(k-(1-m))+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1-mk(1-m-k)+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)(1-m-k+mk-mk)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)^2 \geq 1\]

Well done, lfdahl! Your proof is different from the one that I saw online somewhere, hence, I will post it here to share with the community:

We're given $klmn=(1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)$, we can rewrite it as $\dfrac{km}{(1-k)(1-m)}=\dfrac{(1-l)(1-n)}{ln}$ and this is also equivalent to $\dfrac{(k+m)-1}{(1-k)(1-m)}=\dfrac{1-(l+n)}{ln}$.

Recall that if we have $a=b$, then $ab= a^2=b^2\ge0$.

Hence, $\dfrac{(k+m)-1}{(1-k)(1-m)}\cdot\dfrac{1-(l+n)}{ln}\ge 0$.

Since $0<k,\,l,\,m,\,n<1$, we see that the product of the terms in the denominator greater than zero, this yields:

$((k+m)-1)(1-(l+n))\ge0$

$k+m-(k+m)(l+n)-1+l+n\ge0$

$k+m+l+n-(k+m)(l+n)\ge1$ (Q.E.D.)
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
866
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
571