Proof of the nontrivial expression

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sludger13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expression Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the validity of the inequality involving sums of squares of variables and their pairwise products. The context includes mathematical reasoning and exploration of proofs, particularly focusing on the case for different values of n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a proof for the inequality: (n-1)∑i=1nxi2 ≠ 2∑i=1,j=1,jnxixj, under certain assumptions.
  • Another participant suggests experimenting with small values of n (like n=2 and n=3) to identify patterns.
  • A participant reports difficulty in finding a pattern after expanding the expressions for n=2, n=3, and n=4.
  • Specific cases for n=2, n=3, and n=4 are presented, showing the expanded forms of the inequality.
  • One participant claims the inequality is valid and relates it to the existence of a stationary point for a function of two variables, seeking a mathematical proof for this assertion.
  • Another participant proposes proving the converse by turning the inequality into an equality and finding conditions for equality to hold, suggesting this may lead to a contradiction.
  • A later reply indicates that a pattern was found, stating that ∑i=1,j=1,jn(xi - xj)2 ≠ 0 is always valid under the given assumptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of confidence in their approaches to proving the inequality, with some finding patterns while others remain uncertain. The discussion does not reach a consensus on a definitive proof.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions and conditions that may affect the validity of the claims, such as the requirement that n ≥ 2 and the existence of distinct variables.

sludger13
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
I'm looking for a proof of a validity of the inequation:
[itex](n-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}^{2}\neq 2\sum_{i=1,j=1,j<i}^{n}x_{i}x_{j}[/itex]

Assumptions:
[itex]n\geq 2[/itex]

[itex]\exists (i,j),x_{i}\neq x_{j}[/itex]
[itex]i=1,...,n[/itex]
[itex]j=1,...,n[/itex]

I have no idea how to prove those non-trivial expressions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start by playing around with the expression ... i.e. try it for n=2 and n=3 and see if you can spot a pattern.

There are lots of approaches to proofs that you know.
i.e. induction, assume the converse, and so on.
Have you tried any?

It is very common that there is no obvious way to proceed but you have to have a go anyway.
 
I started expanding the expression for (n=2,3,4), but it's getting a little chaotic ... I haven't found any pattern so far.
When I try the induction for (n=2) higher, I receive another expression possibly hiding some pattern.
 
[itex]n=2[/itex]:
[itex]x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}\neq 2x_{1}x_{2}[/itex][itex]n=3[/itex]:
[itex]2x_{1}^{2}+2x_{2}^{2}+2x_{3}^{2}\neq 2x_{1}x_{2}+2x_{1}x_{3}+2x_{2}x_{3}[/itex][itex]n=4[/itex]:
[itex]3x_{1}^{2}+3x_{2}^{2}+3x_{3}^{2}+3x_{4}^{2}\neq 2x_{1}x_{2}+2x_{1}x_{3}+2x_{1}x_{4}+2x_{2}x_{3}+2x_{2}x_{4}+2x_{3}x_{4}[/itex]
 
And the in-equation IS VALID - it is the proof of ONE stationary point existence for the function of two variables (for entered assumptions) obtained by the method of least squares. It is easy to imagine that the overall difference of measured values and line values is always minimal for some line directive. I just want to learn to prove it mathematically.
 
Last edited:
So try to prove the converse. Turn the inequality into an equality - then find the condition that must exist t make the equality work. Since you know the statement is true, the condition will contradict at least one of the assumptions.
 
Solved out. It wasn't so difficult to find the pattern:
[itex]\sum_{i=1,j=1,j<i}^{n}(x_{i}-x_{j})^{2}\neq0[/itex]
That is always valid for the given assumptions.

Thank you for your help :)
 
Yeah, that what it looks like to me -
Well done :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K