Prove Inequality 1/[a3(b+c)] + 1/[b3(a+c)] + 1/[c3(b+a)] >= 3/2 with Hint

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KLscilevothma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on proving the inequality 1/[a³(b+c)] + 1/[b³(a+c)] + 1/[c³(a+b)] ≥ 3/2 under the condition that abc=1, where a, b, and c are positive real numbers. Participants utilize the AM-GM inequality and the Cauchy-Buniakowsky-Schwartz inequality to derive necessary conditions for the proof. A critical point raised is the contradiction arising from misapplying the AM-GM inequality, leading to confusion about the direction of the inequality. The discussion concludes that the correct approach involves verifying the conditions under which the inequalities hold true.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the AM-GM inequality (Arithmetic Mean-Geometric Mean inequality)
  • Familiarity with the Cauchy-Buniakowsky-Schwartz inequality
  • Basic knowledge of inequalities involving positive real numbers
  • Experience with mathematical proofs and problem-solving techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Cauchy-Buniakowsky-Schwartz inequality in detail
  • Learn advanced applications of the AM-GM inequality in inequality proofs
  • Explore alternative proofs for inequalities involving symmetric sums
  • Investigate common pitfalls in applying inequalities in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and enthusiasts interested in inequality proofs, particularly those preparing for math contests or exploring advanced algebraic concepts.

KLscilevothma
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
If abc=1
prove
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:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
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...
 
Last edited:
wow bogdan, thank you!

yes, a, b, c are positive real numbers and I forgot to include that in the question.

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...

I only call it AM>=GM.

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

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 explanations 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.

I can't do much more simple inequalities
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.
 
Here's the solution...problem number 2...

http://imo.math.ca/Sol/95/95_prob.html



It's so "simple"...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
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:
  • #11
No...there are only a few "feasable" substitutions...x=1/a...x=a+b...x=a-b...things like these...
 
  • #12
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)

what's wrong in the above steps ?
 
  • #13
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...
 
  • #14
I think there must be something wrong in the proof, we can't get logically correct answers which contratict each other.
 
  • #15
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 ?
 
  • #16
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

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
or
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:
  • #17
No...
We took E>X, and then expected to prove X>3/2...well..this is not true for every X...got it ?
 
  • #18


Originally posted by KL Kam
If abc=1
prove
1/[a3(b+c)] + 1/[b3(a+c)] + 1/[c3(b+a)] >= 3/2

Please give me a hint. [/QUOTE

a=1 b=1 c=1 this is the only possible solution if the latter equation is tru. the only other way for three variables to multiply to equal 1 is to have two of them equal -1 but if that is true then u get 1/0+1/0+1/0 and this is not possible. there for if you replace every variable with 1 you get 1/2+1/2+1/2 which equals 3/2
 
  • #19
something must have gone wrong in our proof.

It's simple to prove now that (1/[(a+b)*(a+c)*(b+c)])^(1/3)>=1/2
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)
Originally Posted by true_omega
the only other way for three variables to multiply to equal 1 is to have two of them equal -1
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:
  • #20
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
 
  • #21
As a brand spankin' new member here, I look at this post and think to myself, THIS is how to use the internet.

Very happy to be here, I was here a LONG time ago, but that was before I had taken physics, and before I was much a science-person so now I will have a lot more in common.
 
  • #22
An alternative solution

Please visit the following page for an alternative proof.
http://texasmath.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=432&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a"










http://www.idealmath.com/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

MHB Prove the inequality (a^3-c^3)/3≥abc((a-b)/c+(b-c)/a)
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
MHB Proving $(a)^\dfrac{1}{3}+(b)^\dfrac{1}{3}+(c)^\dfrac{1}{3}=0$
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Prove Triangle Inequality: $\sqrt{2}\sin A-2\sin B+\sin C=0$
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Prove Simultaneous Equations: $a+b+c+d \ne 0$
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
MHB How to Prove the Inequality for a, b, and c in the Range of 0 to 1?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Prove Geometric Sequence with $(a,b,c)$
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB How can you prove abc <= 1/8 knowing 1/a + 1/b + 1/c >= 6?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
MHB Proving Inequality: $\frac{1}{ab+bc+ca}\geq\frac{27}{2(a+b+c)^2}$
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
MHB Inequality involving a, b, c and d
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
916
MHB Find the sum of a^(1/3)+b^(1/3)+c^(1/3)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K