Proof of Simple Inequality for Positive Real Values x_1,x_2,...,x_n

In summary: However, I'm still stuck on showing that this is the maximum.In summary, the geometric mean of real and positive numbers is always less than their arithmetic mean, except when all the numbers are equal in which case they are both equal. This is proven by using previous results that show that the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to 2, and that if the product of the numbers is 1, the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to n. By setting P=x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}, it can be shown that the geometric mean is also greater than or equal to P/g^n, where g=\sqrt[n]{P}. However, it is still to be proven that this is
  • #1
sat
12
0
Let [itex]x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}[/itex] be real and positive. Show that
[tex] g\equiv \sqrt[n]{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}} < \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{n} \equiv a [/tex]
except when [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots = x_{n}[/itex] in which case [itex]a=g[/itex].

We are given the results (from previous exercises) that
[tex] \forall x>0 : x+\frac{1}{x} \geq 2 [/tex]
and if [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}=1[/itex], then
[tex] x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}\geq n [/tex]
and this is equality if and only if [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots=x_{n}=1[/itex].

Clearly if [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}=1[/itex], then the last result applies directly, and[itex]a>1 = g[/itex]. When [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}\neq 1[/itex] things are more difficult.

I can show that, for [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}<1[/itex], [itex]a>g^{n}=x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}[/itex], but [itex]g>g^{n}[/itex] which doesn't help. To do that I used the first `given' result to derive that
[tex] x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots + x_{n} \geq 2n - \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots + x_{n}}{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}} [/tex]
and took it from there.

I'm also not making much progress with the case [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}>1[/itex]. I have tried doing things like `forcing' the expressions to equal unity by introducing [itex]x_{1}^{-1}[/itex] etc and increasing [itex]n[/itex] accordingly but the problem is then to show that [itex]a[/itex] is greater than the new mean including these reciprocals and that the geometric mean is less than this.

Any ideas would be apprectiated. (It's probably something very simple which I'm overlooking.)

The problems are from Shilov "Introductory Real and Complex Analysis", p24 if anyone has that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi!
sat said:
if [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}=1[/itex] (1), then
[tex] x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}\geq n [/tex]
and this is equality if and only if [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots=x_{n}=1[/itex].


Set [itex]P=x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}[/itex] then
[tex] g\equiv \sqrt[n]{x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}} =\sqrt[n]{P} [/tex]

For the real numbers [itex]w_{i}=x_{i}/g[/itex] we have

[itex]w_{1}w_{2}\ldots w_{n}=(x_{1}/g)(x_{2}/g)\ldots (x_{n}/g)=P/g^n=1[/itex]

So, (1) holds for wi. Then

[tex] w_{1}+w_{2}+\ldots+w_{n}\geq n [/tex] (this is an equality if and only if [tex]w_{i}=1 <=> x_{i}=g [/tex])


[tex] \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{g}\geq n [/tex]

[tex] \frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+\ldots+x_{n}}{n}\geq g [/tex]

That is,
[tex]a\geq g[/tex] and this is an equality if and only if [tex]x_{i}=g=\sqrt[n]{P}, \forall i [/tex]
 
  • #3
Thanks. That seems to solve the problem of making it work for [itex]x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{n}\neq 1[/itex]
 

What is the proof of simple inequality for positive real values?

The proof of simple inequality for positive real values states that for any set of positive real numbers x1, x2, ..., xn, the sum of their squares is always greater than or equal to the square of their average. This can be written as:(x12 + x22 + ... + xn2) ≥ (x1 + x2 + ... + xn)2 / n

What is the significance of the simple inequality for positive real values?

The simple inequality for positive real values is significant because it is a fundamental concept in mathematics and has many applications in various fields, such as statistics, economics, and engineering. It also serves as the basis for more complex inequalities and mathematical proofs.

Can the simple inequality for positive real values be extended to negative real values?

No, the simple inequality for positive real values only applies to positive real numbers. If negative numbers are included, the inequality may not hold true. For example, if x1 = -2 and x2 = 2, the inequality becomes 2 ≥ 2/2, which is not true.

How can the simple inequality for positive real values be used in real-life situations?

The simple inequality for positive real values can be used in various real-life situations, such as analyzing data in statistics, optimizing production in economics, and designing structures in engineering. It can also be applied in daily life, such as budgeting and planning resources.

Is there a general formula for proving inequalities?

Yes, there is a general formula for proving inequalities, which involves breaking down the inequality into smaller components, making assumptions, and using mathematical operations and properties to manipulate the components until the desired result is achieved. However, the specific approach may vary depending on the type of inequality being proved.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
758
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
991
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
571
Back
Top