Solving Inequality Problem 5: xyz=1

  • Thread starter Thread starter evansmiley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving two inequalities involving positive real numbers x, y, and z such that xyz = 1. The first inequality states that 27 is less than or equal to the sum of squares of expressions involving x, y, and z, with equality when x = y = z = 1. The second inequality asserts that the same sum is less than or equal to three times the square of the sum of x, y, and z, also achieving equality under the same condition. Participants suggest using the AM-GM inequality and substitutions to simplify the expressions, ultimately confirming that both inequalities hold true with equality only when x, y, and z are equal to one. The conversation concludes with a rigorous proof confirming the conditions for equality.
evansmiley
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
5. Suppose that x, y and z are positive real numbers such that xyz = 1.
(a) Prove that
27 \leq(1 + x + y)^{2} + (1 + y + z)^{2} + (1 + z + x)^{2}

with equality if and only if x = y = z = 1.
(b) Prove that
(1 + x + y)^{2} + (1 + y + z)^{2} + (1 + z + x)^{2} \leq 3(x + y + z)^{2}

with equality if and only if x = y = z = 1.

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't really how to prove this. I can visualize the truth in my head but I don't know where to start a proof. Does anyone know any particular methods to solve symmetric equalities such as this one? I'm trying to see a nice way to simplify it or introduce a substitution but i can't see anything. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know that xyz=1 so that would be a good start. And also the sqrt could be taken on each side and then you just subsittute till you have something which you know is greater than \sqrt{27}
 
Hints:

5. (a) Rewriting the expressions a bit, can you equivalently prove that (x+1)^2 + (y+1)^2 + (z+1)^2 + xy + yz + zx \geq 15

5. (b) Put x + y + z = S_1
xy + yz + zx = S_2

and rewrite the expressions.

Now can you equivalently prove that
2S_2 \geq 4S_1 + 3 - S_1^2
 
ok i can see how you rearranged the first inequality but i still don't know where to go from there ? ? ? And may i ask where the inspiration came from to arrange the inequality in that way? Sorry, i don't have much experience solving this kind of problem, so any tips would help immensely! Thanks
 
The idea is to apply the AM-GM-HM inequality at some stage or the other. If you keep that in mind, you can try to manipulate the expressions accordingly.

Can you see that


(x+1)^2 \geq 4x
(y+1)^2 \geq 4y
(z+1)^2 \geq 4z

Can you try to complete the proof now? Let me know if you need more help.
 
Oh yes i can see, it comes from the fact that (x-1)^2 ≥ 0
So logically it seems to me to try prove

4x + 4y + 4z + xy + yz +xz ≥ 15

Applying AM-GM we get :

(4x + 4y + 4z) ≥ 12

So now we have

xy + yz + zx ≥ 3

which is equivalent to

1/x + 1/y + 1/z ≥ 3

Now I am stuck :P
 
A simpler way to complete the proof is to use the following facts:
x + y + z \geq 3 and xy + yz + zx \geq 3

These facts follow from the AM-GM-HM inequality:

\frac{x+y+z}{3} \geq (xyz)^{\frac{1}{3}} \geq \frac{3}{\frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{y} + \frac{1}{z}}

Which means, \frac{x+y+z}{3} \geq 1 \geq \frac{3}{xy + yz + zx}

[From the above line, your required proof also follows immediately!]
 
dibyendu said:
Now can you equivalently prove that
2S_2 \geq 4S_1 + 3 - S_1^2

I tried doing that, however i got 2S_1 rather than 4S_1, did you make an error calculating or was that me?
 
Please check my calculations. I did it in a hurry.

We are required TPT (S_1 - x + 1)^2 + (S_1 - y + 1)^2 + (S_1 - z + 1)^2 \leq 3S_1^2

Simplifying, we find that we are required TPT
S_1^2 - 2S_2 \leq 2S_1^2 - 4S_1 - 3
i.e., TPT 2S_2 \geq 4S_1 + 3 - S_1^2
 
  • #10
sorry, yes, you're completely right, i must have made a mistake. Ok so is this logic ok?
2S2 ≥ 3 + S1(4-S1)
Well we already know that S1≥3 and S2 ≥ 3
So 2S2 ≥ 6
On the other hand, if we wish to maximise the right hand side of the equation, we want S1 to be its minimum, 3, hence the maximum value of the r.h.s. = 3 + 3(4-3) =6
So minimum l.h.s. = 6, max r.h.s. = 6, hence l.h.s. ≥ r.h.s
Equality occurs if x = y = z = 1, because at these values, the min and max, respectively, occur.
Is that rigorous enough a proof? I still didnt manage to prove that equality occurs if and only if x =y =z =1? Thanks
 
  • #11
Observe that
4S_1 + 3 - S_1^2 = 7 - (S_1 - 2)^2

Since S_1 \geq 3 the RHS is always \leq 6

Finally the LHS is always \geq 6 and the RHS is always \leq 6, which completes the proof.

You can solve the equality case by considering the equations LHS = RHS = 6
 
  • #12
Ah ok cool, I had tried factoring and leaving a seven outside too before going back and corssing out my work, but I think be both came to the same conclusion. Many thanks for your help dibyendu!
 
  • #13
You are most welcome, Evansmiley. It's my pleasure.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top