Establish the inequality $frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Given a finite increasing sequence of real numbers $x_i_i=1^n$ consisting of at least two elements, how can we show that
$$
frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2
$$
without expanding. I attempted applying Holder's inequality but failed. Maybe I missed something.










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    Given a finite increasing sequence of real numbers $x_i_i=1^n$ consisting of at least two elements, how can we show that
    $$
    frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2
    $$
    without expanding. I attempted applying Holder's inequality but failed. Maybe I missed something.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      Given a finite increasing sequence of real numbers $x_i_i=1^n$ consisting of at least two elements, how can we show that
      $$
      frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2
      $$
      without expanding. I attempted applying Holder's inequality but failed. Maybe I missed something.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Given a finite increasing sequence of real numbers $x_i_i=1^n$ consisting of at least two elements, how can we show that
      $$
      frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2
      $$
      without expanding. I attempted applying Holder's inequality but failed. Maybe I missed something.







      inequality






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Oct 22 '17 at 2:51

























      asked Oct 21 '17 at 17:06









      venrey

      13811




      13811




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          Hints:



          1) the sum in LHS is by Rearrangement Inequality the lowest possible of form $x_ix_pi(i)$ where $pi$ is a permutation.



          2) unless the $x_i$ are strictly increasing somewhere, equality is possible.




          P.S. For some more detail, note that $nsum x_ix_n−i+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...n−1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:36







          • 1




            There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
            – Macavity
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:39







          • 1




            Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:41










          • We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:22










          • @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
            – Macavity
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:24


















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This should be wrong.
          For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
          $$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:32










          • Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 23 '17 at 1:57

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Let
          $$
          barx=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_itag1
          $$
          If $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$, we can find a $k$ so that $x_klebarxlt x_k+1$. Then
          $$
          barx-x_n-i+1ge0iff ige n-k+1tag2
          $$
          Therefore,
          $$
          beginalign
          left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ibarx-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1tag3\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ileft(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag4\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nleft(x_i-x_n-k+1right)left(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag5
          endalign
          $$
          Explanation:

          $(3)$: apply $(1)$

          $(4)$: distributive property

          $(5)$: subtract $frac1nx_n-k-1sumlimits_i=1^nleft(barx-x_n-i+1right)=0$



          Applying $(2)$,
          $$
          beginalign
          ige n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1ge0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1ge0tag6\
          ilt n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1lt0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1le0tag7
          endalign
          $$
          Thus, the terms in $(5)$ are non-negative. Furthermore, either the $i=1$ term or the $i=n$ term of $(5)$ is positive; that is, $barx$ cannot equal either $x_1$ or $x_n$, and $x_n-k+1$ cannot equal both $x_1$ and $x_n$.



          Summarizing, if $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$,
          $$
          frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
            – venrey
            Oct 22 '17 at 3:13







          • 1




            @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 4:13

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          $$frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2iffsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < frac1nleft(sum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$$



          When $n$ is odd one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn-12x_fracn+32)+x^2_fracn+12$



          When $n$ is even one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn2x_fracn+22)$



          In both cases we have trivially that a sum of squares distinct of zero is greater than $0$.



          $$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 1:51










          • All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:55










          • Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:57










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2483046%2festablish-the-inequality-frac1n-sum-i-1nx-ix-n-i1-left-frac%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          Hints:



          1) the sum in LHS is by Rearrangement Inequality the lowest possible of form $x_ix_pi(i)$ where $pi$ is a permutation.



          2) unless the $x_i$ are strictly increasing somewhere, equality is possible.




          P.S. For some more detail, note that $nsum x_ix_n−i+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...n−1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:36







          • 1




            There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
            – Macavity
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:39







          • 1




            Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:41










          • We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:22










          • @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
            – Macavity
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:24















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          Hints:



          1) the sum in LHS is by Rearrangement Inequality the lowest possible of form $x_ix_pi(i)$ where $pi$ is a permutation.



          2) unless the $x_i$ are strictly increasing somewhere, equality is possible.




          P.S. For some more detail, note that $nsum x_ix_n−i+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...n−1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:36







          • 1




            There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
            – Macavity
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:39







          • 1




            Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:41










          • We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:22










          • @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
            – Macavity
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:24













          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted






          Hints:



          1) the sum in LHS is by Rearrangement Inequality the lowest possible of form $x_ix_pi(i)$ where $pi$ is a permutation.



          2) unless the $x_i$ are strictly increasing somewhere, equality is possible.




          P.S. For some more detail, note that $nsum x_ix_n−i+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...n−1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Hints:



          1) the sum in LHS is by Rearrangement Inequality the lowest possible of form $x_ix_pi(i)$ where $pi$ is a permutation.



          2) unless the $x_i$ are strictly increasing somewhere, equality is possible.




          P.S. For some more detail, note that $nsum x_ix_n−i+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...n−1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Sep 10 at 4:58

























          answered Oct 21 '17 at 17:29









          Macavity

          34.6k52351




          34.6k52351











          • Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:36







          • 1




            There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
            – Macavity
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:39







          • 1




            Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:41










          • We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:22










          • @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
            – Macavity
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:24

















          • Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:36







          • 1




            There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
            – Macavity
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:39







          • 1




            Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:41










          • We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:22










          • @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
            – Macavity
            Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
















          Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
          – venrey
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:36





          Thank you @Macavity. But I have one more question. I still don't get it how to justify the removal of the absolute values. Do I need to resort on case to case basis?
          – venrey
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:36





          1




          1




          There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
          – Macavity
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:39





          There are no absolute values in what I hinted. I am not attempting to salvage your efforts, just note that $n sum x_i x_n-i+1 < (sum x_i)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together - the RHS contains terms $n$ sums of (cyclic) form $sum_i x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0, 1, ... n-1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
          – Macavity
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:39





          1




          1




          Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
          – venrey
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:41




          Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
          – venrey
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:41












          We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 22 '17 at 14:22




          We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 22 '17 at 14:22












          @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
          – Macavity
          Oct 22 '17 at 14:24





          @robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
          – Macavity
          Oct 22 '17 at 14:24











          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This should be wrong.
          For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
          $$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:32










          • Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 23 '17 at 1:57














          up vote
          1
          down vote













          This should be wrong.
          For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
          $$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:32










          • Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 23 '17 at 1:57












          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          This should be wrong.
          For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
          $$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          This should be wrong.
          For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
          $$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Oct 21 '17 at 17:17









          justabit

          858




          858











          • Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:32










          • Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
















          • Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
            – venrey
            Oct 21 '17 at 17:32










          • Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 23 '17 at 1:57















          Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
          – venrey
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:32




          Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
          – venrey
          Oct 21 '17 at 17:32












          Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 23 '17 at 1:57




          Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 23 '17 at 1:57










          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Let
          $$
          barx=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_itag1
          $$
          If $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$, we can find a $k$ so that $x_klebarxlt x_k+1$. Then
          $$
          barx-x_n-i+1ge0iff ige n-k+1tag2
          $$
          Therefore,
          $$
          beginalign
          left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ibarx-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1tag3\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ileft(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag4\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nleft(x_i-x_n-k+1right)left(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag5
          endalign
          $$
          Explanation:

          $(3)$: apply $(1)$

          $(4)$: distributive property

          $(5)$: subtract $frac1nx_n-k-1sumlimits_i=1^nleft(barx-x_n-i+1right)=0$



          Applying $(2)$,
          $$
          beginalign
          ige n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1ge0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1ge0tag6\
          ilt n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1lt0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1le0tag7
          endalign
          $$
          Thus, the terms in $(5)$ are non-negative. Furthermore, either the $i=1$ term or the $i=n$ term of $(5)$ is positive; that is, $barx$ cannot equal either $x_1$ or $x_n$, and $x_n-k+1$ cannot equal both $x_1$ and $x_n$.



          Summarizing, if $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$,
          $$
          frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
            – venrey
            Oct 22 '17 at 3:13







          • 1




            @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 4:13














          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Let
          $$
          barx=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_itag1
          $$
          If $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$, we can find a $k$ so that $x_klebarxlt x_k+1$. Then
          $$
          barx-x_n-i+1ge0iff ige n-k+1tag2
          $$
          Therefore,
          $$
          beginalign
          left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ibarx-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1tag3\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ileft(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag4\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nleft(x_i-x_n-k+1right)left(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag5
          endalign
          $$
          Explanation:

          $(3)$: apply $(1)$

          $(4)$: distributive property

          $(5)$: subtract $frac1nx_n-k-1sumlimits_i=1^nleft(barx-x_n-i+1right)=0$



          Applying $(2)$,
          $$
          beginalign
          ige n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1ge0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1ge0tag6\
          ilt n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1lt0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1le0tag7
          endalign
          $$
          Thus, the terms in $(5)$ are non-negative. Furthermore, either the $i=1$ term or the $i=n$ term of $(5)$ is positive; that is, $barx$ cannot equal either $x_1$ or $x_n$, and $x_n-k+1$ cannot equal both $x_1$ and $x_n$.



          Summarizing, if $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$,
          $$
          frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
            – venrey
            Oct 22 '17 at 3:13







          • 1




            @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 4:13












          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Let
          $$
          barx=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_itag1
          $$
          If $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$, we can find a $k$ so that $x_klebarxlt x_k+1$. Then
          $$
          barx-x_n-i+1ge0iff ige n-k+1tag2
          $$
          Therefore,
          $$
          beginalign
          left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ibarx-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1tag3\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ileft(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag4\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nleft(x_i-x_n-k+1right)left(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag5
          endalign
          $$
          Explanation:

          $(3)$: apply $(1)$

          $(4)$: distributive property

          $(5)$: subtract $frac1nx_n-k-1sumlimits_i=1^nleft(barx-x_n-i+1right)=0$



          Applying $(2)$,
          $$
          beginalign
          ige n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1ge0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1ge0tag6\
          ilt n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1lt0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1le0tag7
          endalign
          $$
          Thus, the terms in $(5)$ are non-negative. Furthermore, either the $i=1$ term or the $i=n$ term of $(5)$ is positive; that is, $barx$ cannot equal either $x_1$ or $x_n$, and $x_n-k+1$ cannot equal both $x_1$ and $x_n$.



          Summarizing, if $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$,
          $$
          frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Let
          $$
          barx=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_itag1
          $$
          If $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$, we can find a $k$ so that $x_klebarxlt x_k+1$. Then
          $$
          barx-x_n-i+1ge0iff ige n-k+1tag2
          $$
          Therefore,
          $$
          beginalign
          left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ibarx-frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1tag3\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ileft(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag4\
          &=frac1nsum_i=1^nleft(x_i-x_n-k+1right)left(barx-x_n-i+1right)tag5
          endalign
          $$
          Explanation:

          $(3)$: apply $(1)$

          $(4)$: distributive property

          $(5)$: subtract $frac1nx_n-k-1sumlimits_i=1^nleft(barx-x_n-i+1right)=0$



          Applying $(2)$,
          $$
          beginalign
          ige n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1ge0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1ge0tag6\
          ilt n-k+1&impliesbarx-x_n-i+1lt0quadtextandquad x_i-x_n-k+1le0tag7
          endalign
          $$
          Thus, the terms in $(5)$ are non-negative. Furthermore, either the $i=1$ term or the $i=n$ term of $(5)$ is positive; that is, $barx$ cannot equal either $x_1$ or $x_n$, and $x_n-k+1$ cannot equal both $x_1$ and $x_n$.



          Summarizing, if $x_ile x_i+1$ and $x_1lt x_n$,
          $$
          frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
          $$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Oct 23 '17 at 12:09

























          answered Oct 21 '17 at 21:29









          robjohn♦

          260k26299614




          260k26299614











          • This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
            – venrey
            Oct 22 '17 at 3:13







          • 1




            @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
















          • This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
            – venrey
            Oct 22 '17 at 3:13







          • 1




            @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 4:13















          This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
          – venrey
          Oct 22 '17 at 3:13





          This seems quite a neat argument @robjohn. Question: How did you come up with the last equality? In other words, I can't seem to get how did you utilized the existence of $k$.
          – venrey
          Oct 22 '17 at 3:13





          1




          1




          @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 22 '17 at 4:13




          @venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 22 '17 at 4:13










          up vote
          0
          down vote













          $$frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2iffsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < frac1nleft(sum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$$



          When $n$ is odd one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn-12x_fracn+32)+x^2_fracn+12$



          When $n$ is even one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn2x_fracn+22)$



          In both cases we have trivially that a sum of squares distinct of zero is greater than $0$.



          $$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 1:51










          • All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:55










          • Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:57














          up vote
          0
          down vote













          $$frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2iffsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < frac1nleft(sum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$$



          When $n$ is odd one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn-12x_fracn+32)+x^2_fracn+12$



          When $n$ is even one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn2x_fracn+22)$



          In both cases we have trivially that a sum of squares distinct of zero is greater than $0$.



          $$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 1:51










          • All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:55










          • Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:57












          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          $$frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2iffsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < frac1nleft(sum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$$



          When $n$ is odd one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn-12x_fracn+32)+x^2_fracn+12$



          When $n$ is even one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn2x_fracn+22)$



          In both cases we have trivially that a sum of squares distinct of zero is greater than $0$.



          $$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          $$frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2iffsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < frac1nleft(sum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$$



          When $n$ is odd one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn-12x_fracn+32)+x^2_fracn+12$



          When $n$ is even one has $LHS=2(x_1x_n+cdots+x_fracn2x_fracn+22)$



          In both cases we have trivially that a sum of squares distinct of zero is greater than $0$.



          $$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Oct 21 '17 at 21:15









          Piquito

          17.5k31335




          17.5k31335











          • Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 1:51










          • All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:55










          • Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
















          • Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
            – robjohn♦
            Oct 22 '17 at 1:51










          • All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:55










          • Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
            – Piquito
            Oct 23 '17 at 2:57















          Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 22 '17 at 1:51




          Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
          – robjohn♦
          Oct 22 '17 at 1:51












          All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
          – Piquito
          Oct 23 '17 at 2:55




          All the $(x_i-x_j)^2$ should be positive for this because the square of both $a_i-a_j$ and $a_j-a_i$ are equal and greater than zero.
          – Piquito
          Oct 23 '17 at 2:55












          Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
          – Piquito
          Oct 23 '17 at 2:57




          Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
          – Piquito
          Oct 23 '17 at 2:57

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2483046%2festablish-the-inequality-frac1n-sum-i-1nx-ix-n-i1-left-frac%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          1st Magritte Awards