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

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
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
inequality
edited Oct 22 '17 at 2:51
asked Oct 21 '17 at 17:06
venrey
13811
13811
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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 $nsum x_ix_nâÂÂi+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...nâÂÂ1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
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?
â 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.
â Macavity
Oct 21 '17 at 17:39
1
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â Macavity
Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This should be wrong.
For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
$$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$
Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:32
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
add a comment |Â
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 $x_1lt x_n$,
$$
frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
$$
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 $k$.
â 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.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
add a comment |Â
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 $0$.
$$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$
Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:55
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
add a comment |Â
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 $nsum x_ix_nâÂÂi+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...nâÂÂ1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
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?
â 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.
â Macavity
Oct 21 '17 at 17:39
1
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â Macavity
Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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 $nsum x_ix_nâÂÂi+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...nâÂÂ1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
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?
â 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.
â Macavity
Oct 21 '17 at 17:39
1
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â Macavity
Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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 $nsum x_ix_nâÂÂi+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...nâÂÂ1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
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 $nsum x_ix_nâÂÂi+1<left(sum x_iright)^2$ follows from $n$ rearrangements summed together. Each such rearrangement has an RHS of form $sum x_i x_i+j$ where $j=0,1,...nâÂÂ1$, and the sum in LHS is lower than each of them.
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?
â 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.
â Macavity
Oct 21 '17 at 17:39
1
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â Macavity
Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
 |Â
show 4 more comments
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?
â 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.
â Macavity
Oct 21 '17 at 17:39
1
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â 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?
â 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?
â 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.
â 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.
â Macavity
Oct 21 '17 at 17:39
1
1
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
Great! Now I get it. Thanks once again.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:41
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
We don't need strict increase, just that $x_1lt x_n$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 14:22
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â Macavity
Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
@robjohn Yes. Equality in rearrangement requires all the variables to be identical.
â Macavity
Oct 22 '17 at 14:24
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This should be wrong.
For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
$$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$
Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:32
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This should be wrong.
For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
$$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$
Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:32
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
add a comment |Â
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?
$$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$
This should be wrong.
For example for $x_i = 1$ this is an equality isn't it?
$$ frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1^2 = 1 = 1^2 = (frac1n n)^2 = (frac1n sum limits_i=1^n 1)^2 $$
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.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:32
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
add a comment |Â
Thank you for the this remark. I have edited my question with at least two elements in the sequence.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:32
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â 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.
â venrey
Oct 21 '17 at 17:32
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
Yes, to get inequality, I assume $a_1lt a_n$ which implies that $ngt1$.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 23 '17 at 1:57
add a comment |Â
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 $x_1lt x_n$,
$$
frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
$$
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 $k$.
â 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.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
add a comment |Â
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 $x_1lt x_n$,
$$
frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
$$
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 $k$.
â 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.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
add a comment |Â
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 $x_1lt x_n$,
$$
frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
$$
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 $x_1lt x_n$,
$$
frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1ltleft(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2tag8
$$
edited Oct 23 '17 at 12:09
answered Oct 21 '17 at 21:29
robjohnâ¦
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 $k$.
â 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.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
add a comment |Â
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 $k$.
â 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.
â robjohnâ¦
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 $k$.
â 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 $k$.
â 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.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
@venrey: I have added some explanation. If that does not answer your question, please let me know.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 4:13
add a comment |Â
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 $0$.
$$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$
Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:55
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
add a comment |Â
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 $0$.
$$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$
Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:55
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
add a comment |Â
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 $0$.
$$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$
$$frac1nsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < left(frac1nsum_i=1^nx_iright)^2iffsum_i=1^nx_ix_n-i+1 < frac1nleft(sum_i=1^nx_iright)^2$$
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 $0$.
$$0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+32-x_fracn-12)^2)text when n is odd \0lt n((x_n-x_1)^2+cdots +(x_fracn+22-x_fracn2)^2)text when n is even $$
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.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:55
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
add a comment |Â
Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:55
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
â robjohnâ¦
Oct 22 '17 at 1:51
Where do you use the monotonicity of $x_i$? Without that, the inequality is not necessarily true.
â robjohnâ¦
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.
â 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.
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:55
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
Why the sign of edit? I don't have edit anything. Who put this "edit"?
â Piquito
Oct 23 '17 at 2:57
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password