Show this inequality with fractional parts.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Let $n geq 2$ be an integer and $x_1, x_2, cdots, x_n$ positive reals such that $x_1x_2 cdots x_n = 1$.
Show: $$x_1 + x_2 + cdots + x_n < frac2n-12$$
Note: $x$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.
Is $dfrac2n-12$ optimal?
inequality contest-math
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Let $n geq 2$ be an integer and $x_1, x_2, cdots, x_n$ positive reals such that $x_1x_2 cdots x_n = 1$.
Show: $$x_1 + x_2 + cdots + x_n < frac2n-12$$
Note: $x$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.
Is $dfrac2n-12$ optimal?
inequality contest-math
Would you provide the source? And of course, your own efforts, please. Thank you!
â A. Pongrácz
Aug 16 at 10:04
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Let $n geq 2$ be an integer and $x_1, x_2, cdots, x_n$ positive reals such that $x_1x_2 cdots x_n = 1$.
Show: $$x_1 + x_2 + cdots + x_n < frac2n-12$$
Note: $x$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.
Is $dfrac2n-12$ optimal?
inequality contest-math
Let $n geq 2$ be an integer and $x_1, x_2, cdots, x_n$ positive reals such that $x_1x_2 cdots x_n = 1$.
Show: $$x_1 + x_2 + cdots + x_n < frac2n-12$$
Note: $x$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.
Is $dfrac2n-12$ optimal?
inequality contest-math
edited Aug 16 at 9:46
A. Pongrácz
3,827625
3,827625
asked Aug 16 at 9:36
communnites
1,209431
1,209431
Would you provide the source? And of course, your own efforts, please. Thank you!
â A. Pongrácz
Aug 16 at 10:04
add a comment |Â
Would you provide the source? And of course, your own efforts, please. Thank you!
â A. Pongrácz
Aug 16 at 10:04
Would you provide the source? And of course, your own efforts, please. Thank you!
â A. Pongrácz
Aug 16 at 10:04
Would you provide the source? And of course, your own efforts, please. Thank you!
â A. Pongrácz
Aug 16 at 10:04
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Assume that $ngeq2$, $x_1x_2cdots x_n=1$, and
$$x_1+x_2+ldots+x_ngeq n-1over2 .tag1$$
Put $tau_i:=1-x_i>0$. Then $(1)$ implies $sum_itau_ileq1over2$; in particular no $tau_i$ is $=1$. We therefore may write $x_i=m_i-tau_i$ with $m_i=lceil x_irceilgeq1$. As $prod_i x_i=1$ at least one $m_i$ is $geq2$. Now
$$1=prod_i x_i=prod_i m_icdotprod_ileft(1-tau_iover m_iright) .tag2$$
We shall need the following Lemma, which is easily proven using induction: If $ngeq2$, $x_i>0$ $(1leq ileq n)$, and $sum_i x_i<1$ then
$$prod_i=1^n(1-x_i)>1-sum_i=1^n x_i .$$Since $sum_itau_iover m_i<1over2$ we then obtain from $(2)$ the contradiction
$$1geq 2left(1-sum_itau_iover m_iright)>2cdot1over2=1 .$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The bound is certainly optimal (if true): let $x_1= frac12+varepsilon, x_n= 2-varepsilon$, and all other $x_i= 1-varepsilon$. (Not with the same number $varepsilon$, just pick very small positive reals like this.)
This example also suggests the proof strategy.
We may assume that none of the numbers are integers, as then a small perturbation leads to a significant improvement.
Partition the indices so that $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k< 1$ and the rest is greater than $1$.
This is possible with reindexing the elements if necessary. Note that because of the condition, $1leq kleq n-1$.
Assume that in the latter product, there are more than one terms that are greater than $2$. Then we can improve the objective function again: replace one such $x_i$ by $x_i-1$, and multiply all the numbers $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k$ by $sqrt[k]fracx_ix_i-1$.
We have that the first $k$ numbers are still eactly the ones below $1$. By successive application of this step, we may assume that only one of the numbers that are greater than $1$ is greater than $2$.
A similar simplification can be made if $kgeq 2$. In that case, we can first replace $x_2$ by $1+varepsilon$ and $x_1$ by $x_1x_2/(1+varepsilon)$, iproving on the objective function.
So we may assume that $x_1<1$, $1<x_2, ldots, x_n-1<2$ and $x_n>2$.
Further hints: try to push those middle elements close to $1$ while improving on the objective function.
Once you are done with that, the problem has essentially one varaible, as $x_1x_napprox 1$, and you can get rid of the fractional parts easily in the objective function, to make it a simple case of finding the maximum of a univariate function.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Proof for $n=2$.
One and only one between $lfloorx_1rfloor$ and $lfloorx_2rfloor$ should be equal to $0$ since $x_1x_2=1$ and if both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nul the proof follows immediately.
Put $x_1=k+x_1$ where $kinmathbb N^+$ and $x_1gt0$ so $x_2=x_2=dfrac1k+x_1$.
We have $x_1+x_2=x_1+dfrac1k+x_1ltdfrac2cdot2-12=1+dfrac12spacecolorredlarge?$
If $kge2$ then $x_1+dfrac1k+x_1lex_1+dfrac 12$ so $colorredtext YES$.
It remains to prove for $k=1$. In this case if $x_1+dfrac11+x_1=dfrac32$ the positive number $x_1$ is the positive root of $$2X^2-X-1=0Rightarrowx_1=1,colorred text absurde$$
A fortiori for $x_1+dfrac11+x_1gtdfrac32$ which end the proof.
Can someone from this get the general answer for $ngt2$?
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Assume that $ngeq2$, $x_1x_2cdots x_n=1$, and
$$x_1+x_2+ldots+x_ngeq n-1over2 .tag1$$
Put $tau_i:=1-x_i>0$. Then $(1)$ implies $sum_itau_ileq1over2$; in particular no $tau_i$ is $=1$. We therefore may write $x_i=m_i-tau_i$ with $m_i=lceil x_irceilgeq1$. As $prod_i x_i=1$ at least one $m_i$ is $geq2$. Now
$$1=prod_i x_i=prod_i m_icdotprod_ileft(1-tau_iover m_iright) .tag2$$
We shall need the following Lemma, which is easily proven using induction: If $ngeq2$, $x_i>0$ $(1leq ileq n)$, and $sum_i x_i<1$ then
$$prod_i=1^n(1-x_i)>1-sum_i=1^n x_i .$$Since $sum_itau_iover m_i<1over2$ we then obtain from $(2)$ the contradiction
$$1geq 2left(1-sum_itau_iover m_iright)>2cdot1over2=1 .$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Assume that $ngeq2$, $x_1x_2cdots x_n=1$, and
$$x_1+x_2+ldots+x_ngeq n-1over2 .tag1$$
Put $tau_i:=1-x_i>0$. Then $(1)$ implies $sum_itau_ileq1over2$; in particular no $tau_i$ is $=1$. We therefore may write $x_i=m_i-tau_i$ with $m_i=lceil x_irceilgeq1$. As $prod_i x_i=1$ at least one $m_i$ is $geq2$. Now
$$1=prod_i x_i=prod_i m_icdotprod_ileft(1-tau_iover m_iright) .tag2$$
We shall need the following Lemma, which is easily proven using induction: If $ngeq2$, $x_i>0$ $(1leq ileq n)$, and $sum_i x_i<1$ then
$$prod_i=1^n(1-x_i)>1-sum_i=1^n x_i .$$Since $sum_itau_iover m_i<1over2$ we then obtain from $(2)$ the contradiction
$$1geq 2left(1-sum_itau_iover m_iright)>2cdot1over2=1 .$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Assume that $ngeq2$, $x_1x_2cdots x_n=1$, and
$$x_1+x_2+ldots+x_ngeq n-1over2 .tag1$$
Put $tau_i:=1-x_i>0$. Then $(1)$ implies $sum_itau_ileq1over2$; in particular no $tau_i$ is $=1$. We therefore may write $x_i=m_i-tau_i$ with $m_i=lceil x_irceilgeq1$. As $prod_i x_i=1$ at least one $m_i$ is $geq2$. Now
$$1=prod_i x_i=prod_i m_icdotprod_ileft(1-tau_iover m_iright) .tag2$$
We shall need the following Lemma, which is easily proven using induction: If $ngeq2$, $x_i>0$ $(1leq ileq n)$, and $sum_i x_i<1$ then
$$prod_i=1^n(1-x_i)>1-sum_i=1^n x_i .$$Since $sum_itau_iover m_i<1over2$ we then obtain from $(2)$ the contradiction
$$1geq 2left(1-sum_itau_iover m_iright)>2cdot1over2=1 .$$
Assume that $ngeq2$, $x_1x_2cdots x_n=1$, and
$$x_1+x_2+ldots+x_ngeq n-1over2 .tag1$$
Put $tau_i:=1-x_i>0$. Then $(1)$ implies $sum_itau_ileq1over2$; in particular no $tau_i$ is $=1$. We therefore may write $x_i=m_i-tau_i$ with $m_i=lceil x_irceilgeq1$. As $prod_i x_i=1$ at least one $m_i$ is $geq2$. Now
$$1=prod_i x_i=prod_i m_icdotprod_ileft(1-tau_iover m_iright) .tag2$$
We shall need the following Lemma, which is easily proven using induction: If $ngeq2$, $x_i>0$ $(1leq ileq n)$, and $sum_i x_i<1$ then
$$prod_i=1^n(1-x_i)>1-sum_i=1^n x_i .$$Since $sum_itau_iover m_i<1over2$ we then obtain from $(2)$ the contradiction
$$1geq 2left(1-sum_itau_iover m_iright)>2cdot1over2=1 .$$
answered Aug 18 at 12:05
Christian Blatter
165k7109309
165k7109309
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The bound is certainly optimal (if true): let $x_1= frac12+varepsilon, x_n= 2-varepsilon$, and all other $x_i= 1-varepsilon$. (Not with the same number $varepsilon$, just pick very small positive reals like this.)
This example also suggests the proof strategy.
We may assume that none of the numbers are integers, as then a small perturbation leads to a significant improvement.
Partition the indices so that $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k< 1$ and the rest is greater than $1$.
This is possible with reindexing the elements if necessary. Note that because of the condition, $1leq kleq n-1$.
Assume that in the latter product, there are more than one terms that are greater than $2$. Then we can improve the objective function again: replace one such $x_i$ by $x_i-1$, and multiply all the numbers $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k$ by $sqrt[k]fracx_ix_i-1$.
We have that the first $k$ numbers are still eactly the ones below $1$. By successive application of this step, we may assume that only one of the numbers that are greater than $1$ is greater than $2$.
A similar simplification can be made if $kgeq 2$. In that case, we can first replace $x_2$ by $1+varepsilon$ and $x_1$ by $x_1x_2/(1+varepsilon)$, iproving on the objective function.
So we may assume that $x_1<1$, $1<x_2, ldots, x_n-1<2$ and $x_n>2$.
Further hints: try to push those middle elements close to $1$ while improving on the objective function.
Once you are done with that, the problem has essentially one varaible, as $x_1x_napprox 1$, and you can get rid of the fractional parts easily in the objective function, to make it a simple case of finding the maximum of a univariate function.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The bound is certainly optimal (if true): let $x_1= frac12+varepsilon, x_n= 2-varepsilon$, and all other $x_i= 1-varepsilon$. (Not with the same number $varepsilon$, just pick very small positive reals like this.)
This example also suggests the proof strategy.
We may assume that none of the numbers are integers, as then a small perturbation leads to a significant improvement.
Partition the indices so that $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k< 1$ and the rest is greater than $1$.
This is possible with reindexing the elements if necessary. Note that because of the condition, $1leq kleq n-1$.
Assume that in the latter product, there are more than one terms that are greater than $2$. Then we can improve the objective function again: replace one such $x_i$ by $x_i-1$, and multiply all the numbers $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k$ by $sqrt[k]fracx_ix_i-1$.
We have that the first $k$ numbers are still eactly the ones below $1$. By successive application of this step, we may assume that only one of the numbers that are greater than $1$ is greater than $2$.
A similar simplification can be made if $kgeq 2$. In that case, we can first replace $x_2$ by $1+varepsilon$ and $x_1$ by $x_1x_2/(1+varepsilon)$, iproving on the objective function.
So we may assume that $x_1<1$, $1<x_2, ldots, x_n-1<2$ and $x_n>2$.
Further hints: try to push those middle elements close to $1$ while improving on the objective function.
Once you are done with that, the problem has essentially one varaible, as $x_1x_napprox 1$, and you can get rid of the fractional parts easily in the objective function, to make it a simple case of finding the maximum of a univariate function.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The bound is certainly optimal (if true): let $x_1= frac12+varepsilon, x_n= 2-varepsilon$, and all other $x_i= 1-varepsilon$. (Not with the same number $varepsilon$, just pick very small positive reals like this.)
This example also suggests the proof strategy.
We may assume that none of the numbers are integers, as then a small perturbation leads to a significant improvement.
Partition the indices so that $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k< 1$ and the rest is greater than $1$.
This is possible with reindexing the elements if necessary. Note that because of the condition, $1leq kleq n-1$.
Assume that in the latter product, there are more than one terms that are greater than $2$. Then we can improve the objective function again: replace one such $x_i$ by $x_i-1$, and multiply all the numbers $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k$ by $sqrt[k]fracx_ix_i-1$.
We have that the first $k$ numbers are still eactly the ones below $1$. By successive application of this step, we may assume that only one of the numbers that are greater than $1$ is greater than $2$.
A similar simplification can be made if $kgeq 2$. In that case, we can first replace $x_2$ by $1+varepsilon$ and $x_1$ by $x_1x_2/(1+varepsilon)$, iproving on the objective function.
So we may assume that $x_1<1$, $1<x_2, ldots, x_n-1<2$ and $x_n>2$.
Further hints: try to push those middle elements close to $1$ while improving on the objective function.
Once you are done with that, the problem has essentially one varaible, as $x_1x_napprox 1$, and you can get rid of the fractional parts easily in the objective function, to make it a simple case of finding the maximum of a univariate function.
The bound is certainly optimal (if true): let $x_1= frac12+varepsilon, x_n= 2-varepsilon$, and all other $x_i= 1-varepsilon$. (Not with the same number $varepsilon$, just pick very small positive reals like this.)
This example also suggests the proof strategy.
We may assume that none of the numbers are integers, as then a small perturbation leads to a significant improvement.
Partition the indices so that $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k< 1$ and the rest is greater than $1$.
This is possible with reindexing the elements if necessary. Note that because of the condition, $1leq kleq n-1$.
Assume that in the latter product, there are more than one terms that are greater than $2$. Then we can improve the objective function again: replace one such $x_i$ by $x_i-1$, and multiply all the numbers $x_1, x_2, ldots, x_k$ by $sqrt[k]fracx_ix_i-1$.
We have that the first $k$ numbers are still eactly the ones below $1$. By successive application of this step, we may assume that only one of the numbers that are greater than $1$ is greater than $2$.
A similar simplification can be made if $kgeq 2$. In that case, we can first replace $x_2$ by $1+varepsilon$ and $x_1$ by $x_1x_2/(1+varepsilon)$, iproving on the objective function.
So we may assume that $x_1<1$, $1<x_2, ldots, x_n-1<2$ and $x_n>2$.
Further hints: try to push those middle elements close to $1$ while improving on the objective function.
Once you are done with that, the problem has essentially one varaible, as $x_1x_napprox 1$, and you can get rid of the fractional parts easily in the objective function, to make it a simple case of finding the maximum of a univariate function.
edited Aug 16 at 10:33
answered Aug 16 at 10:17
A. Pongrácz
3,827625
3,827625
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Proof for $n=2$.
One and only one between $lfloorx_1rfloor$ and $lfloorx_2rfloor$ should be equal to $0$ since $x_1x_2=1$ and if both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nul the proof follows immediately.
Put $x_1=k+x_1$ where $kinmathbb N^+$ and $x_1gt0$ so $x_2=x_2=dfrac1k+x_1$.
We have $x_1+x_2=x_1+dfrac1k+x_1ltdfrac2cdot2-12=1+dfrac12spacecolorredlarge?$
If $kge2$ then $x_1+dfrac1k+x_1lex_1+dfrac 12$ so $colorredtext YES$.
It remains to prove for $k=1$. In this case if $x_1+dfrac11+x_1=dfrac32$ the positive number $x_1$ is the positive root of $$2X^2-X-1=0Rightarrowx_1=1,colorred text absurde$$
A fortiori for $x_1+dfrac11+x_1gtdfrac32$ which end the proof.
Can someone from this get the general answer for $ngt2$?
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Proof for $n=2$.
One and only one between $lfloorx_1rfloor$ and $lfloorx_2rfloor$ should be equal to $0$ since $x_1x_2=1$ and if both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nul the proof follows immediately.
Put $x_1=k+x_1$ where $kinmathbb N^+$ and $x_1gt0$ so $x_2=x_2=dfrac1k+x_1$.
We have $x_1+x_2=x_1+dfrac1k+x_1ltdfrac2cdot2-12=1+dfrac12spacecolorredlarge?$
If $kge2$ then $x_1+dfrac1k+x_1lex_1+dfrac 12$ so $colorredtext YES$.
It remains to prove for $k=1$. In this case if $x_1+dfrac11+x_1=dfrac32$ the positive number $x_1$ is the positive root of $$2X^2-X-1=0Rightarrowx_1=1,colorred text absurde$$
A fortiori for $x_1+dfrac11+x_1gtdfrac32$ which end the proof.
Can someone from this get the general answer for $ngt2$?
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Proof for $n=2$.
One and only one between $lfloorx_1rfloor$ and $lfloorx_2rfloor$ should be equal to $0$ since $x_1x_2=1$ and if both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nul the proof follows immediately.
Put $x_1=k+x_1$ where $kinmathbb N^+$ and $x_1gt0$ so $x_2=x_2=dfrac1k+x_1$.
We have $x_1+x_2=x_1+dfrac1k+x_1ltdfrac2cdot2-12=1+dfrac12spacecolorredlarge?$
If $kge2$ then $x_1+dfrac1k+x_1lex_1+dfrac 12$ so $colorredtext YES$.
It remains to prove for $k=1$. In this case if $x_1+dfrac11+x_1=dfrac32$ the positive number $x_1$ is the positive root of $$2X^2-X-1=0Rightarrowx_1=1,colorred text absurde$$
A fortiori for $x_1+dfrac11+x_1gtdfrac32$ which end the proof.
Can someone from this get the general answer for $ngt2$?
Proof for $n=2$.
One and only one between $lfloorx_1rfloor$ and $lfloorx_2rfloor$ should be equal to $0$ since $x_1x_2=1$ and if both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nul the proof follows immediately.
Put $x_1=k+x_1$ where $kinmathbb N^+$ and $x_1gt0$ so $x_2=x_2=dfrac1k+x_1$.
We have $x_1+x_2=x_1+dfrac1k+x_1ltdfrac2cdot2-12=1+dfrac12spacecolorredlarge?$
If $kge2$ then $x_1+dfrac1k+x_1lex_1+dfrac 12$ so $colorredtext YES$.
It remains to prove for $k=1$. In this case if $x_1+dfrac11+x_1=dfrac32$ the positive number $x_1$ is the positive root of $$2X^2-X-1=0Rightarrowx_1=1,colorred text absurde$$
A fortiori for $x_1+dfrac11+x_1gtdfrac32$ which end the proof.
Can someone from this get the general answer for $ngt2$?
edited Aug 16 at 18:52
answered Aug 16 at 16:59
Piquito
17.4k31334
17.4k31334
add a comment |Â
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%2f2884592%2fshow-this-inequality-with-fractional-parts%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
Would you provide the source? And of course, your own efforts, please. Thank you!
â A. Pongrácz
Aug 16 at 10:04