-2

Here's the problem:

problem

I wrote this as part of a test I'm writing and I want to see if it's solvable or not.

  • 1
    What does your solution look like? – Andrew Chin Mar 31 '20 at 00:02
  • @AndrewChin - I want to see if there is one (or more) or not. I am currently in the process of solving it myself, but it would be helpful if someone else could do it as well/first. – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:02
  • 1
    What's the geometric mean of a sequence of $2n$ integers, if their product ends up being negative? –  Mar 31 '20 at 00:18
  • @Gae.S. More to the point, I believe the GM is most commonly defined only for positive reals, to avoid this sort of problem. Besides what's the meaning of the GM of $- 1$ and $- 1$ being $1$? – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 00:31
  • Until basic things like the definition of the GM of a set including at least one negative member (which has to happen) are clarified, I have to vote to close. – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 00:33
  • @Deepak I do believe that GM should only involve positive numbers, but I also believe there might be some merit in rephrasing the exercise otherwise, perhaps not with AM and GM. But it isn't my exercise. –  Mar 31 '20 at 00:33
  • 1
    Why would you set a test question that you can't solve yourself? – lulu Mar 31 '20 at 00:37
  • @lulu - Notice the present tense word of "am." I am in the process of writing it and am wondering if this specific question works out. – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:41
  • @Voldemort'sWrath As I show in my answer, if instead of using the geometric mean you use an extended version of it as being the $n$'th root of $n$ integers, then there are solutions. – John Omielan Mar 31 '20 at 00:47
  • @JohnOmielan - "No solution" is a viable answer. – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:49

2 Answers2

2

The AM-GM inequality states that the arithmetic mean is strictly greater than the geometric mean for distinct positive reals. Hence, for $AM-GM$ to be zero we require that all elements in the set be identical, and so no solution is possible.

Edit: From Bollobás' Linear Analysis:

Theorem: The geometric mean of $n$ non-negative reals does not exceed their arithmetic mean: if $a=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ then $G(a)\leq A(a)$.

Proof: Let us note first that the theorem holds for $n=2$. Indeed, $$(a_1-a_2)^2=a_1^2-2a_1a_2+a_2^2\geq0,$$ so $$(a_1+a_2)^2\geq4a_1a_2,$$ with equality iff $a_1=a_2$.

Suppose now that the theorem holds for $n=m$. We shall show that the theorem holds for $n=2m$. Let $a_1,\ldots a_m,b_1,\ldots,b_m$ be non-negative reals. Then: $$(a_1\cdots a_mb_1\cdots b_m)^{1/2m}=\left((a_1\cdots a_m)^{1/m}(b_1\cdots b_m)^{1/m}\right)^{1/2}$$ $$\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(a_1\cdots a_m)^{1/m}+(b_1\cdots b_m)^{1/m}\right)$$ $$\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{a_1+\cdots+a_m}{m}+\frac{b_1+\cdots b_m}{m}\right)=\frac{a_1+\cdots+a_m+b_1+\cdots b_m}{2m}$$ If equality holds then, by the induction hypothesis, we have $a_1=\cdots=a_m=b_1=\cdots=b_m$. This implies that the theorem holds whenever $n$ is a power of $2$.

Finally, suppose $n$ is an arbitrary integer. Let $n<2^k=N$ and $a=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n a_i$. Set $a_{n+1}=\cdots=a_N=a$. Then: $$\prod_{i=1}^N a_i=a^{N-n}\prod_{i=1}^n a_i\leq\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N a_i\right)^N=a^N,$$ so: $$\prod_{i=1}^n a_i\leq a^n,$$ with equality iff $a_1=\cdots=a_N$, in other words iff $a_1=\cdots=a_n$. $\square$

csch2
  • 4,557
  • AFAIK, the AM-GM inequality states that the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to the GM of a set. Is this equal to situation where they're all identical or is there some other situation? – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:03
  • Equality only holds when all elements of your list are identical. Otherwise, the inequality is strict. – csch2 Mar 31 '20 at 00:04
  • Would you be so kind as to find me a proof of that? – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:05
  • 1
    Why would you assume all are positive? – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 00:13
  • 1
    @Deepak Generally we only define the geometric mean for positive reals. – Carl Schildkraut Mar 31 '20 at 00:32
  • @CarlSchildkraut - Actually, I think the only restriction on the sign is that all members of a set must be of the same sign to find the geometric mean. – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:35
  • 1
    @CarlSchildkraut Sure. But the question has no solution for a set with only positive integers (by AM-GM inequality). With an odd-cardinality set of all negative integers, if you choose to define GM with the same formula, you will still not have a solution because the AM-GM inequality will operate in reverse. – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 00:38
  • You accepted this answer. But it is not an answer to your question, because the latter is not a proper question in the first place. Anyway, that's up to you. But I still think the question should be closed in its current form. – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 00:39
  • @Deepak - Why is "no solution" not a valid answer to a question that has no solution? Why should the question be closed? – Voldemort's Wrath Mar 31 '20 at 00:42
  • @Voldemort'sWrath The question itself should be closed because you haven't even specified clear definitions of what the GM should be when you have negative numbers in the set (which is essential to have any possibility of a solution). And if you restrict the set to positive distinct numbers keeping all the usual definitions, it should be trivial that no solution can exist. You also seem to have dismissed John Omielan's quite good attempt at reinterpreting your question. I just feel you haven't thought through your question properly. – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 01:25
  • @Voldemort'sWrath I also find it strange that you made a comment above about how you think the GM might be defined for negative numbers ("same sign") but you're willing to accept a solution that only considers the all positive case. – Deepak Mar 31 '20 at 01:27
  • I agree that John Omielan's solution is also perfectly valid. However, it should likely be specified explicitly that you accept non-positive entries in the geometric mean, as this is nonstandard as several others have mentioned. – csch2 Mar 31 '20 at 01:30
2

Note that geometric means states

The geometric mean applies only to positive numbers.

However, if you allow negative values, as long as the product is positive, then there are solutions. To see this, let $a$, $b$ and $c$ be positive integers. Next, have the $8$ integers involved be $-a$, $a$, $-b$, $b$, $2c$, $4c$, $6c$ and $12c$. Then the arithmetic mean would be

$$\begin{equation}\begin{aligned} a & = \frac{-a + a - b + b + 2c + 4c + 6c + 12c}{8} \\ & = \frac{24c}{8} \\ & = 3c \end{aligned}\end{equation}\tag{1}\label{eq1A}$$

and the geometric mean would be

$$\begin{equation}\begin{aligned} g & = \sqrt[8]{(-a)(a)(-b)(b)(2c)(4c)(6c)(12c)} \\ & = \sqrt[8]{a^2b^2c^4(2^6)(3^2)} \\ & = \sqrt[4]{abc^2(2^3)(3)} \end{aligned}\end{equation}\tag{2}\label{eq2A}$$

Equating these $2$ values and taking each side to the $4$th power gives

$$\begin{equation}\begin{aligned} (3^4)c^4 & = abc^2(2^3)(3) \\ (3^3)c^2 & = ab(2^3) \end{aligned}\end{equation}\tag{3}\label{eq3A}$$

Note that one solution, among many, to this is $a = 3^2 = 9$, $b = 2(3) = 6$, $c = 2^2 = 4$. Thus, a set of $8$ integers would then be $\{-9,9,-6,6,8,16,24,48\}$.

I don't know if there are any solutions involving fewer than $8$ integers, but this is the first one I found. Also, there are many additional cases involving $8$ or more integers as well, including values for \eqref{eq3A}.

John Omielan
  • 47,976