5

let $a,b,c$ be positive real numbers such that $a,b,c>0$ and $abc=1$ prove that:

$$\frac{1}{a^{20}+b^{11}+c}+\frac{1}{c^{20}+a^{11}+b}+\frac{1}{b^{20}+c^{11}+a}\le1$$

Any Ideas?

Shahar
  • 3,302
  • 1
    I tried using a common denominator. Don't do that. – Shahar Mar 31 '14 at 01:20
  • @CalvinLin did you delete your answer? – mookid Mar 31 '14 at 03:01
  • 1
    @mookid Yup. It was wrong because I had CS with the wrong sign. – Calvin Lin Mar 31 '14 at 03:05
  • There must be some symmetrical argument because you have $\frac{1}{\alpha^\omega + \beta^\psi + \gamma^\chi} + \frac{1}{\gamma^\omega + \alpha^\psi + \beta^\chi} + \frac{1}{\beta^\omega + \gamma^\psi + \alpha^\chi}$ the 'a,b,c's are just being rotated in each denominator. – Jared Mar 31 '14 at 05:03

2 Answers2

3

Using Cauchy-Schwarz, we have

$$\frac1{a^{20}+b^{11}+c} = \frac{(1+b^9+c^{19})}{(a^{20}+b^{11}+c)(1+b^9+c^{19})} \le \frac{(1+b^9+c^{19})}{(a^{10}+b^{10}+c^{10})^2}$$

So it is sufficient to show that: $$(a^{10}+b^{10}+c^{10})^2 \ge \sum_{cyc} (1+a^9+b^{19}) \tag{1}$$

$$\iff \sum_{cyc}\left(a^{20}+\frac2{a^{10}} - a^{19}-a^9-1 \right) \ge 0$$

So it is now sufficient to show that for $t > 0$, we have $$f(t) = t^{20} + \frac2{t^{10}} +28 \log t - t^{19} - t^9-1 \ge 0$$ which is true (as shown below).

We note $f'(t) = 20t^{19}- 19t^{18} - 9t^8+\dfrac{28}t -\dfrac{20}{t^{11}}$ which can be written as $$t^{11}f'(t) = 20t^{30}-19t^{29}-9t^{19}+28t^{10}-20 = p(t)$$

Now $p(t)$ has exactly one positive root, $t=1$. Further, $p < 0$ for $0< t< 1$ and $p > 0$ for $t> 1$. Hence $f$ has a minimum at $t=1$, which is $f(1)=0$.

Perhaps $(1)$ can be proved directly by AM-GM or similar, couldn't think of any simple way though.

Macavity
  • 46,381
  • There must be some nice proof if $$\sum_{\text{cyc}}\frac1{a^\alpha+b^\beta+c^\gamma}\le1$$ holds in general for $abc=1$ and any $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\ge0$. I couldn't disprove it. – user2345215 Mar 31 '14 at 11:53
  • @user2345215 see my answer. I think that's the proof although I am not certain. – Jared Mar 31 '14 at 22:17
0

You have the following:

$$ \frac{1}{f(a, b, c)} + \frac{1}{f(c, a, b)} + \frac{1}{f(b, c, a)} \leq 1\text{, where } abc = 1 $$

We can attempt to find the maximum value (the following assumes a maximum exists):

$$ g(a, b, c) = \frac{1}{f(a, b, c)} + \frac{1}{f(c, a, b)} + \frac{1}{f(b, c, a)}\text{, where } abc = 1 $$

Write away, there is symmetry in this function. It must be the case that:

$$ \max\limits_{a, b, c} g(a, b,c)= \max\limits_{a, b, c} g(c, a, b) = \max\limits_{a, b, c} g(b, c, a) $$

It must be the case $a = b = c$ to maximize this function. A simple proof by contradiction can show this. Let's assume that $a = b \neq c$ maximizes $g(a, b, c)$. This would imply that $\max_{a', b', c'} g(b', c', a') \rightarrow a' =c, b' = a, c' = b$. Since $g(a, b, c) = g(b, c, a)$, finding the maximum of $g(b, c, a)$ should be able to generate the same set of $\{a, b, c\}$ (which maximizes the original function). But my original assumption was that $a = b \neq c$ and yet I was able to generate a set such that $a \neq b = c$ which contradicts my original assumption therefore $a = b = c$ (this was only one case, but the only other case to handle is $a \neq b\neq c$ which follows similarly as the above).

Plugging into the constraint equation, we would find that $a = b = c = 1$ gives a maximum of this function (if a maximum exists!). A maximum should exist if $f(a, b, c)$ has a finite minimum value over the range of $a, b, c, > 0 \wedge abc = 1$. We can see whether or not this is the case by using the method of Lagrange multipliers to minimize the function $f(a, b, c) = a^\alpha + b^\beta + c^\gamma$:

$$ f(a, b, c) = a^\alpha + b^\beta + c^\gamma, g(a, b, c) = abc - 1 = 0 \\ \nabla f = \left\langle\alpha a^{\alpha - 1}, \beta b^{\beta - 1}, \gamma c^{\gamma - 1}\right\rangle = \lambda \nabla g = \lambda \langle bc, ac, ab\rangle \\ \alpha a^\alpha = \lambda abc = \lambda \rightarrow a = \left(\frac{\lambda}{\alpha}\right)^\frac{1}{\alpha} \\ \beta b^\beta = \lambda abc = \lambda \rightarrow b = \left(\frac{\lambda}{\beta}\right)^\frac{1}{\beta}\\ \gamma c^\gamma = \lambda abc = \lambda \rightarrow c = \left(\frac{\lambda}{\gamma}\right)^\frac{1}{\gamma} \\ abc = 1 = \frac{\lambda^{\frac{1}{\alpha} + \frac{1}{\beta} + \frac{1}{\gamma}}}{\alpha^\frac{1}{\alpha}\beta^\frac{1}{\beta}\gamma^\frac{1}{\gamma}} \rightarrow \lambda = \left(\alpha^\frac{1}{\alpha}\beta^\frac{1}{\beta}\gamma^\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)^\frac{\alpha\beta\gamma}{\alpha\beta + \alpha\gamma + \beta\gamma} = \left(\alpha^{\beta\gamma}\beta^{\alpha\gamma}\gamma^{\alpha\beta}\right)^\frac{1}{\alpha\beta + \alpha\gamma + \beta\gamma} $$

This gives:

$$ a^\alpha + b^\beta + c^\gamma = \lambda\left(\frac{1}{\alpha} + \frac{1}{\beta} + \frac{1}{\gamma}\right) $$

I believe as long as $\frac{1}{\alpha}+ \frac{1}{\beta} + \frac{1}{\gamma} > 0$, this function indeed has a finite (and positive) minimum value (if that sum is negative, then the minimum value is a negative number, which means there exist positive values to the function which are very close to $0$ and thus make the original $g(a, b, c)$ possibly infinite). This extremum cannot possibly be a maximum because there cannot be a finite maximum to this function as long as at least one of the $\alpha, \gamma, \beta > 0$ which must be the case by the above constraint (I can choose any of $a$, $b$, or $c$ to be as large as I like--it may make another term very small, but at least one of the terms can be extremely large thus dominating the function).

Finally, using $1$) the maximum of $g(a, b, c)$ (at the top) occurs when $a = b = c, abc = 1 \rightarrow a = b= c = 1$ and $2$) the fact that $f(a, b, c)$ (in this case) attains a finite and positive minimum value means that a maximum value of $g(a, b, c)$ exists and occurs at:

$$ \max_{a, b, c} \frac{1}{f(a, b, c)} + \frac{1}{f(c, a, b)} + \frac{1}{f(b, c, a)} = \frac{3}{f(1, 1, 1)} = \frac{3}{1^\alpha + 1^\beta + 1^\gamma} = 1 \text{, when }\frac{1}{\alpha}+ \frac{1}{\beta} + \frac{1}{\gamma} > 0 $$

Therefore:

$$ \frac{1}{a^\alpha + b^\beta + c^\gamma} + \frac{1}{c^\alpha + a^\beta + b^\gamma} + \frac{1}{b^\alpha + c^\beta + a^\gamma} \leq 1 \text{, when } \frac{1}{\alpha}+ \frac{1}{\beta} + \frac{1}{\gamma} > 0 $$

Jared
  • 6,227
  • I think you need to handle the cases where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma = 0$ separately in the above analysis but that should be allowed. If any are zero, then you basically just don't have one of the variables $a, b, c$. – Jared Mar 31 '14 at 20:21
  • I actually think I need to justify why $a \neq b \neq c$ because there would not really be a contradiction like there was when I assumed $a = b \neq c$. But I still think this cannot be the case, by symmetry. You can imagine that you find $\max g(a, b, c) \rightarrow a = \kappa, b = \lambda, c = \mu$ and $\kappa \neq \lambda \neq \mu$. I would then solve $\max g(c, a, b) \rightarrow c = \kappa, a = \lambda, b = \mu$ and $\max g(b, c, a) \rightarrow b = \kappa, c = \lambda, a = \mu$. This gives $a = b = c = \kappa$ and, similarly $\kappa = \lambda = \mu$. – Jared Mar 31 '14 at 22:51
  • Actually I'm not sure what you are assuming. It certainly doesn't follow that if an expression is cyclic (or even symmetric) that $a=b=c$ gives maximum (or minimum). Consider $(a^3+b^3+c^3-6abc)^2$, this is $0$ even for $a=1, b=2, c=3$, but can't be $0$ if $a=b=c>0$. I think you can assume $a=b$ only for symmetric (not cyclic like this) expressions and the proof is very nontrivial. (terminology: g(a,b,c)=g(b,c,a)=g(c,a,b) means cyclic; g(a,b,c)=g(a,c,b)=g(b,a,c)=g(b,c,a)=g(c,a,b)=g(c,b,a) means symmetric) – user2345215 Mar 31 '14 at 23:00
  • As I stated, the min or max must actually exist (and perhaps I should have stated that it's a unique min or max although I don't know how important that is). If there is no min or max then it's not a valid argument hence why I had to prove that $a^\alpha + b^\beta + c^\gamma$ actually attained a minimum value (which it certainly does at least for $\alpha = 20, \beta = 11, \gamma = 1$) and nothing in the argument was constraining $a, b, c > 0$. As for your example, $a = b = c = 0$ gives the same min and thus my conclusion is still correct. – Jared Mar 31 '14 at 23:44
  • Furthermore, as per your example. The extrema may occur when $3a^2 = 6bc$, $3b^2 = 6ac$, and $3c^2 = 6ab$. Assuming real values, this forces $a, b, c > 0$, $a, b, c < 0$, or $a = b = c = 0$ (since $a^2, b^2, c^2 > 0$). But solving those equations (for the extrema) would yield $3a^3 = 6abc$, $3b^3 = 6abc$, and $3c^3 = 6abc$ which shows that $a^3 = b^3 = c^3$. $a = b = c = 0$ is at least a critical point but $a = 1, b = 2, c = 3$ is not (the gradient isn't zero at that point). Again, if the function doesn't actually attain a distinct min or max, then my argument isn't valid. – Jared Mar 31 '14 at 23:52
  • In your example of $g(a, b, c) = a^3 + b^3 + c^3 - 6abc$, I believe $a = b = c$ are saddle points and thus g(a, b, c) doesn't attain either a minimum or a maximum and my argument wouldn't be valid hence why I said at the very beginning "the following assumes a maximum exists". – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 00:07
  • My above comment, $a^3 = b^3 = c^3$, (for your counterexample) is obviously not correct. I'm not confident enough to say that there is only one critical point ($a = b = c = 0$ which is a saddle point) but I think that's correct. If you can produce a cyclic function $f(x, y, z)$ which attains an absolute maximum $\max_{x, y, z} f(x, y, z) = \zeta$ such that there is no value of $x = y = z = \eta$ such that $f(\eta, \eta, \eta) = \zeta$ then I will be convinced my argument is incorrect (the same thing should be able to said about an absolute min). – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 01:06
  • 1
    OK. So the in the problem you are answering you assume $a>0,b>0,c>0$ and $abc=1$. Now consider $$\frac1{1+(a+b+c-6)^2}\le1$$ with exactly the same conditions. I don't see a how is this different. The maximum is $1$, even though it can't happen for $a=b=c=1$. (consider $a=\frac16, b=\frac86, c=\frac{27}6$). – user2345215 Apr 01 '14 at 01:35
  • 2
    You may want to read http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Ford/Waterhouse378-387.pdf – Macavity Apr 01 '14 at 01:40
  • @Macavity thanks for saving me ;) – user2345215 Apr 01 '14 at 01:44
  • @Macavity Thanks for the source, I'll try to read through it to see if it conflicts with my proof or not. I want to stress that I'm not claiming that the maximum/minimum of a cyclic function occurs when it's arguments are equal--I'm claiming that if a maximum/minimum exists, it can be attained when the arguments are equal (assuming this is allowed through the constraint equations)--I have yet to see that disproved. – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 02:58
  • 1
    The max/min can exist, and the variables need not be all equal, unfortunately. The symmetric (hence also cyclic) example $(x+(y-1)^2)((x-1)^2+y^2)$ has clearly min when $(x,y)=(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$, and not when $x=y$. The point is that the solution set is symmetric (permutations also give optima) in such cases, but it is not necessarily that each solution is individually symmetric, without additional conditions than just symmetry. – Macavity Apr 01 '14 at 03:04
  • That explains my trepidation in my original comment about my "proof" by contradiction. Perhaps $a = \kappa \neq b = \eta \neq c = \mu$ is a solution to the max. The same procedure may very well give $c = \kappa \neq a = \eta \neq b = \mu$, but through a proper permutation this is the same solution. Thanks for the clarification. – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 03:15
  • You're right, I'll delete that comment. – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 03:16
  • I still believe there must be some symmetric (or cyclic) argument for this equation. I would think there is something you could add to my argument that would make it valid. We know we need to prove that $a = b = c =1$ gives the max for this function, why (without going into the nitty gritty of the Lagrange multiplier equations)?? – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 03:28
  • There is another symmetry that I didn't elaborate on in this inequality which is the fact that $f(a, b, c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma) = f({a, b, c}, {\alpha, \beta, \gamma})$ where this is equal over all rotations of both ${a, b, c}$ and ${\alpha, \beta, \gamma}$. – Jared Apr 01 '14 at 03:49