You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

You are right, the points, at which the partial derivatives fail to exist, are good candidates for extremums. Yet, this does not help us at all.
I tried several methods to prove your inequalities, including some brute-force techniques such as Lagrange Multipliers, but nothing works. Also, when , we have . Hence for all is clearly not true. I have not tried , but even if it is true, then you have to prove that is order your solution to work.

The problem is that you are doing the following:
Say you have correctly proven that for each , . Then, you are claiming that , which is generally not true.

Spoiler:
Show
I recommend using some well-known inequalities, in which case, the inequality is proven in less than a minute.
Ah hmm that's what I feared, thanks for pointing that out.
Precisely. There is a solution using exactly these two inequalities.
I suspected this was the solution you would have been after but found it difficult to arrange the terms in useful sets. Non the less, I shall persist!
2. Solution 73

I assume . Let be a finite multi-set of positive integers. If all elements of are greater than , we know that the product of all the elements of is greater than or equal to their sum.
Suppose that we have solution with exactly components greater than . Thus the remaining components are equal to . Now, the sum of the elements, which are greater than , is less than or equal to the product; the sum of the 's is less than or equal to . It follows that .
As we are counting ordered sets, we have solutions in positive integers.
The number of non-negative integer solutions of the equation is . Hence, the number of solutions in non-negative integers is .

Problem 74 hint:
Spoiler:
Show
Imprimis, we can apply C-S to . The rest follows from AM-GM.
Solution 73

I assume . Let be a finite multi-set of positive integers. If all elements of are greater than , we know that the product of all the elements of is greater than or equal than their sum.
Suppose that we have solution with exactly components greater than . Thus the remaining components are equal to . Now, the sum of the elements, which are greater than , is less than or equal to the product; the sum of the 's is less than or equal to . It follows that .
As we are counting ordered sets, we have solutions in positive integers.
The number of non-negative integer solutions of the equation is . Hence, the number of solutions in non-negative integers is .
Just when I thought no-one was interested. Exactly what I had in mind, nicely done!
Btw, I'm making some progress with your problem now using
Spoiler:
Show
c-s in Engel Form
which I wasn't familiar with until now (hopefully just a few algebraic tricks away from solution!)
4. Solution 61

Assume continuous (perhaps this was not necessary).

Let , noting that . If for some , then for all over . However, then for , and hence over . Similarly if for some then over . In a similar vein, suppose there exist distinct such that then which implies and since we have over , which, as previously demonstrated, implies over . Similarly for the case . Hence if is not injective it is everywhere.

Naturally, we now assume is injective. Observe that but also that inductively, we have . Combining these facts, for positive integers . Hence we have . Now suppose that over then by the preceding statement, over and hence the inequality is satisfied over arbitrarily large intervals, which contradicts . Similarly if over any subinterval of . Hence we must have over . Now assuming over , our preceding proposition would imply that for and which is absurd. Similarly if over . Hence over as well.

Therefore or
5. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
...
Splendid solution.
You are not using continuity, so it is not necessary.

Another approach:
Spoiler:
Show
Clearly, is a solution. Suppose that there is at least one such that . We have and for all . Since is bounded below and satisfies , it follows that , . Note that implies . Hence all the solutions are and .
6. (Still can't do problem 74 (fml!) so thought "if you can't beat them, join them")

Problem 75

Show that for positive real numbers a,b,c such that .
7. Solution 75

Let , , .

We have .
Since , from
(AM-GM), and
(obvious), we obtain

Spoiler:
Show
This is indeed nice application of Engel's form.
Spoiler:
Show
Use similar technique to prove 74. Without the substitution of course.
8. (Original post by joostan)
This may be a silly question but does anybody like geometry?? Even Mladenov who appears to be a maths genius dislikes it
Geometry is wonderful, if you can do it
Geometry is also taught extremely badly in most countries.
(AM-GM), and
(obvious)
I was wondering if you'd use homogenisation!
But could you please explain how you have used AM-GM in the first of the two inequalities?
And why is the second inequality obvious? It rests on and combination with the first result.

(sorry If this is actually obvious to you, but I don't find it to be so!)

Spoiler:
Show
I stopped trying it yesterday but I might have another go tomorrow. What I've got so far is:
Spoiler:
Show
By using normalisation I deduced that abc=1 can be used WLOG. I then applied engel's form to get and I've fiddled around with it but haven't been able to find a way to nicely either algebraically combine it with the other art of the LHS, apply C-Z, rearrangement or AM-GM with the other part of the LHS, or find a way to apply one of these such a equalities to the expression itself such that it is greater than or equal to the difference of the RHS - *the other term of the LHS*. I've managed to get a few fairly simple expressions that the LHS is greater than but haven't quite hit the nail on the head.
If I'm miles off, a hint would be helpful, but if I'm along the right lines then just give me a nod
10. (Original post by Llewellyn)
Geometry is wonderful, if you can do it
Geometry is also taught extremely badly in most countries.
In Chinese high schools you are taught geometry endlessly, in exchange you don't learn things like integration (even basic integrals). That might perhaps be because China has a strong tradition of gearing school pupils towards the IMO and similar national-level contests, for which learning geometry instead of integration is perfectly justified.
11. Such a shame this thread is becoming a bit stagnant! All we need is 24 more problems before we can whip out the jay-z jokes!

A problem people may recognise:

Problem 76*/**

For positive real numbers a,b,c, prove that

12. And another...

Problem 77*

Long John Silverman has captured a treasure map from AdamMcBones.
Adam has buried the treasure at the point (x,y) with integer co-ordinates (not necessarily positive).
He has indicated on themap the values of and , and these numbers are distinct.

Prove that Long John has to dig only in one place to find the treasure.
Splendid solution.
You are not using continuity, so it is not necessary.

Another approach:
Spoiler:
Show
Clearly, is a solution. Suppose that there is at least one such that . We have and for all . Since is bounded below and satisfies , it follows that , . Note that implies . Hence all the solutions are and .
Ha! I did not think of extracting Cauchy from it, très bien! I mentioned continuity as a safety net in case I had overlooked something at that time of night

I should really be working, mais bon.

Solution 52

Note that since we have which then implies and inductively for any . Hence there must be some such that . Then clearly for all we must have where for any . But since is bounded is bounded as well, and hence we require for some . Thus , which, if plugged into the definition of immediately gives . Now we work backwards to show that all preceding terms are also . Obviously , and given that we clearly cannot have and hence it follows that etc. down to .

Therefore the only possible sequence is .

(Original post by Jkn)
But could you please explain how you have used AM-GM in the first of the two inequalities?
And why is the second inequality obvious?
The first: rearrangement ineq. for (wlog) and . The second is just
By the way, in Problem 75, notice that by plugging in a couple coefficients into the inequality and taking the exact same approach as in Mladenov's solution we can easily generalise the result:

Then using the same tricks to show that and we get:

For those how dislike inequalities with a passion:

Problem 78 (a classic!)

Evaluate

Problem 79

This is lolz-maths, but whatever. Let's see who can do it the fastest!

If find
14. (Original post by Jkn)
And another...

Problem 77*

Long John Silverman has captured a treasure map from AdamMcBones.
Adam has buried the treasure at the point (x,y) with integer co-ordinates (not necessarily positive).
He has indicated on themap the values of and , and these numbers are distinct.

Prove that Long John has to dig only in one place to find the treasure.
I've done this before so will give someone else a try before I post but that is a very nice question.
15. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)
Problem 79

This is lolz-maths, but whatever. Let's see who can do it the fastest!

If find
Does f^(n) mean the nth derivative or f applied n times. I think its the former but if its the latter than answer is 0.
16. (Original post by james22)
Does f^(n) mean the nth derivative or f applied n times. I think its the former but if its the latter than answer is 0.
Yes, nth derivative.
17. (Original post by Jkn)
..
AM-GM - and , imply .
Problem 74 hint
Spoiler:
Show
Rewrite . Now apply C-S to this sum. Then remove the denominators and apply AM-GM properly.

(Original post by Lord of the Flies)
Solution 52...
C'est ça!

Solution 76

We can suppose , , and . AM-GM and C-S yield .
There are two possibilities: either my solution is totally wrong, or this is too weak inequality.

Solution 77

Suppose for the sake of contradiction that there are four distinct integers such that
;
.
, . Thus, . The case implies , . So, , -contradiction. Let . We then have and therefore , . Consequently, -contradiction. Hence our person (I do not remember his name ) has to dig in only one place.

Solution 78

Define . It is quite well-known that . Hence .
There are several ways to solve this functional equation. We can bound above and below; or we can introduce the function and our expression is ; finally, we can consider the general equation , where , , and , , and solve it iteratively.
18. (Original post by Lord of the Flies)

Problem 75
, notice that by plugging in a couple coefficients into the inequality and taking the exact same approach as in Mladenov's solution we can easily generalise the result:

Then using the same tricks to show that and we get:

I could see how it could be come my rearrangement, just have no idea how it could've come from AM-GM (Directly at least)! Ah it really is obvious now that you put it like that, cheers!

Holy crap, what an insight! The result looks so much more beautiful that way
Problem 78 (a classic!)

Evaluate
Love this question! Kind of makes me wish I was born 100 years ago so I could've send a solution off to the magazine! (Ramanujan had to publish the solution himself I think. Deriving it from the more generalised version)
AM-GM - and , imply .
But your solution says by AM-GM[QUOTE]. Can I assume you meant x^2y^2?
Problem 74 hint
Spoiler:
Show
Rewrite . Now apply C-S to this sum. Then remove the denominators and apply AM-GM properly.
ahhhhhh!
C'est ça!

Solution 76

We can suppose , , and . AM-GM and C-S yield .
There are two possibilities: either my solution is totally wrong, or this is too weak inequality.
I'm not quite sure how you got rid of the c using Am-Gm! In any case observing the behaviour of the inequality as c approaches infinity is sufficient is disproving the inequality. Your mistake, of course, being that is not valid! I'm sure you simply skimmed over it thinking you need to apply AM-GM and C-S, but I think this question is more about dealing with the "c" and
Spoiler:
Show
algebraic tricks
than anything else (though you may find a different solution to me!)
Solution 78

Define . It is quite well-known that . Hence .
There are several ways to solve this functional equation. We can bound above and below; or we can introduce the function and our expression is ; finally, we can consider the general equation , where , , and , , and solve it iteratively.
Dayyyyyum son you post fast!
20. (Original post by Jkn)
But your solution says by AM-GM. Can I assume you meant x^2y^2?
Nope, I meant . From AM-GM we have and , the second is also trivially true, and hence . It is a consequence of AM-GM, yet not a direct result.

Problem 76 is wrong in this form (I thought ).

Edit: We have to bound ; I can try to find the best possible .

Solution 79

As , from Taylor's series we have , .
Thus, .
Hence

Problem 80

Let be an increasing sequence of positive integers. Suppose also that . Then, the sequence contains all positive integers.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 11, 2017
Today on TSR

### Does race play a role in Oxbridge admissions?

Or does it play no part?

### The worst opinion about food you'll ever hear

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.