Nesbitt's Inequality: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
added another proof (original?) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
with equality when all the variables are equal. | with equality when all the variables are equal. | ||
All of the proofs below generalize to proof the following stronger inequality. | |||
If <math> a_1, \ldots a_n </math> are positive and <math> \sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i = s </math>, then | If <math> a_1, \ldots a_n </math> are positive and <math> \sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i = s </math>, then | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
</center> | </center> | ||
which follows from [[AM-HM]]. | which follows from [[AM-HM]]. | ||
=== By Weighted AM-HM === | |||
We may normalize so that <math> \displaystyle a+b+c =1 </math>. | |||
We first note that by the [[rearrangement inequality]], | |||
<center> | |||
<math> | |||
3 (ab + bc + ca) \le a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + 2(ab + bc + ca) | |||
</math>, | |||
</center> | |||
so | |||
<center> | |||
<math> | |||
\frac{1}{a(b+c) + b(c+a) + c(a+b)} \ge \frac{1}{\frac{2}{3}(a+b+c)^2} = \frac{3}{2} | |||
</math>. | |||
</center> | |||
Since <math> \displaystyle a+b+c = 1 </math>, weighted AM-HM gives us | |||
<center> | |||
<math> | |||
a\cdot \frac{1}{b+c} + b \cdot \frac{1}{c+a} + c \cdot \frac{1}{a+b} \ge \frac{1}{a(b+c) + b(c+a) + c(a+b)} \ge \frac{3}{2} | |||
</math>. | |||
</center> | |||
Revision as of 15:31, 29 April 2007
Nesbitt's Inequality is a theorem which, although rarely cited, has many instructive proofs. It states that for positive
,
,
with equality when all the variables are equal.
All of the proofs below generalize to proof the following stronger inequality.
If
are positive and
, then
,
or equivalently
,
with equality when all the
are equal.
Proofs
By Rearrangement
Note that
and
,
,
are sorted in the same order. Then by the rearrangement inequality,
.
For equality to occur, since we changed
to
, we must have
, so by symmetry, all the variables must be equal.
By Cauchy
By the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality, we have
,
or
,
as desired. Equality occurs when
, i.e., when
.
We also present three closely related variations of this proof, which illustrate how AM-HM is related to AM-GM and Cauchy.
By AM-GM
By applying AM-GM twice, we have
,
which yields the desired inequality.
By Expansion and AM-GM
We consider the equivalent inequality
.
Setting
, we expand the left side to obtain
,
which follows from
, etc., by AM-GM, with equality when
.
By AM-HM
The AM-HM inequality for three variables,
,
is equivalent to
.
Setting
yields the desired inequality.
By Substitution
The numbers
satisfy the condition
. Thus it is sufficient to prove that if any numbers
satisfy
, then
.
Suppose, on the contrary, that
. We then have
, and
. Adding these inequalities yields
, a contradiction.
By Normalization and AM-HM
We may normalize so that
. It is then sufficient to prove
,
which follows from AM-HM.
By Weighted AM-HM
We may normalize so that
.
We first note that by the rearrangement inequality,
,
so
.
Since
, weighted AM-HM gives us
.