Difference between revisions of "Nesbitt's Inequality"
m (Nesbitt's inequality moved to Nesbitt's Inequality over redirect) |
(→By Substitution) |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
The numbers <math>x = \frac{a}{b+c}, y = \frac{b}{c+a}, z = \frac{c}{a+b} </math> satisfy the condition <math>xy + yz + zx + 2xyz = 1 </math>. Thus it is sufficient to prove that if any numbers <math>x,y,z </math> satisfy <math>xy + yz + zx + 2xyz = 1 </math>, then <math> x+y+z \ge \frac{3}{2} </math>. | The numbers <math>x = \frac{a}{b+c}, y = \frac{b}{c+a}, z = \frac{c}{a+b} </math> satisfy the condition <math>xy + yz + zx + 2xyz = 1 </math>. Thus it is sufficient to prove that if any numbers <math>x,y,z </math> satisfy <math>xy + yz + zx + 2xyz = 1 </math>, then <math> x+y+z \ge \frac{3}{2} </math>. | ||
− | Suppose, on the contrary, that <math> x+y+z < \frac{3}{2} </math>. We then have <math>xy + yz + zx \le | + | Suppose, on the contrary, that <math> x+y+z < \frac{3}{2} </math>. We then have <math>xy + yz + zx \le \frac{(x+y+z)^2}{3} < \frac{3}{4} </math>, and <math> 2xyz \le 2 \left( \frac{x+y+z}{3} \right)^3 < \frac{1}{4} </math>. Adding these inequalities yields <math>xy + yz + zx + 2xyz < 1 </math>, a contradiction. |
=== By Normalization and AM-HM === | === By Normalization and AM-HM === |
Revision as of 22:06, 21 April 2014
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 more general inequality.
If are positive and , then
,
or equivalently
,
with equality when all the are equal.
Contents
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
.