MedVision ad

inequality (1 Viewer)

pikachu975

Premium Member
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
2,739
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2017
This is probably gonna be a dumb question but what's the symbol on the LHS, e.g. (something - a^2)?
 

fan96

617 pages
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
543
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2024
First rearrange the inequality:









Because , we have





Importantly, because , this explicit formula for shows that and thus .

Therefore the inequality is equivalent to



Finally,

 

CM_Tutor

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
2,642
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Importantly, because , this explicit formula for shows that and thus .

Therefore the inequality is equivalent to



Finally,

I am not certain that the last part of this is valid.

I agree that we have and that , but as a consequence the term



must be non-zero:







Similar reasoning allows us to conclude that



satisfies



And, while it may be true that , this evidence does not support any conclusion stronger than

Consider some values:

Case 1: Both near zero









Case 2: Both near one









Case 3: Both near middle









Case 4: One near zero, one near one









Looking at these four cases, we see that is typically not close to zero, and that the sum does stay below . The conclusion based on and is not reflected in any of these cases, however.
 

fan96

617 pages
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
543
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2024
My bad, I didn't check that last step correctly.

This may not quite be within the MX2 syllabus, but if you differentiate the expression



twice, as a function of and then as a function of , it can be shown that there is exactly one point in the unit square that is a stationary point in both cases.

(The derivative actually only needs to be taken once, as and are symmetric in the expression.)

This point can be shown to be a local maximum by analysing the two derivatives.

The function attains the value of at this point, so must be its maximum value over the unit square. (It's actually a global maximum, but that isn't necessary to show.)
 

CM_Tutor

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
2,642
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
One slight cheat would be to say that the equation that we have is symmetrical in and and thus that the max / min likely lies on the diagonal . We would then need to examine the function:



in the domain . We would then find:



which is zero when and so the only stationary point in the domain corresponds to , as @fan96 stated.



Proving that corresponds to a maximum.

Substituting will show that and thus completes the proof of the inequality.

I don't plan to type it out, but I have checked, and when , we get



and



and thus get

 
Last edited:

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Random observation I want to make. Let



Then the problem reduces to maximising



subject to the constraint



and A,B,C are acute angles.

I don't know if this has a nice geometric interpretation, but if anyone has one, feel free to share it.

Edit: oh this was the solution described two posts above
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top