This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
Math
Appears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3
2×3
2^{34}
234
a_{i-1}
ai−1
\frac{2}{3}
32
\sqrt{2}
2
\sum_{i=1}^3
∑i=13
\sin \theta
sinθ
\boxed{123}
123
Comments
Clearing denominators leads to [3,2,0]≥[2,2,1], true by Muirhead's since {3,2,0}≻{2,2,1}.
Let P(x,y) denote the equation. Then P(0,0)⟹f(0)∈{0,−1}. If f(0)=0 then for all non negative x we have P(x,0)⟹f(x)=x. Now P(0,y)⟹f(−y)=−y for all non negative y. Thus f(x)=x is a solution for all x, which clearly works. If f(0)=−1 then P(x,0)⟹x−1 for all non negative x. But choosing positive reals x>y we see that this doesn't satisfy P(x,y). So only solution is f(x)=x∀x∈R.
The discriminant of the given cubic is 81>0, so the roots are all real and distinct. Let our desired cubic be q(x)=x3−px2+qx−r. By Vieta's we must have p=α2β2+β2γ2+γ2α2, q=α2+β2+γ2 and r=1. Using the Vieta equations α+β+γ=0 and αβ+βγ+γα=−3 we can easily find α2+β2+γ2=6 and α2β2+β2γ2+γ2α2=9. So q(x)=x3−9x2+6x−1.
If the roots are p,q,r,s, by Vieta's ac≥16d⇔(p+q+r+s)(pqr+pqs+prs+qrs)≥16pqrs which follows by applying AM-GM on each bracket. Also b2≥36d⇔(pq+pr+ps+qr+qs+rs)2≥36pqrs, again follows directly by applying the AM-GM inequality inside.
Notice that f1(x)=2x has only solution x=4 which, by induction, is the root of all fn(x)−2x. It easily follows that f1(x)−2x is monotonically decreasing. So by induction all of fn(x)−2x, being compositions of monotone mappings, are monotonically decreasing. So each fn(x)−2x has only one root, which is 4.
Direct application of Titu's Lemma. We have ∑ai+biai2≥∑ai+∑bi(∑ai)2=2∑ai(∑ai)2=21∑ai.
Here is another solution to the last one. That was how I approached it a long time ago, and this method stuck with me.
Observe that ∑ai+biai2−bi2=∑(ai−bi)=0.
Hence, this gives us ∑ai+biai2=∑ai+bibi2.
We want to show that ∑ai+biai2+bi2=2∑ai+biai2≥∑ai.
By QM-AM, we know that 2ai2+bi2≥2ai+bi, or that ai+biai2+bi2≥2ai+bi.
Hence, we get that ∑ai+biai2+bi2≥∑2ai+bi=∑ai, and we are done.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Let P(x,y) denote the equation. Then P(0,0)⟹f(0)∈{0,−1}. If f(0)=0 then for all non negative x we have P(x,0)⟹f(x)=x. Now P(0,y)⟹f(−y)=−y for all non negative y. Thus f(x)=x is a solution for all x, which clearly works. If f(0)=−1 then P(x,0)⟹x−1 for all non negative x. But choosing positive reals x>y we see that this doesn't satisfy P(x,y). So only solution is f(x)=x ∀x∈R.
The discriminant of the given cubic is 81>0, so the roots are all real and distinct. Let our desired cubic be q(x)=x3−px2+qx−r. By Vieta's we must have p=α2β2+β2γ2+γ2α2, q=α2+β2+γ2 and r=1. Using the Vieta equations α+β+γ=0 and αβ+βγ+γα=−3 we can easily find α2+β2+γ2=6 and α2β2+β2γ2+γ2α2=9. So q(x)=x3−9x2+6x−1.
If the roots are p,q,r,s, by Vieta's ac≥16d ⇔ (p+q+r+s)(pqr+pqs+prs+qrs)≥16pqrs which follows by applying AM-GM on each bracket. Also b2≥36d ⇔(pq+pr+ps+qr+qs+rs)2≥36pqrs, again follows directly by applying the AM-GM inequality inside.
Notice that f1(x)=2x has only solution x=4 which, by induction, is the root of all fn(x)−2x. It easily follows that f1(x)−2x is monotonically decreasing. So by induction all of fn(x)−2x, being compositions of monotone mappings, are monotonically decreasing. So each fn(x)−2x has only one root, which is 4.
Direct application of Titu's Lemma. We have ∑ai+biai2≥∑ai+∑bi(∑ai)2=2∑ai(∑ai)2=21∑ai.
Log in to reply
How you calculated discriminant of a cubic please help me
Log in to reply
Go to the link attached to the word discriminant in the solution.
The last one is quite easy.
(i=1∑nai+biai2)(i=1∑n(ai+bi))≥(i=1∑nai)2
(i=1∑nai+biai2)≥(2∑i=1nai(∑i=1nai)2)⇒i=1∑nai+biai2≥21i=1∑nai
It is a straightforward application of Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality.
Log in to reply
Here is another solution to the last one. That was how I approached it a long time ago, and this method stuck with me.
Observe that ∑ai+biai2−bi2=∑(ai−bi)=0.
Hence, this gives us ∑ai+biai2=∑ai+bibi2.
We want to show that ∑ai+biai2+bi2=2∑ai+biai2≥∑ai.
By QM-AM, we know that 2ai2+bi2≥2ai+bi, or that ai+biai2+bi2≥2ai+bi.
Hence, we get that ∑ai+biai2+bi2≥∑2ai+bi=∑ai, and we are done.
Solution to the first problem -
adding a1+b1+c1 to both sides , we get -
3(a+b+c)(a21+b21+c21)>(a1+b1+c1)
since 3a+b+c>(a1+b1+c1)3
the problem reduces to proving -
3(a21+b21+c21)>(a1+b1+c1)2
which directly follows from Cauchy - Schwarz inequality.
For 2nd problem I guess there are many
f(x2−y2)=x2+(f(y))2
Put x = 0
f(−y2)=(f(y))2
Now here I have a doubt that it is correct or not
f(y)=−yn,n∈ODD
There can be ∞ functions for different 'n'
Log in to reply
Try putting the function you found in the first condition. You only solved for the case when x=0.
Log in to reply
Yes but in that case only I am getting ∞ functions.
f(x)=−x2 does not satisfy the original functional equation.
Log in to reply
N should be odd
Log in to reply
f(x)=−x3 does not satisfy the original functional equation.
Similarly,Log in to reply
I think you did something wrong. It asks for f(x2−y2)=x2−(f(y))2.
Good
Log in to reply
What do you mean by that? Can you post your solutions, if you have any.