The sixth term of an arithmetic progression is 2, and its common difference is greater than 1. Show that the value of the common difference of the progression so that the product of the first, fourth and fifth therm is greatest is .
I did it with the concept of Maxima and Minima. Can someone suggest any other methods, something that is purely Algebra
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
Try to use weighted AM-GM, but keep in mind that a1,a4 are both negative, so their weights must be negative as well.
Take cases in which a5 is positive or negative, and use the fact that a6=2 for the weighted AM part.
Log in to reply
Umm....I sure do know what is AM-GM inequality but i dont know what the weighted AM and GM mean
Log in to reply
Actually it's not the actual weighted AM-GM inequality I'm telling you to use, it's this -
3ka1+la4+ma5≥(klm⋅a1a4a5)31
Choose k,l,m such that,
k,l≤0 and ka1+la4+ma5=a6.
Use the formula for the general term of an AP to find k,l,m.
The weighted AM-GM inequality (for two variables, here) is:
m+nma+nb≥(am⋅bn)m+n1
m,n are called the weights of variables a,b respectively.
It's easy to derive from the general AM-GM inequality.
Log in to reply
l,m,n.
I am having a really hard time figuring how to findNow, what I did was started with ka1+la4+ma5=a6.
Then, by pondering on it a little I approached it as follows:-
k(a)+l(a+3d)+m(a+4d)=a+5d
On comparing the coefficients I got the following two equations
k+l+m=1
k+3l+4m=5
Then as per the rule of cross multiplication, we get,
4−3k=4−1−l=3−1m⟹k=3−l=2m
Using this result when i substitute the values back into equation k+l+m=1 I got 1=0
Then from 3ka1+la4+ma5≥(klm⋅a1a4a5)31,
We see that (a1a4a5)max=3klmka1+la4+ma53.
Iam not able to find the value of klm. If you can suggest some method.
Log in to reply
3l+4m=5, not k+3l+4m=5, for the coefficient of d. You're on the right track!
It should beLog in to reply
k and l will be different, as we had assumed that k,l≤0.
But doesn't this imply that the signs ofLog in to reply
Can you gimme some pointers as to where to learn it from and its applications
@Rishabh Cool, @Siddhartha Srivastava, @Ameya Daigavane
@Ameya Daigavane And one more thing, what does r<s∑aras imply. Does it imply s=1∑nr=1∑naras
Log in to reply
No it does not, r goes from 1 to s−1, not till n. It should be r<s∑aras=s=1∑nr=1∑s−1aras assuming the sum is over all pairs.
Log in to reply
Thanks a lot, you just solved another doubt of mine
@Calvin Lin
@Siddhartha Srivastava
@Ameya Daigavane
As am on mobile right now so couldn't post another post for this one so would you please consider it and clear my doubt here only.
A straight line is drawn through the centre of a square ABCD intersecting side AB at N so that AN:NB=1:2. On this line take an arbitrary point M lying inside the square. Prove that the distances from the point M to the sides AB,AD,BC,CD of the square taken in that order, form an A.P.
I did it by considering any vertex as origin then considering sides common to it as axes and then calculating the distance of the point from the sides and then find out the common difference.
I would appreciate it if someone would tell me how to do a rigorous proof which would teach my some interesting new things given that I am a noob at coordinate geometry.
@Ameya Daigavane,@Rishabh Cool,@Calvin Lin,@Sharky Kesa
Log in to reply
If we show d1+d3=2d2, we are done.
Note that, △MNY∼△ONX
So, 23ad1=2ad2−a
⇒d1=3d2−3a=2d2−d3
as d3=3a−d2, and we're finished.
Log in to reply
I did it the exact same way, just with one little deviation which was I selected the length of the sides to be a instead of 3a, it made things just a little harder to visualize. And did you think up anything about the question in the main post, or could you suggest me some text to read it from.
Hmm... Quick enough. Good solution.
Log in to reply
@Ameya Daigavane.
Can you please look into the question in the original post, and provide me some other way to solve than the one that I did as stated in the note, or you could help me figure out where I am going wrong in the method suggested byOne more thing you gotta tell me, how do you draw and post these diagrams on Brilliant.
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Cool
@Deeparaj Bhat
Log in to reply
Here's a better way. Let the length of the square be 2a and take the origin as the centre of the square. Also, let the coordinate axes be parallel to the sides of the square.
I think you can proceed from here.
I don't think co-ordinate geometry is the best way here.
Log in to reply
I guess it is. I was able to do it with that in under 5 minutes.
Log in to reply