Let t1<t2<t3<⋯<t99 t_1 < t_2 < t_3 < \dots < t_{99}t1<t2<t3<⋯<t99 be real numbers. Consider a function f:R→Rf : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}f:R→R given by f(x)=∣x−t1∣+∣x−t2∣+⋯+∣x−t99∣f(x) = |x-t_1|+|x-t_2|+ \dots +|x-t_{99}|f(x)=∣x−t1∣+∣x−t2∣+⋯+∣x−t99∣. Show that f(x)f(x)f(x) attains minimum value at x=t50x=t_{50}x=t50.
Note by Mridul Sachdeva 7 years, 10 months ago
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*
_italics_
**bold**
__bold__
- bulleted- list
1. numbered2. list
paragraph 1paragraph 2
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
This is a quote
# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"
\(
\)
\[
\]
2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Let x=m∈Rx=m \in \mathbb{R}x=m∈R be the value such that f(x)f(x)f(x) is minimized. Obviously, t1<m<t99t_1<m<t_{99}t1<m<t99. Then
∣m−t1∣+∣m−t99∣=(m−t1)+(t99−m)=t99−t1, \lvert m - t_1 \rvert + \lvert m - t_{99} \rvert = (m-t_1) + (t_{99} - m)=t_{99} - t_1, ∣m−t1∣+∣m−t99∣=(m−t1)+(t99−m)=t99−t1,
which is independant of mmm, so t1t_1t1 and t99t_{99}t99 can be disregarded. This process of omitting the smallest and largest value continues, until only the middle one is left, which is t50t_{50}t50, so m=t50m=t_{50}m=t50.
Log in to reply
How is the assumption t1<m<t99 t_1 < m < t_{99} t1<m<t99 obvious? I mean I know its correct but can we assume that?
f(x)f(x)f(x) is the sum of distances from xxx to tit_iti. If for example x>t99x>t_{99}x>t99, then moving xxx to the left decreases all distances.
This is similar to what Tim V. did, but perhaps a bit more rigorous.
By triangle inequality, ∣x−tk∣+∣x−t100−k∣≥t100−k−tk|x-t_{k}| + |x - t_{100 - k}| \ge t_{100-k} - t_{k}∣x−tk∣+∣x−t100−k∣≥t100−k−tk for k∈1,49‾k \in \overline{1,49}k∈1,49 with equality iff tk≤x≤t100−kt_k \le x \le t_{100-k}tk≤x≤t100−k.
Trivially, ∣x−t50∣≥0|x - t_{50}| \ge 0∣x−t50∣≥0 with equality iff x=t50x = t_{50}x=t50.
Adding these up gives f(x)=∣x−t50∣+∑k=149(∣x−tk∣+∣x−t100−k∣)≥∑k=149(t100−k−tk)f(x) = |x - t_{50}| + \displaystyle\sum_{k = 1}^{49} \left(|x-t_{k}| + |x - t_{100 - k}|\right) \ge \displaystyle\sum_{k = 1}^{49} \left( t_{100-k} - t_{k} \right)f(x)=∣x−t50∣+k=1∑49(∣x−tk∣+∣x−t100−k∣)≥k=1∑49(t100−k−tk).
Equality occurs iff tk≤x≤t100−kt_k \le x \le t_{100-k}tk≤x≤t100−k for all k∈1,49‾k \in \overline{1,49}k∈1,49 and x=t50x = t_{50}x=t50.
Clearly, x=t50x = t_{50}x=t50 satisfies those conditions, and is the only real number to do so.
Therefore, f(x)f(x)f(x) attains its minimum value at x=t50x = t_{50}x=t50.
Nice use of the triangle inequality. Thanks!
Intuitively it seems correct but I have not been able to prove it.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
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 x=m∈R be the value such that f(x) is minimized. Obviously, t1<m<t99. Then
∣m−t1∣+∣m−t99∣=(m−t1)+(t99−m)=t99−t1,
which is independant of m, so t1 and t99 can be disregarded. This process of omitting the smallest and largest value continues, until only the middle one is left, which is t50, so m=t50.
Log in to reply
How is the assumption t1<m<t99 obvious? I mean I know its correct but can we assume that?
Log in to reply
f(x) is the sum of distances from x to ti. If for example x>t99, then moving x to the left decreases all distances.
This is similar to what Tim V. did, but perhaps a bit more rigorous.
By triangle inequality, ∣x−tk∣+∣x−t100−k∣≥t100−k−tk for k∈1,49 with equality iff tk≤x≤t100−k.
Trivially, ∣x−t50∣≥0 with equality iff x=t50.
Adding these up gives f(x)=∣x−t50∣+k=1∑49(∣x−tk∣+∣x−t100−k∣)≥k=1∑49(t100−k−tk).
Equality occurs iff tk≤x≤t100−k for all k∈1,49 and x=t50.
Clearly, x=t50 satisfies those conditions, and is the only real number to do so.
Therefore, f(x) attains its minimum value at x=t50.
Log in to reply
Nice use of the triangle inequality. Thanks!
Intuitively it seems correct but I have not been able to prove it.