I understand that in case of symmetric inequalities, you can assume without loss of generality because you can replace for example with but still the inequality remains unchanged.
But in case of cyclic inequalities can we assume without loss of generality. If yes please explain the reason of WLOG in this case as well.
Example:- [RMO 2017 P6]
Let be real numbers, each greater than . Prove that
The official solution uses .
#rmo #inequalities #wlog
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
Since the inequality (or equality) is cyclic, you can get new solutions by "rotating around" the numbers of a solution.
For example, if (5,2,9) is a solution, then (2,9,5) and (9,5,2) are solutions as well, but (5,9,2) isn't a solution.
This works because cyclic (in)equalities only use some operation (in your example b+1a+1 for some a,b) of all pairs of two "consecutive" variables, but since all "consecutive" variable pairs ((x,y), (y,z) and (z,x)) are used in the (in)equality, the order of the variables matters, but the "rotation" doesn't and that's why you can set a=max(a,b,c).
Log in to reply
Imagine all 3 (or any number of) variables arranged in a circle. The cyclic (in)equality involves some operation of all pairs of variables that are next to each other in this circle. You can't change the order of the elements in the circle and you also can't make a mirror image, but you can rotate the variables around and WLOG rotate one specific value (in your example the macimum value) so that it becomes a.
I kind of get the geometric intuition but could you please be a bit more descriptive, especially in the algebraic one. Thank you.
If a cyclic equality has a solution (x,y,z)1=(a,b,c), then – since the equality is cyclic – you can get another solution as (x,y,z)2=(b,c,a). I think you might understand this intuitively, but to prove it algebraically we have to define what exactly a cyclic equality is.
My first thought is the definition
Derived from the case of your inequality, we can show that
y+1x+1+z+1y+1+x+1z+1=0
is cyclic (by my definition) because the function g(r,s)=s+1r+1 and its corresponding substitution (a,b,c)=(g(x,y),g(y,z),g(z,x)) gives the symmetric equality
a+b+c=0.
If we instead had the equality
y−zx−y+z−xy−z+x−yz−x=0
then we would have to use the function g1(r,s)=r−s
and get
ba+cb+ac=0
Since this isn't symmetric, we have to use another substitution (d,e,f)=(g2(d,e),g2(e,f),g2(f,d)) for g2(r,s)=sr. This brings us to the symmetric equality
d+e+f=0
Another possibility is to define a cyclic equality as an equality where we can get a new solution from a known one (x,y,z)1=(a,b,c) as (x,y,z)2=(b,c,a).
Then, this fact you asked about is the defining property and therefore doesn't require any proof.
Which definition do you like the most, or do you have any other ideas?