Consider all positive reals a and b such that
a b ( a + b ) = 2 0 0 0 .
What is the minimum value of
a 1 + b 1 + a + b 1 ?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Wrong approach 1 is no good because that lower bound is never attained (equality cannot hold unless a = b = 0 ).
Wrong approach 2 is pretty, but the problem seems to be that a + b = 1 0 doesn't correspond to a real solution, since in this case a b = 2 0 0 , and this is impossible for real a , b .
If you restrict the domain to values of x that correspond to real solutions, you're looking at x ≥ 2 0 (easy exercise), and the function is increasing on that domain by calculus (or whatever), so x = 2 0 is where the minimum is attained.
That is a much nicer way to solve the problem than cranking out Lagrange multipliers, which is what I did.
Log in to reply
Yes, the main issue is that the solutions did not check that the minimum can indeed be achieved. All that they found was a lower bound. They did not show that is it the greatest lower bound.
I used wring approach number 2. T.T
YES! Sorry I'm just happy to have gotten this right. It's probably because I don't like AM-GM. Which is pretty funny. :P
I didn't understand why the first approach is wrong. Please help.
Log in to reply
It is because equality will only hold if a=b=0. which can't be true.
Amazing!, just trying to get this. I used the AM-GM inequality
it can be solved more easily..
Log in to reply
Certainly. Jon posed a straightforward solution.
My original intention was to get a discussion going, about what some of the "obvious choices" were false. I then tried to create a solution which was similar to the approaches used before, to show how one can "fix" them.
really pretty got it right
if you take a function f(x)=(x^2/2000) +(1/x). then using calculus if we differentiate f(x) w.r.t x then we get (x/1000)+ log(x) . it will not be zero for x=10 or x=20 or x=1. it may be zero only when x<1. so how can you say that at x=20 or x=10 will be an extreme point.
Log in to reply
The derivative of 1/x is not log(x). :-)
integrate cosx/x from npi to (n+1)pi
I do not know calculus, is there any other way to solve this?
Log in to reply
There are several different ways. E.g. Jon's solution below deals with it nicely.
They key step is to realize that there is a restriction of a + b ≥ 2 0 ,
ok, got it, thanks :)
By applying AM-GM 2 0 0 0 = a b ( a + b ) ≤ ( 2 a + b ) 2 ( a + b ) , which implies a + b ≥ 2 0 .
Again by the AM-GM inequality, a 1 + b 1 + a + b 1 = 2 a 1 + 2 a 1 + 2 b 1 + 2 b 1 + a + b 1 ≥ 5 5 ( 2 a ) 2 1 ⋅ ( 2 b ) 2 1 ⋅ a + b 1 = 5 5 1 6 a 2 b 2 ( a + b ) 1 = 5 5 1 6 a 2 b 2 ( a + b ) 2 a + b ≥ 5 5 1 6 ⋅ 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 = 4 1 .
Equality occurs when a = b = 1 0 , so the minimum value is 1/4.
a 1 + b 1 + a + b 1 = a b ( a + b ) ( a + b ) 2 + a b
Plugging in the first equation, ⇒ 2 0 0 0 ( a + b ) 2 + a b
Now, by A.M. G.M. inequality, the minimum value of ( a + b ) 2 = 4 a b , when a = b
Now, 2 0 0 0 5 a b = 4 0 0 a b = 4 0 0 a 2
In the first equation, plugging in a = b
2 a 3 = 2 0 0 0 → a 3 = 1 0 0 0 → a = b = 1 0
Therefore, 4 0 0 a 2 = 4 0 0 1 0 0 = 4 1
Interesting approach, but flawed. You cannot apply the condition that the minimum in the first inequality occurs when a = b .
All that you have is that
2 0 0 0 ( a + b ) 2 + a b ≥ 4 0 0 a b
You have not shown that over ALL positive reals which satisfy a b ( a + b ) = 2 0 0 0 , we have 4 0 0 a b ≥ 4 1 .
In fact, this statement is not true. Since 2 0 0 0 = a b ( a + b ) ≥ a b × 2 a b ⇒ 1 0 ≥ a b , thus we actually have 4 0 0 a b ≤ 4 1 , which is not useful.
As it turns out, you have "over relaxed" the inequality with your first step.
Log in to reply
I started to do the same thing but then I got to the part where I would have had to apply the "If it looks like a = b will be the solution then a = b will be the solution" principle.
/((a+b)^2 = (a-b)^2 + 4ab but since, the expression is a sum of both positive terms so, if any one of the terms vanish the result will be always be smaller than the expression itself which needs no further logical explanation i think. And here in this expression, the only term that may vanish is the first term (at a=b) so what is obtained afterward should always be the smallest possible value!!
You can verify your result using Calvin's result (ab<=100) and the fact that under the constraint, there is only one intersection point between (a+b)^2+ab and 5ab. They are equal iff a = b, and this only occurs at a = b = 10 because of the constraint. Therefore, their intersection point must be the minimum of (a+b)^2 + ab (because of continuity as well).
Log in to reply
Actually, I just realized that that's not sufficient.
Log in to reply
So, my apologies. I guess this gap can't easily be filled quite so easily.
I approached this problem using Lagrange Multipliers. I essentially defined the following cost function, J , to be minimized with respect to the variables a , b , and the Lagrange Multiplier λ :
F 2 ( a , b ) = a b ( a + b ) − α = 0
F 1 ( a , b ) = a 1 + b 1 + a + b 1 = ( a 2 + 2 a b + b 2 ) ( α 1 )
J = F 1 ( a , b ) + λ F 2 ( a , b ) , where λ is unknown
Taking the partial derivatives of J with respect to a, b, and λ (since we want to minimize with respect to all variables) leads to the following equations:
(1) ( 2 a + 3 b ) = α λ ( 2 a b + b 2 )
(2) ( 2 b + 3 a ) = α λ ( 2 a b + a 2 )
(3) F 2 = 0
Now, solving for α λ in both (1) and (2) and setting them equal gives:
(4) 2 a b + b 2 2 a + 3 b = 2 b a + a 2 2 b + 3 a
Simplifying (4) such that there are no fractions and multiplying through will lead to:
(5) 2 a 3 + a 2 b − b 2 a − 2 b 3 = 0
The following are some steps of algebraic simplification I made:
a b ( a − b ) + 2 ( a 3 − b 3 ) = 0
a b ( a − b ) + 2 ( a − b ) ( a 2 + a b + b 2 ) = 0
( a − b ) [ a b + 2 ( a 2 + a b + b 2 ) ] = 0
(6) ( a − b ) [ 2 a 2 + 3 a b + 2 b 2 ] = 0
Obviously, based on (6), a ∗ = b ∗ , where ( a ∗ , b ∗ ) are the optimal pair of values. Additionally, you can find that the other term can only be simplified if you allow complex numbers. Since I am under the assumption we are looking for a pure real solution, I ignore that term.
Now plugging a ∗ = b ∗ into (3), we obtain that:
a ∗ = b ∗ = 3 2 α
Given that α = 2 0 0 0 for our case, we can find that
a ∗ = b ∗ = 1 0
Plugging this into F 1 gives:
F 1 ( a ∗ , b ∗ ) = 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 + 2 0 1 = 4 1
ab(a+b)=10x10x20 by comparing a=10 and b=10 i ticked 1/4 as the answer by this but i am not able to understand why 10 is the maximum value
since the function has one a kind of symmetry we can say that the max or min value (whichever exists) is achieved when a=b .
solving it we get a = b = 10 substituting the values we get that answer as 1/4
No, that claim is not true.
What is the minimum of ( a − 2 ) 2 ( b − 7 ) 2 subject to a + b = 1 0 ? At what points does the minimum exist?
If you could prove that the values of a and b that obtain the minimum are unique, then, in this case, you could conclude a = b. That seems to be beyond me at the moment though.
The expression can have minimum value, when a=b
Therefore, =>ab(a+b)=2000 =>a^2(2a)=2000 =>2a^3=2000 =>a=10
Simplifying the latter expression, =>1/a + 1/b + 1/a+b =>1/a + 1/a + 1/2a =>5/2a
Substituting a, we get =>5/20 = 1/4
x = a 1 + b 1 + ( a + b ) 1 ⇒ x = a b ( a + b ) ( a + b ) 2 + a b
From AM-GM, we have ( a + b ) 2 ≥ 4 a b
It is evident that for x to be minimum, a = b ⇒ a = 1 0
∴ L e a s t v a l u e o f x = 2 0 0 0 5 a 2 = 4 1
I was told by a tutor in my school days that whenever a problem with symmetrical variables is given ,consider all of them equal for getting a maximum ora minimum....and it works always...put a=b and get to the answer in secomds orally..
That's a good rule of thumb, but it isn't always literally true. For instance, try to find the maximum and/or minimums of f(x,y) = x^4 + y^4 subject to the constraints x^2 + y^2 = 1. Both of these are symmetric in x and y, and yet the solutions are NOT when x=y.
It happened to be true in the given problem above, but this requires additional proof.
I was wondering if you could use Lagrange Multipliers? I see that we have a function and a constraint in 2D, so applying the multipliers could definitely work? I ended up getting a symmetric equation in which the left side and the right side were the same except with a and b playing reversed roles.
As a result, I concluded that ONE solution is a = b (for sure, as if you reverse the roles of a and b and still have the same expression, surely a = b). From this I proved that a = b gives the minimum value of the sum, which turned out to be 1/4.
My question is if this is a valid approach? If not, can someone point out where my logic is flawed? Thank you so much!
Yes you can. I just posted a solution using this.
These are cyclic expressions. By putting a=b=10 we get extremum. With these values, the required expression = .25. let us assume a=1. Solving we get the value of the required expression > .25. So, .25 is the minimum.
OR
f
(
a
,
b
)
=
a
1
+
b
1
+
a
+
b
1
=
a
b
(
a
+
b
)
(
a
+
b
)
2
+
a
b
=
2
0
0
0
(
a
+
b
)
2
+
a
b
.
F
o
r
e
x
t
r
e
m
u
m
f
a
′
=
0
a
n
d
f
b
′
=
0
.
∴
2
0
0
0
2
(
a
+
b
)
∗
1
+
b
=
0
a
n
d
2
0
0
0
2
(
a
+
b
)
∗
1
+
b
=
0
.
⟹
a
=
b
,
s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
n
g
i
n
g
i
v
e
n
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
2
∗
2
a
=
2
0
0
0
,
⟹
a
=
b
=
1
0
.
S
o
f
(
1
0
,
1
0
)
=
1
0
1
+
1
0
1
+
2
0
1
=
4
1
.
C
h
e
c
k
i
n
g
b
y
2
n
d
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
As a discussion, first consider why the "obvious" answers are wrong.
Yes, the choices were specially selected.
Wrong Approach 1:
Applying AM-GM, we get that
a 1 + b 1 + a + b 1 ≥ 3 3 a b ( a + b ) 1 = 3 3 2 0 0 0 1 = 2 0 3 3 4 .
What is wrong with this approach?
Wrong Approach 2:
a 1 + b 1 + a + b 1 = a b a + b + a + b 1 = 2 0 0 0 ( a + b ) 2 + a + b 1 .
Letting x = a + b , we want to minimize 2 0 0 0 x 2 + x 1 .
Using Calculus, or AM-GM, the minimum occurs when x = 1 0 and has a value of 2 0 3 .
What is wrong with this approach?
Correct solution:
Let a + b = x , and then a b = x 2 0 0 0 . a and b are the real roots of the quadratic equation
X 2 − x X + x 2 0 0 0 = 0
This has a non-negative discriminant, so x 2 − x 4 × 2 0 0 0 ≥ 0 . This gives us x 3 ≥ 8 0 0 0 , or that x ≥ 2 0 .
Now, we want to minimize f ( x ) = 2 0 0 0 x 2 + x 1 SUBJECT to x ≥ 2 0 . Using calculus, it is clear that for x ≥ 2 0 , we have f ′ ( x ) > 0 . Hence, the minimum occurs when x = 2 0 .
In this scenario, we have a + b = 2 0 , a b = 1 0 0 . This is satisfied when a = 1 0 , b = 1 0 . Hence, the minimum can be achieved. This minimum is 1 0 1 + 1 0 1 + 2 0 1 = 2 0 5 = 4 1 .