⌊ a b + c + d ⌋ + ⌊ b a + c + d ⌋ + ⌊ c a + b + d ⌋ + ⌊ d a + b + c ⌋
For positive real numbers a , b , c and d , find the smallest possible value of the above expression.
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.
Oooh, that's a very nice simple way of showing the lower bound.
There is actually a nice generalization of this result with n variables: x 1 , … , x n ∈ R + min ( i = 1 ∑ n ⌊ x i ∑ k = i x k ⌋ ) = ( n − 1 ) 2 .
A construction of such x i is x 1 = n and x 2 = x 3 = … = x n = n + 1 . In this case, that would correspond to a = 4 and b = c = d = 5 .
The crux of the proof that this is the minimum can be done with the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality and a little creativity. Try to figure out how!
Proof of the minimum is much easier than Cauchy. If we ignore the floor function, it evaluates to n 2 − n . Accounting for the fractional part, we are removing n values 0 ≤ x i < 1 . The sum of these values is an integer from 0 to n. Hence the max is n − 1 . Thus the min of the expression is n 2 − n − ( n − 1 ) .
I found the lowest value with an evolutionary algorithm :
Python 3.4:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 |
|
Oh, it seems to be a nice Comp. Sci. exercise though I don't seem to get the logic out of that. But still thanks for the link! I will look up to "evolutionary algorithm".
Log in to reply
It is actually an algebra exercise. See the other solutions for how to do this.
The coding approach might get stuck in local minimums. I do not think it provides a proof of global mins.
Log in to reply
Yeah, I thought about this too after I posted it. Because the fitness function is an integer, it doesn't make a very good heuristic. It makes it so it gets stuck and the same creature populates the entire environment, and then further mutations don't make it go anywhere.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Responding to Eli's challenge:
Since ⌊ x ⌋ > x − 1 we have j = 1 ∑ n ( ⌊ x j ∑ k = j x k ⌋ ) > j = 1 ∑ n ( x j ∑ k = j x k ) − n = k = j ∑ x j x k − n ≥ n ( n − 1 ) − n as the sum contains 2 n ( n − 1 ) terms of the form x j x k + x k x j ≥ 2 . Thus j = 1 ∑ n ( ⌊ x j ∑ k = j x k ⌋ ) ≥ n ( n − 1 ) − n + 1 = ( n − 1 ) 2 As Eli points out, this lower bound is attained.