As a , b , c range over all positive reals, compute the minimum value of b c a 3 + c a b 3 + a b c 3 + c a b + a b c + b c a
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.
1 second, am I missing something??? o.O
a = b = c simplifies the expression into 6 a . Since a is a real, we can take the value of a except 0 as small as possible to obtain smaller value.
a → 0 + lim 6 a = 0
We can obtain something closer to 0 . Perhaps I'm making a mistake, but please correct me if I'm wrong. :/
Also, I didn't get the last step where you divided both sides of the inequality by a b c .
Log in to reply
Yes, indeed. Thanks for pointing it out. I made an error while copying this problem (and the solution) from my rough work. Sorry to everyone who was misled.
This question is wrong. If we let a = b = c , then the expression becomes 6 a , which has no lower bound.
Log in to reply
I have already mentioned that in the comments. I made a mistake while copying it from my rough work.
I solved this at first glance by simple observation. The terms in the expression are very neatly cyclic. So, if we want to take advantage by increasing a , then decreasing b and bla bla bla, it's actually disadvantageous since the variables a , b , c are cyclically distributed in the whole expression. For example, if we want to minimize c a b 3 and so we minimize b , then maximize c a , we are in another way maximizing b c a . Hence, maximizing, minimizing, increasing, decreasing doesn't actually help.
Hence, seeing the question first, the only solution I could think of is that a = b = c , implying the minimum value to be 6 , and it worked. :p
Sorry for being less mathematical, more logical... :D
I appreciate the thought but will not b^3 increase at a much faster rate then b???
Log in to reply
Yes, but then we have another dilemma... Since b increases slower than b 3 , and we are maximizing c a , say we are only maximizing c more, then we are also maximizing b c a 3 .
You'll surely find a gap whatever you do with increasing-decreasing. ;)
Typo : a = b = c = 1
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Clearing out the denominators, we see that the expression equals a 2 b 2 c 2 a 4 + b 4 + c 4 + a 2 b 2 + b 2 c 2 + c 2 a 2 Applying AM-GM inequality on the set ( a 4 , b 2 c 2 ) , we find out a 4 + b 2 c 2 ≥ 2 a 2 b c Similarly, b 4 + c 2 a 2 ≥ 2 b 2 c a c 4 + a 2 b 2 ≥ 2 c 2 a b Summing them up, a 4 + b 4 + c 4 + a 2 b 2 + b 2 c 2 + c 2 a 2 ≥ 2 ( a 2 b c + b 2 c a + c 2 a b ) Again, from AM-GM inequality, a 2 b c + b 2 c a + c 2 a b ≥ 3 3 a 3 b 3 c 3 = 3 a b c So a 4 + b 4 + c 4 + a 2 + b 2 + c 2 ≥ 6 a b c a 2 b 2 c 2 a 4 + b 4 + c 4 + a 2 b 2 + b 2 c 2 + c 2 a 2 ≥ 6 Equality holds for ( a , b , c ) = ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) . We thus conclude our answer is 6 .