The answer isn't... yea

Algebra Level 5

Let x , y , z x,y,z be positive real numbers such that x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = 2 ( x y + y z + z x ) x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 2(xy + yz+zx) . Find the maximum value of

x 2016 + y 2016 + z 2016 ( x + y + z ) ( x 2 + y 2 + z 2 ) ( x 62 + y 62 + z 62 ) ( x 63 + y 63 + z 63 ) . \frac{x^{2016}+y^{2016}+z^{2016}}{(x+y+z)\big(x^2+y^2+z^2\big) \ldots \big(x^{62}+y^{62}+z^{62}\big)\big(x^{63}+y^{63}+z^{63}\big)}.

Bonus: Generalize this. That is, find the conditions for x , y , z x,y,z such that x N + y N + z N j ( x a j + y a j + z a j ) \frac{x^{N}+y^{N}+z^{N}}{\displaystyle \prod_j (x^{a_j}+y^{a_j}+z^{a_j})} attains its maximum given that j a j = N \displaystyle \sum_{j}a_j = N .


This problem is a generalization of this .


The answer is 0.568698946265.

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 solution

Steven Jim
Jun 19, 2017

[Not a solution]

The maximum value is 2 + 4 2016 ( 2 + 4 ) . . . ( 2 + 4 63 ) \frac { 2+{ 4 }^{ 2016 } }{ (2+4)...(2+{ 4 }^{ 63 }) } . However, it's too large to calculate using calculators, and typing everything out on WolframAlpha takes a hell of lot of time. So are there any ways to calculate this? Right now, I can only think of using Calculus to solve for the limit.

Mark, you have found S 1 S_1 to S 10 S_{10} using polynomials. Do you think you can generalize it?

Julian, how did you find the maximum?

As of right now, I do not have a solution due to having found an error. I assumed that x y z xyz can be expressed in terms of x y + y z + z x xy+yz+zx and x + y + z x+y+z , which isn't true. However, I haven't deleted the problem as I'm confident that the answer is correct through a graphing calculator (not a proof).

My approach was something like this: Assuming x y z xyz can be expressed in terms of x y + y z + z x xy+yz+zx and x + y + z x+y+z , show that the expression is equivalent to:

k ( ( x x + y + z ) N + ( y x + y + z ) N + ( z x + y + z ) N ) k\left( \left(\frac{x}{x+y+z}\right)^N + \left(\frac{y}{x+y+z}\right)^N+ \left(\frac{z}{x+y+z}\right)^N\right)

Where k k is some real number. Then follow on with a generalised version of Khang's solution in this problem .

As for calculating the maximum value, I used ( x , y , z ) = ( 1 , 1 / 4 , 1 / 4 ) (x,y,z)=(1,1/4,1/4) , making the expression equal to:

2 2 n ( n + 1 ) + 1 k = 1 n ( 2 4 k + 1 ) \frac{\frac{2}{2^{n(n+1)}}+1}{\prod _{k=1}^n\left(\frac{2}{4^k}+1\right)}

Since n = 63 n=63 is a pretty big number, the expression is very close to k = 1 n ( 2 4 k + 1 ) 1 \prod _{k=1}^n\left(\frac{2}{4^k}+1\right)^{-1} and it converges pretty fast. So it is easily calculatable on a calculator.

I haven't tried it but it seems like Alan's solution from the same problem can be generalised, albeit tediously

Julian Poon - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

I can confirm that the solution (seems) right. Mostly no problem with it. No one's reporting anyways :)

Alan's solution can be generalized, and I think Mark's solution can, also. That's why I have to ask him immediately after typing the answer. However, I think there exists a problem if you want to generalize this. For Mark's solution, we can't just type out all values from S 1 S_1 to S 63 S_{63} . It would be way too long. For Alan's, the discriminant would be so lengthy (same as Mark's) that you can't write it down comfortably.

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

After reading both their solutions, both seems pretty much the same. In generalising, both would have the problem of dealing with S 1 S_1 to S 63 S_{63} . I've played with Kelvin's solution and the main problem is proving that it is maximum at t = 1 t=1 . Currently, I've got it down to proving that

d d t ln ( ( t + 1 ) 2 N + t 2 N + 1 ) < d d t ln ( j ( t + 1 ) 2 a j + t 2 a j + 1 ) \frac{d}{dt}\ln \left(\left(t+1\right)^{2N}+t^{2N}+1\right)<\frac{d}{dt}\ln \left(\prod _{j}\left(t+1\right)^{2a_j}+t^{2a_j}+1\right)

for t > 1 t>1 . I'm not sure if this form would be useful though, but it's by far the "nicest" form I got.

Another observation I've made is that the conditions for the expression to reach maximum is the same as for x n + y n + z n x^n + y^n + z^n to reach maximum for a given x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = k x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = k , where k k is some real number

Julian Poon - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Julian Poon That seems hard to me. Can you simplify it a little bit? I don't see a way to go through.

I don't think that the maximum of x n + y n + z n x^n+y^n+z^n must be obtained though. Any proof?

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Jim No proof, that is merely an observation that might lead to a proof. Apart from that though, I'm lost.

Julian Poon - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Julian Poon @kelvin hong 方 did show that f ( t ) = f ( 1 / t ) f(t)=f(1/t) . Why don't you use it?

Also, can we simplify the l n ln thing?

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Jim Even if it is shown (which is easy), it still doesn't prove anything. It is not sufficient to show for a few values of t t , because there might be a t > 1 t>1 where f ( t ) > f ( 1 ) f(t)>f(1) . This is the main difficulty in proving that it is maximum at t = 1 t=1 . Regardless, it still does show that if there is no t > 1 t>1 where f ( t ) > f ( 1 ) f(t)>f(1) , then there is no t > 0 t>0 where f ( t ) > f ( 1 ) f(t)>f(1) , which would solve the problem.

Regarding the ln \ln expression, I haven't found a way to simplify it.

Julian Poon - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Julian Poon That's the real problem. I'm stuck at that.

Anyways, do you have a Slack account?

https://brilliant.org/slackin/

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Anyways. I don't think that x y z xyz can be expressed in such a way.

Why don't you try homogenizing? The problem would be easier. Check out @kelvin hong 方 solution here.

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

I can't do it because the compution is too much, but I know the exactly form of answer. Yeah, the f(t)=f(1/t) can't help anything It is mostly like although a term F(x,y) have a symmetry of x,y but can't say it reach extreme value at x=y. But for this question, it works , luckily.

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Sorry for late answering because I'm finding a solution to express this huge term.

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Eh. I know, don't worry :)

I don't think Mark's solution or Alan's will help, that's the main problem. Besides, I don't see a way to express this.

P/S: A related problem coming soon.

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Jim How could I calculate it ? XD Do I use programming?

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Kelvin Hong I calculated the answer using a Casio Scientific calculator. A few terms would get you the answer since it converges so quickly

Julian Poon - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Julian Poon So your can solve ever bigger of this problem by using converges? It's okay, but I thought could I get the exactly number of the terms but no converge? Or it is just messy to do it?

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 11 months ago

@Kelvin Hong You might use a graphing calculator/program. However, I don't think that it'd be great. Julian's way seems good, but the only problem is he's stuck with his assumptions.

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Jim Yeah, so although we can't get actual answer but still can get a very close answer.

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 11 months ago

@Kelvin Hong By the way, I still don't understand why no one solved this problem.

https://brilliant.org/problems/inspired-by-julian-poon-and-an-encyclopedia/?ref_id=1373343

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Jim If this problem's answer is correct (which it most likely is but we can't be too sure), then your problem should have the correct answer. However, I think you should explicitly state that the powers in the denominator follow the sequence in your inspiration.

Julian Poon - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Julian Poon Yes. I did mention by giving the link right to the "Triangular numbers" section of OEIS.

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

Here's the link.

Steven Jim - 3 years, 11 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...