Let x , y , z be positive real numbers such that x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = 2 ( x y + y z + z x ) . Find the maximum value of
( x + y + z ) ( x 2 + y 2 + z 2 ) … ( x 6 2 + y 6 2 + z 6 2 ) ( x 6 3 + y 6 3 + z 6 3 ) x 2 0 1 6 + y 2 0 1 6 + z 2 0 1 6 .
Bonus: Generalize this. That is, find the conditions for x , y , z such that j ∏ ( x a j + y a j + z a j ) x N + y N + z N attains its maximum given that j ∑ a j = N .
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.
As of right now, I do not have a solution due to having found an error. I assumed that x y z can be expressed in terms of x y + y z + z x and 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 can be expressed in terms of x y + y z + z x and x + y + z , show that the expression is equivalent to:
k ( ( x + y + z x ) N + ( x + y + z y ) N + ( x + y + z z ) N )
Where 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 ) , making the expression equal to:
∏ k = 1 n ( 4 k 2 + 1 ) 2 n ( n + 1 ) 2 + 1
Since n = 6 3 is a pretty big number, the expression is very close to ∏ k = 1 n ( 4 k 2 + 1 ) − 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
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 to S 6 3 . 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.
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 to S 6 3 . I've played with Kelvin's solution and the main problem is proving that it is maximum at t = 1 . Currently, I've got it down to proving that
d t d ln ( ( t + 1 ) 2 N + t 2 N + 1 ) < d t d ln ( j ∏ ( t + 1 ) 2 a j + t 2 a j + 1 )
for 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 to reach maximum for a given x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = k , where k is some real number
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 must be obtained though. Any proof?
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.
Log in to reply
@Julian Poon – @kelvin hong 方 did show that f ( t ) = f ( 1 / t ) . Why don't you use it?
Also, can we simplify the l n thing?
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 , because there might be a t > 1 where f ( t ) > f ( 1 ) . This is the main difficulty in proving that it is maximum at t = 1 . Regardless, it still does show that if there is no t > 1 where f ( t ) > f ( 1 ) , then there is no t > 0 where f ( t ) > f ( 1 ) , which would solve the problem.
Regarding the ln expression, I haven't found a way to simplify it.
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/
Anyways. I don't think that x y z 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.
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.
Log in to reply
Sorry for late answering because I'm finding a solution to express this huge term.
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.
Log in to reply
@Steven Jim – How could I calculate it ? XD Do I use programming?
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
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 – 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.
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 – 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
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.
Log in to reply
@Julian Poon – Yes. I did mention by giving the link right to the "Triangular numbers" section of OEIS.
Here's the link.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
[Not a solution]
The maximum value is ( 2 + 4 ) . . . ( 2 + 4 6 3 ) 2 + 4 2 0 1 6 . 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 to S 1 0 using polynomials. Do you think you can generalize it?
Julian, how did you find the maximum?