f ( x ) = x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 1 1
What is the smallest real value that the function f can attain over all real values of x ?
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.
Wow @Ivan Koswara great clarity in the solution .
( link try to do this problem please
For all real x we know that x 2 must be positive, therefore by applying AM-GM inequality we have
2 1 ⋅ ( x 2 + x 2 1 ) ≥ x 2 ⋅ x 2 1 ⟹ x 2 + x 2 1 ≥ 2
And so the minimum of x 2 + x 2 1 is 2.
It can be easily seen that
min { f ( x ) } = 2 x 2 + x 2 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 1 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 + 2 x 2 + x 2 1 1 1 1 = 2 + 2 1 + 2 + 2 1 1 + 2 + 2 1 + 2 + 2 1 1 1 = 2 5 + 5 2 + 2 5 + 5 2 1 = 1 0 2 9 + 2 9 1 0 = 2 9 0 9 4 1
This is incomplete, because minimizing x 2 + x 2 1 doesn't necessarily minimize f .
Log in to reply
yep, agreed , this solution is incomplete.
Oh yes. I got you point there. Your solution is a much clearer version and explains why in this case my assumption yielded the right answer.
So, here is how I would use your ideas to write a rigorous proof.
Edit: Ah, I see this was expressed by Ivan.
Yes that is right . @Ivan Koswara
https://brilliant.org/problems/maximize-the-given-function-fx/ . Try to do this problem.
@Aruna Addaguduru , @shubham dhull @Tapas Mazumdar . @Ivan Koswara
Please help why application of simple am gm considering first four terms as one no. And 5th term as second no. doesn't work
Log in to reply
That's the mistake I did right there see. And even though my approach yielded me the correct answer, it was only luck that got me.
If you assume each term is independent and do AM-GM of first term with the second one then you'll get the answer 9 4 1 / 2 9 0 .
If you assume the first two terms as one term and do AM-GM of those two with the third term then you'll get the answer 2 9 / 1 0 .
If you assume the first three terms as one and do the AM-GM with the fourth one then 5 / 2 .
In your case the first four terms as one the fifth as one would give 2 as the answer.
So there are possibilities of all four answers here, the first one only right after the correct analysis as done by @Ivan Koswara.
Log in to reply
Thanks ...now its clear But I still wanted to know what @Ivan Koswara was doing is it any general process for solving inequalities
you may be mistaking in mathematical calculations
Log in to reply
If you see the 5th term in problem it is exactly the reciprocal of the first four terms..
Log in to reply
@Ankit Agrawal – Consider First four terms as 'y' then problem reduces to min value of y + y 1 Which on application of AM GM yields 2
Log in to reply
@Ankit Agrawal – u r absolutely ..........wrong check again the way u used a.m-g.m, abe kl mera english ka ppr hai final pdne de bhai :P
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – Sry and happy birthday bro!
Log in to reply
@Ankit Agrawal – oh ! thnx for wishing bro :)
When you want to find the minimum or maximum or something, you must show two things: a) show that it is achievable, and b) show that a lower (or higher) value cannot be achieved. AM-GM gives a lower bound; that proves b). But you haven't showed part a); you haven't proven that 2 is actually achievable. And in fact, in this problem, it isn't.
Log in to reply
thats really logical.. thanks i'll apply both these point inorder to get a completely correct answer
You are inversing minimum value wount it me maximum??
I cannot understand the line "this can be easily seen " . Can you please elaborate ?
Log in to reply
It can be easily seen that we could group together the x 2 + x 2 1 terms in the expression and replace them by 2 to get the minimum of f ( x ) (though my solution hasn't been clear to explain why that should be the necessary case).
@Nivedit Jain the given function f ( t ) is increasing function .
Where t= x 2 + x − 2 .
So it will be min at t min I.e. at t=2.
Consider last term and other terms except last term
Then it will be in the form of t + t 1 .
To be min t should be min (since the function is increasing function because t>2)
So now to min t again take t's last term and other terms except last term of t's.
Again same procedure
Continue like this and will end up with minimising u + 1/u
Where u = x 2 + x − 2
So minimising (u + 1/u) is to minimize u
So it will be minimum at x = 1
So you will get f ( x ) ≥ 1 0 2 9 + 2 9 1 0 = 2 9 0 9 4 1
Let g ( x ) = x 2 + x 2 1 − x 2 + x 2 1 1 − x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 1 − x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 + x 2 + x 2 1 1 1 1 ≥ 2 9 0 2 1 9 (AM-GM for each part) ⇒ m i n g ( x ) = g ( 1 ) = 2 9 0 2 1 9
We have f ( x ) + g ( x ) = 2 ( x 2 + x 2 1 ) = h ( x ) ≥ 2 . 2 = 4 (AM-GM) ( m i n h ( x ) = h ( 1 ) = 4 )
Moreover h ( x ) attain minium value when x = 1 and g ( x ) also attain minium value when x = 1 , so f ( x ) must attain minium when x = 1 (all of functions are increasing function)
So we have m i n f ( x ) = f ( 1 ) = h ( 1 ) − g ( 1 ) = 2 9 0 9 4 1 .
good job guy
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Idea: minimize the first k terms of the sum, for each k = 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . This works because x ↦ x + x 1 is increasing for x > 1 .
Let g ( x ) = x + x 1 . Then f ( x ) = g ( g ( g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ) ) , and we want to find the minimum value of f over all x = 0 (when x = 0 , g ( x ) is not defined; we'll see that f is defined for all other x ).
Observe that if x > 1 , then g ( x ) is an increasing function. This is easy to see: if 1 < x < y , then
g ( y ) − g ( x ) = ( y + y 1 ) − ( x + x 1 ) = ( y − x ) + ( y 1 − x 1 ) = ( y − x ) + x y x − y = ( y − x ) ( 1 − x y 1 )
Since y > x , y − x > 0 . Since x , y > 1 , then x y > 1 , so 1 − x y 1 > 0 . So g ( y ) − g ( x ) > 0 , proving that g is increasing for x > 1 .
Then, note that for x > 0 , g ( x ) ≥ 2 . This uses AM-GM inequality; if x > 0 , then x 1 > 0 , so x + x 1 ≥ 2 x ⋅ x 1 = 2 . The important point is that g ( x ) ≥ 2 > 1 .
Now, to the problem. Since x 2 > 0 , we know g ( x 2 ) ≥ 2 , so we know g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ≥ 2 and g ( g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ) ≥ 2 . We showed that g ( x ) is increasing for x > 1 , so to minimize f ( x ) = g ( g ( g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ) ) , we need to minimize g ( g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ) , which in order means we need to minimize g ( g ( x 2 ) ) and thus g ( x 2 ) . Since we know the minimum value of g ( x 2 ) is 2 (achieved when x = 1 or x = − 1 ), the minimum value of g ( g ( x 2 ) ) is achieved when g ( x 2 ) is as small as possible, in this case 2. This means g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ≥ 2 + 2 1 = 2 5 . Continuing in the same manner, g ( g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ) ≥ 2 5 + 5 2 = 1 0 2 9 , and finally f ( x ) = g ( g ( g ( g ( x 2 ) ) ) ) ≥ 1 0 2 9 + 2 9 1 0 = 2 9 0 9 4 1 .