Weird inequalities!

Algebra Level 5

a 2 + b 3 + c 4 \large a^2 + b^3 + c^4

It is given that a , b a,b and c c are positive real numbers such that a + b 2 + c 3 = 325 9 a+b^2+c^3 = \dfrac{325}9 .

If the minimum value of the expression above can be expressed as P Q \dfrac PQ for coprime positive integers P P and Q Q , find the value of P + Q P + Q .


The answer is 2834.

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.

2 solutions

Applying AM-GM inequality, we have:

a 2 + 4 2 4 a 2 = 4 a a^2+4\ge 2\sqrt{4a^2}=4a

b 3 + b 3 + 512 27 3 b 3 . b 3 . 512 27 3 = 8 b 2 b^3+b^3+\dfrac{512}{27}\ge 3\sqrt[3]{b^3.b^3.\dfrac{512}{27}}=8b^2

c 4 + c 4 + c 4 + 81 4 c 4 . c 4 . c 4 . 81 4 = 12 c 3 c^4+c^4+c^4+81\ge4\sqrt[4]{c^4.c^4.c^4.81}=12c^3

So, 6 ( a 2 + 4 ) + 3 ( b 3 + b 3 + 512 27 ) + 2 ( c 4 + c 4 + c 4 + 81 ) 24 ( a + b 2 + c 3 ) = 2600 3 6\left(a^2+4\right)+3\left(b^3+b^3+\dfrac{512}{27}\right)+2\left(c^4+c^4+c^4+81\right)\ge 24(a+b^2+c^3)=\dfrac{2600}{3}

Or a 2 + b 3 + c 4 2807 27 a^2+b^3+c^4\ge\dfrac{2807}{27}

The equality holds when a = 2 ; b = 8 3 ; c = 3 a=2; b=\dfrac{8}{3}; c=3 .

So P + Q = 2807 + 27 = 2834 P+Q=2807+27=\boxed{2834} .

How you got this stuff in your mind. I mean what made you think so?

Aakash Khandelwal - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

it is divine inspiration. it is not easy. the main headache with inequalities is if get something like f(a,b,c)>= k, there should exist a,b,c satisfying f(a,b,c)=k. this solution is amazing.the luckiest thing is there exist a,b,c such that a^2+b^3+c^4=2807/27. may be the person who set this problem might have chosen appropriate values so that things are nice.

Srikanth Tupurani - 10 months, 4 weeks ago

WOW this is great~!

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Why doesn't this work, a 12 + a 12 + . . . a 12 [ 12 t i m e s ] + b 2 9 + b 2 9 + . . . b 2 9 [ 9 t i m e s ] + c 3 8 + c 3 8 + . . . c 3 8 [ 8 t i m e s ] = 325 9 29 ( a 12 × b 18 × c 24 1 2 12 × 9 9 × 8 8 ) 1 29 a 12 b 18 c 24 = ( a 2 b 3 c 4 ) 6 \dfrac{a}{12}+\dfrac{a}{12}+...\dfrac{a}{12}[12\ times]+\dfrac{b^2}{9}+\dfrac{b^2}{9}+...\dfrac{b^2}{9}[9\ times]+\dfrac{c^3}{8}+\dfrac{c^3}{8}+...\dfrac{c^3}{8}[8\ times]=\dfrac{325}{9} \geq 29( \dfrac{a^{12}\times b^{18}\times c^{24}}{12^{12}\times 9^9 \times 8^8})^{\frac{1}{29}}\\ a^{12}b^{18}c^{24}=(a^2b^3c^4)^6 .

Adarsh Kumar - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

It doesn't work because you can't continue after this step.

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

Why can't we?We can just calculate it.

Adarsh Kumar - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Adarsh Kumar What's the next step?

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh Take, a 2 b 3 c 4 = A a^2b^3c^4=A then, 325 9 × 29 A 6 29 k \dfrac{325}{9\times 29} \geq \dfrac{A^\dfrac{6}{29}}{k} ,where k = ( 1 2 1 2 × 9 9 × 8 8 ) 1 29 k=(12^12\times 9^9\times 8^8)^{\dfrac{1}{29}}

Adarsh Kumar - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Adarsh Kumar What you've done is you have shown that A C A\ge C and B C B\ge C , but there is no relation between B B and C C .

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh Actually what we get after calculating is that, B A B \geq A ,why isn't that the correct answer?

Adarsh Kumar - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Adarsh Kumar I'm not getting your answer. Can you write out the solution in full?

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh We take the L.H.S and the R.H.S and power with 29 / 6 29/6 after this it is just weird calculations.

Adarsh Kumar - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Adarsh Kumar I can't help you if you don't write it out in full detail.

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh After reading the conversation i understood your comment,i am sorry i was making a mistake and thanx for having the patience to deal with me and guiding me!Thanks again!

Adarsh Kumar - 5 years, 7 months ago

Hay quá, anh xài phương pháp điểm rơi giả định đúng không

Quang Minh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Seems like confirming a result of search rather than proving a source. LOL!

Lu Chee Ket - 5 years, 7 months ago
Otto Bretscher
Oct 10, 2015

Lagrange multipliers give b = 4 a 3 , c = 3 a 2 b=\frac{4a}{3},c=\frac{3a}{2} . From the constraint we deduce that a = 2 , b = 8 3 , c = 3 a=2,b=\frac{8}{3},c=3 , so that the minimum value is 2807 27 \frac{2807}{27} , with P + Q = 2834 P+Q=\boxed{2834} . We can quickly check the boundary, where one or two of the variables are zero, using Lagrange multipliers once again.

It's surprising that the Algebra great has also used Lagrange Multipliers! I thought you would use some innovative algebra inequalities. Anyways, it might be due to your new incoming book on calculus, I guess. BTW, I too did the same.

Kartik Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Lol... I aim to become a well-rounded mathematician

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Oh, are people looking down on Lagrange Multipliers now? I quite like differentiation.

Andrew Ellinor - 5 years, 8 months ago

what is lagrange ..... please explain in detail treat me as an idiot unaware of such identities

Kaustubh Miglani - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

We want the gradient of the objective function to be parallel to the gradient of the constraint, so 2 a = λ , 3 b 2 = 2 b λ , 4 c 3 = 3 c 2 λ 2a=\lambda, 3b^2=2b\lambda,4c^3=3c^2\lambda for some λ \lambda . It follows that b = 4 3 a b=\frac{4}{3}a and c = 3 2 a c=\frac{3}{2}a , and we can use the constraint to find a a .

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

I too did this exactly by using Lagrangian Multipliers. It's very interesting method. @Otto Bretscher

But I have a doubt. Can Lagrangian Multipliers be used every where or is there any restriction?

Surya Prakash - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

It may be impossible to solve the system of equations "in closed form." In this case, an engineer or applied mathematician will just use an algebra system.

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

Could you explain further about the Langrange mulitpliers? I solve this using AM-GM

Quang Minh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

We want the gradient of the objective function to be parallel to the gradient of the constraint, so 2 a = λ , 3 b 2 = 2 b λ , 4 c 3 = 3 c 2 λ 2a=\lambda, 3b^2=2b\lambda,4c^3=3c^2\lambda ... my work follows readily from these equations. Likewise, you want to set up Lagrange conditions in the case of exactly one variable being zero to make sure that we have found the minimum.

Personally, I don't like this "AM-GM" stuff... there is something arbitrary about it, while the Lagrange approach is systematic. From what I know, engineers and working mathematicians use Lagrange multipliers almost exclusively in this context. Many of these systems in math competitions are carefully contrived so that "AM-GM" works, but it is not a very versatile tool.

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Many of these systems in math competitions are carefully contrived so that "AM-GM" works, but it is not a very versatile tool.

It is more of an art form.

It's almost similar to spoiling the fun of evaluating a limit by applying a one-step L'hopital Rule (or Bernoulli Rule as you prefer).

And again, you need to prove that it's a minimum value.

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh Once we check the boundary, we know it's a minimum... I hope you don't make me spell it out ;)

I guess "art" is in the eye of the beholder. I have never been a fan of these inequality techniques.. they seem so arbitrary.

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

In response to Otto Bretscher : Larrange multipliers is a new concept to me. Thank you for your reply, I'll look up for more information about Larrange multipliers since this approach is much more effective than AM-GM

Quang Minh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Quang Minh They are worth studying, and they are simple, particularly in the case of polynomials (much more important than "AM-GM", in my humble opinion)

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Otto Bretscher Could you recommend some books or files about Larrange mulitipliers? I would really appreciate

Quang Minh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Quang Minh I'll send you some stuff later... on my way out of the house... any text book in multivariable calculus will explain it

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Otto Bretscher My apologies, I'm just too curious, it's okay I'll ask my teacher tomorrow, thank you

Quang Minh - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Quang Minh The basic technique is described here . It gets a little trickier when there are two or more constraints... I would start practicing the technique in the case of one constraint. All those constrained maxima/minima questions on Brilliant offer a lot of practice...

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 8 months ago

Can you post your solution

Aakash Khandelwal - 5 years, 8 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...