a 2 + b 3 + c 4
It is given that a , b and c are positive real numbers such that a + b 2 + c 3 = 9 3 2 5 .
If the minimum value of the expression above can be expressed as Q P for coprime positive integers P and Q , find the value of P + Q .
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.
How you got this stuff in your mind. I mean what made you think so?
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.
WOW this is great~!
Why doesn't this work, 1 2 a + 1 2 a + . . . 1 2 a [ 1 2 t i m e s ] + 9 b 2 + 9 b 2 + . . . 9 b 2 [ 9 t i m e s ] + 8 c 3 + 8 c 3 + . . . 8 c 3 [ 8 t i m e s ] = 9 3 2 5 ≥ 2 9 ( 1 2 1 2 × 9 9 × 8 8 a 1 2 × b 1 8 × c 2 4 ) 2 9 1 a 1 2 b 1 8 c 2 4 = ( a 2 b 3 c 4 ) 6 .
Log in to reply
It doesn't work because you can't continue after this step.
Log in to reply
Why can't we?We can just calculate it.
Log in to reply
@Adarsh Kumar – What's the next step?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Take, a 2 b 3 c 4 = A then, 9 × 2 9 3 2 5 ≥ k A 2 9 6 ,where k = ( 1 2 1 2 × 9 9 × 8 8 ) 2 9 1
Log in to reply
@Adarsh Kumar – What you've done is you have shown that A ≥ C and B ≥ C , but there is no relation between B and C .
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Actually what we get after calculating is that, B ≥ A ,why isn't that the correct answer?
Log in to reply
@Adarsh Kumar – I'm not getting your answer. Can you write out the solution in full?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – We take the L.H.S and the R.H.S and power with 2 9 / 6 after this it is just weird calculations.
Log in to reply
@Adarsh Kumar – I can't help you if you don't write it out in full detail.
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!
Hay quá, anh xài phương pháp điểm rơi giả định đúng không
Seems like confirming a result of search rather than proving a source. LOL!
Lagrange multipliers give b = 3 4 a , c = 2 3 a . From the constraint we deduce that a = 2 , b = 3 8 , c = 3 , so that the minimum value is 2 7 2 8 0 7 , with P + Q = 2 8 3 4 . 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.
Log in to reply
Lol... I aim to become a well-rounded mathematician
Log in to reply
Oh, are people looking down on Lagrange Multipliers now? I quite like differentiation.
what is lagrange ..... please explain in detail treat me as an idiot unaware of such identities
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 for some λ . It follows that b = 3 4 a and c = 2 3 a , and we can use the constraint to find a .
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?
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.
Could you explain further about the Langrange mulitpliers? I solve this using AM-GM
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 ... 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.
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.
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.
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
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)
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Could you recommend some books or files about Larrange mulitipliers? I would really appreciate
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
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – My apologies, I'm just too curious, it's okay I'll ask my teacher tomorrow, thank you
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...
Can you post your solution
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Applying AM-GM inequality, we have:
a 2 + 4 ≥ 2 4 a 2 = 4 a
b 3 + b 3 + 2 7 5 1 2 ≥ 3 3 b 3 . b 3 . 2 7 5 1 2 = 8 b 2
c 4 + c 4 + c 4 + 8 1 ≥ 4 4 c 4 . c 4 . c 4 . 8 1 = 1 2 c 3
So, 6 ( a 2 + 4 ) + 3 ( b 3 + b 3 + 2 7 5 1 2 ) + 2 ( c 4 + c 4 + c 4 + 8 1 ) ≥ 2 4 ( a + b 2 + c 3 ) = 3 2 6 0 0
Or a 2 + b 3 + c 4 ≥ 2 7 2 8 0 7
The equality holds when a = 2 ; b = 3 8 ; c = 3 .
So P + Q = 2 8 0 7 + 2 7 = 2 8 3 4 .