Well... Obviously the answer is not 5997

Algebra Level 5

Let a , b , c a,b,c be non-negative reals such that a + b + c = 3. a+b+c=3. If for all k t k \ge t (both are positive reals), a k + b k + c k a b + b c + c a a^k+b^k+c^k \ge ab+bc+ca holds true for all a , b , c , a,b,c, find the minimum value of 1999 t . \left\lfloor 1999t \right\rfloor.


The answer is 580.

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

Mark Hennings
Dec 19, 2017

Start by considering the function f k ( a ) = a k + ( 3 a ) k a ( 3 a ) 0 a 3 f_k(a) \; = \; a^k + (3-a)^k - a(3-a) \hspace{2cm} 0 \le a \le 3 for any k > 0 k > 0 .

If k > 1 k > 1 then, for any 0 < a < 3 0 < a < 3 , f k ( a ) = k ( a k 1 ( 3 a ) k 1 ) + a ( 3 a ) = ( 2 a 3 ) [ k ( k 1 ) u k 2 + 1 ] f_k'(a) \,=\, k(a^{k-1} - (3-a)^{k-1}) + a - (3-a) \; = \; (2a-3)\big[k(k-1)u^{k-2} + 1\big] for some u u between a a and 3 a 3-a (using the Mean Value Theorem). Thus we deduce that f k ( a ) < 0 f_k'(a) < 0 for 0 < a < 3 2 0 < a < \tfrac32 , while f k ( a ) > 0 f_k'(a) > 0 for 3 2 < a < 3 \tfrac32 < a < 3 , and hence f k ( a ) f_k(a) is minimized at a = 3 2 a=\tfrac32 . Additionally, if k = 1 k=1 then f k ( a ) = 3 a ( 3 a ) f_k(a) = 3 - a(3-a) is also minimized at a = 3 2 a = \tfrac32 .

If 0 < k < 1 0 < k < 1 then since f k ( a ) = k [ a k 1 ( 3 a ) k 1 ] + 2 a 3 f k ( a ) = k ( k 1 ) [ a k 2 + ( 3 a ) k 2 ] + 2 f k ( a ) = k ( k 1 ) ( k 2 ) [ a k 3 ( 3 a ) k 3 ] \begin{aligned} f_k'(a) & = \; k\big[a^{k-1} - (3-a)^{k-1}\big] + 2a - 3 \\ f_k''(a) & = \; k(k-1)\big[a^{k-2} + (3-a)^{k-2}\big] + 2 \\ f_k'''(a) & = \; k(k-1)(k-2)\big[a^{k-3} - (3-a)^{k-3}\big] \end{aligned} we see that f k ( a ) f_k'''(a) has a unique zero at a = 3 2 a=\tfrac32 , and hence that f k ( a ) f_k''(a) has a global maximum at 3 2 \tfrac32 . Since ( 2 3 ) 2 k f k ( 3 2 ) = 2 [ ( 2 3 ) 2 k + k ( k 1 ) ] 2 [ ( 2 3 ) 2 1 4 ] > 0 \big(\tfrac23\big)^{2-k}f_k''(\tfrac32) \; = \; 2\big[\big(\tfrac23\big)^{2-k} + k(k-1)\big] \; \ge\; 2\big[\big(\tfrac23\big)^2 - \tfrac14\big] \; > \; 0 we deduce that this global maximum is positive. Thus we can obtain the following sketches for the graphs of f k , f k , f k , f k f_k''',f_k'',f_k',f_k , from which it is clear that f k f_k achieves its global minimum at a = 3 2 a = \tfrac32 .

Thus f k ( a ) f k ( 3 2 ) = 2 ( 3 2 ) k 9 4 0 a 3 , k > 0 f_k(a) \; \ge \; f_k(\tfrac32) \; = \; 2\big(\tfrac32\big)^k - \tfrac94 \hspace{2cm} 0 \le a \le 3 \;,\; k > 0 and so we see that f k ( a ) 0 f_k(a) \ge 0 for all 0 a 3 0 \le a \le 3 provided that k κ = log 1.5 1.125 k \ge \kappa = \log_{1.5}1.125 .

Now consider the general function F k ( a , b , c ) = a k + b k + c k a b a c b c F_k(a,b,c) \; = \;a^k + b^k + c^k - ab - ac - bc subject to the constraints a , b , c 0 a,b,c \ge 0 and a + b + c = 3 a+b+c = 3 . A minimum of F k F_k on the boundary of this domain corresponds to a minimum of f k f_k , and hence is nonnegative precisely when k κ k \ge \kappa . We need to consider the extremal points of F k F_k at interior points of the constraint domain. At such a point, the method of Lagrange multipliers tells us that there must exist λ \lambda such that ( k a k 1 b c k b k 1 a c k c k 1 a b ) = λ ( 1 1 1 ) \left(\begin{array}{c} ka^{k-1} - b - c \\ kb^{k-1} - a - c \\ kc^{k-1} - a - b \end{array}\right) \; = \; \lambda\left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1\end{array} \right) and hence that g k ( a ) = g k ( b ) = g k ( c ) = λ + 3 g_k(a) \; = \; g_k(b) \; = \; g_k(c) \; = \; \lambda + 3 where g k ( x ) = k x k 1 + x g_k(x) = kx^{k-1} + x for 0 < x < 3 0 < x < 3 .

If k 1 k \ge 1 then g k ( x ) = k ( k 1 ) x k 2 + 1 > 0 g_k'(x) = k(k-1)x^{k-2} + 1 > 0 for all 0 < x < 3 0 < x < 3 , and hence g k g_k is an increasing function of x x , Thus we deduce that a = b = c = 1 a = b = c = 1 , and F k ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) = 0 F_k(1,1,1) = 0 .

If 0 < k < 1 0 < k < 1 then we see that g k ( x ) = 0 g_k'(x) = 0 at the unique point λ k = [ k ( 1 k ) ] 1 2 k \lambda_k = \big[k(1-k)\big]^{\frac{1}{2-k}} , noting that 0 < λ k < 1 0 < \lambda_k < 1 . Moreover g k g_k is strictly decreasing for x < λ k x < \lambda_k , and strictly increasing for x > λ k x > \lambda_k . Thus, for any suitable μ \mu , there are at most 2 2 distinct points a a between 0 0 and 3 3 for which g k ( a ) = μ g_k(a) = \mu . Thus we have three cases to consider:

  • We have a = b = c = 1 a = b = c = 1 , in which case F k ( a , b , c ) = 0 F_k(a,b,c) = 0 .
  • We have a = b < c = 3 2 a a = b < c = 3-2a , where g k ( a ) = g k ( 3 2 a ) g_k(a) = g_k(3-2a) and 0 < a < 1 0 < a < 1 . Numerical calculations show that there is a unique such value a a for each 0 < k < 1 0 < k < 1 , and the graph of F k ( a , a , 3 2 a ) F_k(a,a,3-2a) for these values of a a show that the values at these extremal points are all positive.
  • We have a = b > c = 3 2 a a = b > c = 3-2a , where g k ( a ) = g k ( 3 2 a ) g_k(a) = g_k(3-2a) and 1 < a < 3 2 1 < a < \tfrac32 . Numerical calculations show that there is a unique such value a a for each 0 < k < 1 0 < k < 1 , and the graph of F k ( a , a , 3 2 a ) F_k(a,a,3-2a) for these values of a a show that the values of these extremal points are all positive.

Thus we deduce that, for any 0 < k < 1 0 < k < 1 , the only extrema of F k F_k , subject to the constraints a , b , c > 0 a,b,c > 0 and a + b + c = 3 a+b+c = 3 , are non-negative.

In summary, then, the inequality a k + b k + c k a b + b c + a c a^k + b^k + c^k \; \ge\; ab + bc + ac holds for all a , b , c 0 a,b,c \ge 0 such that a + b + c = 3 a + b + c = 3 precisely when k κ = log 1.5 1.125 k \ge \kappa = \log_{1.5}1.125 . This makes the desired answer 1999 κ = 580 \lfloor 1999 \kappa \rfloor = \boxed{580} .

Wow, that's a long solution, really. Thanks though :D

Steven Jim - 3 years, 5 months ago

I should've tried harder on this question. I just achieved the same result by simply applying the AM-GM inequality after assuming all three variables were nonzero, and then assuming only one of them was zero. (If two of them are zero, then the inequality is trivially true because 3 k 0 3^k\geq 0 .) Nice solution, nonetheless.

James Wilson - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Actually, I used some calculus, too.

James Wilson - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Here's an outline of what I did. I first examined the case when all three variables were positive. I found the minimum of the LHS using the AM-GM inequality, which was 3. Then I found the maximum of the RHS by setting the partial derivatives equal to zero. The result was also 3. This means the inequality held in this case for any value of k k . Then I set one of the variables to zero, and found the minimum of the LHS, again using AM-GM. The result was 2 ( 3 2 ) k 2*\Big(\frac{3}{2}\Big)^k . And the maximum of the RHS was 9 4 \frac{9}{4} . Then one sees that they are equal when k = l o g 1.5 1.25 k=log_{1.5}{1.25} ; and since the exponential function increases monotonically, this k k -value is the minimum.

James Wilson - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@James Wilson Lol bruh, you could've solved it :D

Steven Jim - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Steven Jim Yeah I know, haha XDD

James Wilson - 3 years, 5 months ago

This is lengthy but important. In real life we don’t have functions which are like those given in Olympiad exams. We cannot use some elementary tricks to get things done. Here there is no option other than using Lagrange multipliers. But interesting thing about this problem is we have two cases when all are positive and the other when one is zero. Nice solution.

Srikanth Tupurani - 2 years, 7 months ago

How did you draw those beautiful curves. What software did you use?

Srikanth Tupurani - 2 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

Mathematica.

Mark Hennings - 2 years, 7 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...