MHB Is There a Solution to the Challenge of Inequality?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a mathematical inequality involving the variables k, l, m, and n, constrained between 0 and 1, and their product equating to the product of their complements. A mistake was acknowledged regarding a minus sign that was overlooked in the initial formulation. The participants express appreciation for the valid proof provided by lfdahl, highlighting its uniqueness compared to existing proofs. The conversation emphasizes collaboration and sharing knowledge within the community. Overall, the thread showcases a constructive exchange focused on resolving a mathematical challenge related to inequality.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Given that $0<k,\,l,\,m,\,n<1$ and $klmn=(1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)$, show that $(k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)\ge1$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I´m so sorry for my mistake: A minus-sign was overlooked, and the coupling of the four variables k, l, m, n is not obvious. Sorry!

Given:
\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n),\: \: \: \: 0 < k,l,m,n < 1\]

This equality is only possible, if LHS and RHS have equal factors* (not necessarily in the same order).

\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)\\\\ =1 - (k+l+m+n)+(k+m)(l+n)+mk+nl-(klm+kln+kmn+lmn)+klmn\\\\ \Rightarrow (k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk(1-n-l)+nl(1-m-k)\]

Using (*): WLOG I can take $k = 1-l$, and $n = 1-m$. Thus, the variables are coupled pairwise. I could as well take $k = 1-n$ and $l = 1-m$. The outcome will be exactly the same. But taking $k = 1-m$ and $l = 1-n$ doesn´t work. I don´t know why ...
(- well, it works, because the $\ge$ is still valid).\[(k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk((1-l)-n)+nl(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+mk(k-(1-m))+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1-mk(1-m-k)+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)(1-m-k+mk-mk)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)^2 \geq 1\]
 
Last edited:
lfdahl said:
I´m so sorry for my mistake: A minus-sign was overlooked, and the coupling of the four variables k, l, m, n is not obvious. Sorry!

Hey lfdahl, seriously, there's no need to apologize!(Smile) And everything is fine and perfect with your valid proof!:cool:

lfdahl said:
Given:
\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n),\: \: \: \: 0 < k,l,m,n < 1\]

This equality is only possible, if LHS and RHS have equal factors* (not necessarily in the same order).

\[klmn = (1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)\\\\ =1 - (k+l+m+n)+(k+m)(l+n)+mk+nl-(klm+kln+kmn+lmn)+klmn\\\\ \Rightarrow (k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk(1-n-l)+nl(1-m-k)\]

Using (*): WLOG I can take $k = 1-l$, and $n = 1-m$. Thus, the variables are coupled pairwise. I could as well take $k = 1-n$ and $l = 1-m$. The outcome will be exactly the same. But taking $k = 1-m$ and $l = 1-n$ doesn´t work. I don´t know why ...
(- well, it works, because the $\ge$ is still valid).\[(k+l+m+n)-(k+m)(l+n)=1+mk((1-l)-n)+nl(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+mk(k-(1-m))+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1-mk(1-m-k)+(1-m)(1-k)(1-m-k)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)(1-m-k+mk-mk)\\\\ =1+(1-m-k)^2 \geq 1\]

Well done, lfdahl! Your proof is different from the one that I saw online somewhere, hence, I will post it here to share with the community:

We're given $klmn=(1-k)(1-l)(1-m)(1-n)$, we can rewrite it as $\dfrac{km}{(1-k)(1-m)}=\dfrac{(1-l)(1-n)}{ln}$ and this is also equivalent to $\dfrac{(k+m)-1}{(1-k)(1-m)}=\dfrac{1-(l+n)}{ln}$.

Recall that if we have $a=b$, then $ab= a^2=b^2\ge0$.

Hence, $\dfrac{(k+m)-1}{(1-k)(1-m)}\cdot\dfrac{1-(l+n)}{ln}\ge 0$.

Since $0<k,\,l,\,m,\,n<1$, we see that the product of the terms in the denominator greater than zero, this yields:

$((k+m)-1)(1-(l+n))\ge0$

$k+m-(k+m)(l+n)-1+l+n\ge0$

$k+m+l+n-(k+m)(l+n)\ge1$ (Q.E.D.)
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top