Posers and Puzzles

Posers and Puzzles

  1. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    25 Oct '07 22:272 edits
    Prove: for positive numbers a, b, c, d, sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd).

    "sqrt" is square root, ">=" means "is bigger than or equal to".
  2. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    46016
    26 Oct '07 09:15
    Originally posted by David113
    Prove: for positive numbers a, b, c, d, sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd).

    "sqrt" is square root, ">=" means "is bigger than or equal to".
    I'm sure there is a quicker proof - this is just off the top of my head .....


    First I need to prove x+y>=2sqrt(xy)

    Lets assume x>=y so that we can write x+d=y where d>=0

    Therefore d^2 >= 0

    Therefore 4x^2 + 4xd + d^2 >= 4x^2 + 4xd

    Factorising (2x + d)(2x + d) >= 4x(x+d)
    Take roots (2x + d) >= 2sqrt(x{x+d})
    substitute y for x+d .. x + y >= 2sqrt(xy) QED

    Now back to original problem!!
    We know (x+y) >= 2sqrt(xy) (I just proved it)
    Let x = ac and y= bd
    So we can write (ac + bd) >= 2sqrt(acbd)

    Lets add ab + cd to both sides (just for fun!)

    So ab + ac + bd + cd >= ab + cd + 2 sqrt(abcd)

    Factor both sides

    So (a+d)(b+c) >= {sqrt(ab) + sqrt(cd)}{sqrt(ab) + sqrt(cd)}

    Take root of both sides

    sqrt{(a+d)(b+c)} >= sqrt(ab) + sqrt(cd) Q.E.D.


    Fingers crossed I have made no assumptions other than
    that a, b, c, d are all positive.
  3. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    26 Oct '07 12:02
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I'm sure there is a quicker proof - this is just off the top of my head .....


    First I need to prove x+y>=2sqrt(xy)

    Lets assume x>=y so that we can write x+d=y where d>=0

    Therefore d^2 >= 0

    Therefore 4x^2 + 4xd + d^2 >= 4x^2 + 4xd

    Factorising (2x + d)(2x + d) >= 4x(x+d)
    Take roots (2x + d) >= 2sqrt(x{x+d})
    substitute y for x+d .. x + y > ...[text shortened]... .


    Fingers crossed I have made no assumptions other than
    that a, b, c, d are all positive.
    A quicker proof:

    Since all numbers are positive any product between them is positive too. So:

    (a+d)(b+c)=ab+ac+db+dc > ab+cd Since ac,db > 0.
    Now since sqrt is a monotonic function (I think that's how you sya it in english) we have sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) > sqrt(ab+cd)
  4. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    26 Oct '07 12:14
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    A quicker proof:

    Since all numbers are positive any product between them is positive too. So:

    (a+d)(b+c)=ab+ac+db+dc > ab+cd Since ac,db > 0.
    Now since sqrt is a monotonic function (I think that's how you sya it in english) we have sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) > sqrt(ab+cd)
    That wasn't the original inequality, though. And sqrt(ab + cd) < sqrt(ab) + sqrt(cd)
  5. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    26 Oct '07 12:16
    Originally posted by mtthw
    That wasn't the original inequality, though. And sqrt(ab + cd) < sqrt(ab) + sqrt(cd)
    Yeah. I just noticed it now. I really need to learn how to read.
  6. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    26 Oct '07 12:24
    The proof is now here:

    sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd)
    (a+d)(b+c) >= ab+cd+2sqrt(abcd)
    ab+ac+db+dc >= ab+cd+2sqrt(abcd)
    ac+db >= 2sqrt(abcd)

    Let us denote ac=A and db=B. The former inequality is equivalent to
    A+B >= 2sqrt(AB)
    A+B-2sqrt(AB) >=0
    (sqrt(A)-sqrt(B))^2 >= 0 Which is a valid statment so the initial assumption is right.
  7. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    26 Oct '07 18:33
    Originally posted by David113
    Prove: for positive numbers a, b, c, d, sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd).

    "sqrt" is square root, ">=" means "is bigger than or equal to".
    I think you need to specify positive integers. For any positive numbers (the reals in effect) a = 0.1, b = 0.2, c = 0.3 and d = 0.4 is a counterexample.
  8. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    26 Oct '07 19:54
    Originally posted by Kepler
    I think you need to specify positive integers. For any positive numbers (the reals in effect) a = 0.1, b = 0.2, c = 0.3 and d = 0.4 is a counterexample.
    No it isn't.

    0.5 >= 0.488...

    The proof didn't assume anything other than positive numbers.
  9. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    26 Oct '07 20:08
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I'm sure there is a quicker proof - this is just off the top of my head .....


    First I need to prove x+y>=2sqrt(xy)

    Lets assume x>=y so that we can write x+d=y where d>=0

    Therefore d^2 >= 0

    Therefore 4x^2 + 4xd + d^2 >= 4x^2 + 4xd

    Factorising (2x + d)(2x + d) >= 4x(x+d)
    Take roots (2x + d) >= 2sqrt(x{x+d})
    substitute y for x+d .. x + y > ...[text shortened]... .


    Fingers crossed I have made no assumptions other than
    that a, b, c, d are all positive.
    Well done!
    😀
  10. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    46016
    27 Oct '07 07:52
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    The proof is now here:

    sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd)
    (a+d)(b+c) >= ab+cd+2sqrt(abcd)
    ab+ac+db+dc >= ab+cd+2sqrt(abcd)
    ac+db >= 2sqrt(abcd)

    Let us denote ac=A and db=B. The former inequality is equivalent to
    A+B >= 2sqrt(AB)
    A+B-2sqrt(AB) >=0
    (sqrt(A)-sqrt(B))^2 >= 0 Which is a valid statment so the initial assumption is right.
    Your math is good but not your logic.

    "(sqrt(A)-sqrt(B))^2 >= 0 Which is a valid statment so the initial assumption is right."

    Proving a valid statement from a conjecture does NOT infer the initial conjecture is correct!

    eg I want to prove Socrates was an elephant.

    1. Socrates was an elephant.
    2. Elephants are mortal. ... "Which is a valid statement so the initial assumption is right"
    3. Therefore Socrates was mortal.

    😕

    Rework your proof and it is much better than mine! 😀
  11. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    27 Oct '07 11:15
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Your math is good but not your logic.

    "(sqrt(A)-sqrt(B))^2 >= 0 Which is a valid statment so the initial assumption is right."

    Proving a valid statement from a conjecture does NOT infer the initial conjecture is correct!

    eg I want to prove Socrates was an elephant.

    1. Socrates was an elephant.
    2. Elephants are mortal. ... "Which is a valid st ...[text shortened]... herefore Socrates was mortal.

    😕

    Rework your proof and it is much better than mine! 😀
    The logic is fine. You can see that if you follow the steps in the demonstartion in the opposite direction.

    Another way to see that is by noticing that I proved that the result that was intended was equivalent to another statement:
    sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd) < - > (SQRT(A)-SQRT(B))^2 >= 0 So both statements must be simultaneously wrong or simultaneously right. And since the second one is right so must be the first one.

    In your example things don't work out cause the statements are not equivalent.

    I'm sorry but english is not my first language and sometimes I may not express myself in the best way.
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    46016
    27 Oct '07 13:09
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    The logic is fine. You can see that if you follow the steps in the demonstartion in the opposite direction.

    Another way to see that is by noticing that I proved that the result that was intended was [b]equivalent
    to another statement:
    sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd) < - > (SQRT(A)-SQRT(B))^2 >= 0 So both statements must be simultaneously w ...[text shortened]... y but english is not my first language and sometimes I may not express myself in the best way.[/b]
    "You can see that if you follow the steps in the demonstartion in the opposite direction"

    I agree! So why not set them out in the correct direction? But if you are doing math in a second language I applaud you regardless!
  13. Standard memberTheMaster37
    Kupikupopo!
    Out of my mind
    Joined
    25 Oct '02
    Moves
    20443
    27 Oct '07 15:31
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    The logic is fine. You can see that if you follow the steps in the demonstartion in the opposite direction.

    Another way to see that is by noticing that I proved that the result that was intended was [b]equivalent
    to another statement:
    sqrt((a+d)(b+c)) >= sqrt(ab)+sqrt(cd) < - > (SQRT(A)-SQRT(B))^2 >= 0 So both statements must be simultaneously w ...[text shortened]... y but english is not my first language and sometimes I may not express myself in the best way.[/b]
    I agree that your logic is fine 🙂

    Though What you gave us is what you usually work out on a side-paper.

    To give the proof you would give the steps in opposite direction, starting with the obviously true statement.

    Well, that's how my teachers told me to give proofs :p
  14. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    27 Oct '07 16:432 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    "You can see that if you follow the steps in the demonstartion in the opposite direction"

    I agree! So why not set them out in the correct direction? But if you are doing math in a second language I applaud you regardless!
    Have you read the second part of my reply?
    I have two equivalent prepositions; one of them is true so the other has no choice to be true too. So there is no right direction. Each way is true and the way you chose to expose your reasoning is a matter of personal taste. I rather be clear while expressing my reasoning so I saw no good in writing the steps in the opposite direction in which they came to me.

    But if you are doing math in a second language I applaud you regardless! What does this means?
  15. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    27 Oct '07 16:44
    Originally posted by TheMaster37
    I agree that your logic is fine 🙂

    Though What you gave us is what you usually work out on a side-paper.

    To give the proof you would give the steps in opposite direction, starting with the obviously true statement.

    Well, that's how my teachers told me to give proofs :p
    Yes that's the way a mathematician would do it, but I'm physicist and normally we like to expose things how they came to us cause normally that's the best way to understand them.
Back to Top