Timeline for Is there a good reason why $a^{2b} + b^{2a} \le 1$ when $a+b=1$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2021 at 7:44 | answer | added | DesmosTutu | timeline score: -1 | |
| Aug 23, 2017 at 19:57 | answer | added | Yaakov Baruch | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 14:58 | history | edited | Ben McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 5:09 | answer | added | Iosif Pinelis | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 9:45 | answer | added | jbc | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 27, 2012 at 14:34 | answer | added | user24006 | timeline score: -12 | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 13:21 | vote | accept | Sunni | ||
| Apr 13, 2010 at 1:58 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | Rather than argue in comments I used my editing power to change the title to an actual question. This is the most common sort of edit I make to people's comments and I think it's a good thing to just do. | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 1:57 | history | edited | Noah Snyder | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Made the title an actual question
|
| Apr 12, 2010 at 22:28 | answer | added | Will Jagy | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 17:17 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 37 | |
| Mar 17, 2010 at 15:19 | comment | added | Yaakov Baruch | Tantalizing probem... It seems that the inequality holds for 1/2<=a+b<=1, in particular the 1/2 case can be reformulated as (a/2)^b+(b/2)^a<=1 if a+b=1. | |
| Mar 6, 2010 at 17:34 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I'm with Scott on the title here. What excuse could there possibly be for writing "a simple looking inequality" when you could just write "$a^{2b}+b^{2a}\le 1$ when $a+b=1$"? I've had a few posts where it was a real struggle to come up with a concise question to use as a title. This is not such a post. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 22:32 | history | edited | Sunni | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Title
|
| Mar 5, 2010 at 18:36 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | Regarding the title, I guess this is just a pet rant by now, but I wish the community norms were: 1) Always ask a question in your title and 2) try to make that question as close as possible an approximation to the full question you're asking. Unfortunately everyone uses the title more as an email subject line. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 18:35 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | Sorry, I was being crotchety. I previously explained to miwalin that posting questions which appear to be instructions "solve this problem", especially when the text makes it appear that he knows the answer, wasn't really appropriate here, and unfortunately got annoyed the second time. Maybe it's a different background -- people who like olympiad style problems are used to asking their problems in the "examination style", but I don't much like it. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 18:18 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | @David: what I don't like about the problem is that the questioner clearly knows the answer, so I have no incentive to think about it myself in this forum, which I percieve to be for people who are "stuck" or "need help". There are a gazillion resources for putnam-like problems on the web, but this place seems to generally discourage it, which is something I like about it. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 18:15 | answer | added | Gjergji Zaimi | timeline score: 10 | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 18:02 | comment | added | Sunni | @ G.Zaimi: I don't have, but I believe it exists. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 17:46 | comment | added | Gjergji Zaimi | Do you have any reason at all that a "light computation" solution can be found here? | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 17:19 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | What DS said. Given the "olympiad" style of this problem, you're bound to get more, better answers at AOPS. On the other hand, I have no objection to having the problem here as well: I used to do those olympiads, and would enjoy seeing a cute answer, but I'm lazy enough not to go looking for an answer at AOPS. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 17:15 | comment | added | David E Speyer | That said, this question might do better on artofproblemsolving.com . I could certainly bulldoze through it if I had to but, if there is a nice answer, then it is probably more likely to be found by a Putnam fellow or IMO medalist than a professional mathematician. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 17:10 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Scott, I don't get it. This is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from the title. If I were to title this post, I would write "elementary inequality", but "simple" seems close. And the phrasing is polite enough. | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 17:00 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | -1, for giving an instruction, instead of asking a question. (Also, it's helpful to give a longer title explaining what we what, ideally ending with a question mark.) | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 16:49 | history | edited | Sunni | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2010 at 16:18 | history | asked | Sunni | CC BY-SA 2.5 |