6
$\begingroup$

I want to show that $9*\left[\frac{xy}{x+y}-q(1-q)\right]-12*[xy-q(1-q)]+(1-q-x)^{3}+(x+y)^{3}+(q-y)^{3}-1\geq0$ where

$0<q<1$

$0<x<1-q$

$0<y<q$

$(x+y)\left[1+max\{\frac{1-q}{y},\frac{q}{x}\}\right]\leq3$

I play with it numerically. It is right. But don't know how to prove it analytically. Anybody can help? Thanks a lot.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Our general advice is that your post title should say something about the subject of the question. Mentioning that it's an inequality is good, but that it came up in your research is irrelevant for someone deciding whether to visit it. Can you say anything more informative? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    May 3, 2019 at 1:39

3 Answers 3

10
$\begingroup$

Iosif's answer is very interesting and if anyone knows how to do the same thing in Maple I'd like to know.

However I disagree with Iosif about the difficulty. Mathematica will use a systematic procedure that is guaranteed to work in a wide variety of cases, and that may take many more steps than an ad hoc method devised by a human.

So here is a quick proof. Remove the upper bounds on $q$, $x$, $y$ by substituting $x=(1-q)X/(1+X)$, $y=qY/(1+Y)$, $q=Q/(1+Q)$. After clearing demoninators that are obviously positive, we have to prove $\Phi\ge 0$ subject to $Q,X,Y\ge 0$ and conditions $C_1$ and $C_2$, where $$\begin{align}\Phi &= -Y^2(1+X)^3 Q^4 + XY(1+X)^2(Y+2)Q^3\\ &{\quad}+ 2XY(1+Y)(1+X)(X+Y+3)Q^2 + XY(1+Y)^2(X+2)Q - X^2(1+Y)^3\end{align}$$ and $C_1$, $C_2$ come from the OP's last condition. They can be arranged like this: \begin{align*} C_1:\qquad & YQ \ge \frac{(1+Y)X}{(X+2)}-\frac{Y(2Y+3)(1+X)}{(1+Y)(X+2)}Q^2. \\ C_2:\qquad & YQ^2 \le \frac{X(1+Y)(2X+3)}{(1+X)^2}+\frac{(Y+2)X}{(1+X)}Q. \end{align*}

Now apply $C_1$ to the linear term of $\Phi$ and apply $C_2$ to the quartic term in the manner $YQ^4 \le \operatorname{rhs}(C_2)\,Q^2$. The result is exactly 0.

To show that $\Phi\gt 0$ strictly when $x,y,q\gt 0$, note that zero can only happen if $C_1,C_2$ hold with equality at the same time. But $Q\operatorname{rhs}(C_1)-\operatorname{rhs}(C_2)$ is manifestly negative.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ All right. I have not checked your proof, but it looks like it required quite a bit of ingenuity. Does ingenuity count towards difficulty? :-) Can you explain how you came up with your applications of $C_1$ and $C_2$? $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis Looking at $\Phi$, only the constant term and the quartic term can be negative. From the signs of the coefficients of $C_1$, it seemed that the linear term could be sacrificed to eliminate the constant term. To eliminate the quartic term using $C_2$, I first tried $Y^2Q^4\ge \operatorname{rhs}(C_2)^2$ but that didn't work, so I tried what is written. I was surprised to get exactly 0, but that could reflect the source of the inequality. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ ... I meant $Y^2Q^4 \le \operatorname{rhs}(C_2)^2$ of course. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 14:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The trick is really fantastic! Thank you so much. I manage to verify everything except that I have a hard time deriving $\Phi$. Do you use a software to obtain such a concise expression? $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    May 3, 2019 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ Finally, I derive $\Phi$ using Mathematica. Confirm your answer is correct. Thank you $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    May 3, 2019 at 18:31
5
$\begingroup$

Welcome to MO! However, your conjecture is false e.g. for $q = 1/2$, $x= 3/8$, $y = 1/4$, $t= 0$.

Added: The OP later stated that the additional condition $t=3$ was initially omitted in the OP's post. Anyhow, the problem is one of real algebraic geometry and, as such, admits a completely algorithmic solution. In Mathematica, such algorithms are represented by Reduce[] and related commands. Using Reduce[] indeed, we get

enter image description here

This proves the conjecture. We see that it took Mathematica about 2 sec to obtain this result; so, a manual proof might be quite long and laborious, and most likely less reliable than Mathematica's.

$\endgroup$
14
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much! Your answer is extremely helpful. Can I obtain the proof from Mathematica? I need to attach a proof to my paper. I am not sure whether people think it is valid if I claim Mathematica can prove it. $\endgroup$
    – Peter
    May 3, 2019 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Peter : What happens in Mathematica's innards is not available to general public. Even if it were available, that proof may take tens or even hundreds of pages -- think how much processing Mathematica can do in 2 sec. Computer-assisted proofs have already gained a great deal of (well-deserved) acceptance, and I actually have several published papers containing such proofs. However, since Mathematica is proprietary, you may try instead to use such free computer algebra systems as Reduce (reduce-algebra.sourceforge.io ). In my experience, they are not as good as Mathematica, though. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 4:13
  • $\begingroup$ Previous comment, continued: You may want to attach a proof such as the above one to your paper or maybe a link to it. I have done both such things. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 4:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GabeK It is possible to use interval arithmetic to prove inequalities which are not just polynomials, but more generally non-linear expressions. For instance, one can prove inequalities for the expression $2^{-2-3p} (2^{3 p} + 5\cdot 2^{2 + p} + 12 (3- \sqrt{5})^p + 12 (3 + \sqrt{5})^p)$ on an interval using the interval arithmetic library in PVS. It is not clear if the 'Reduce[]' command in Mathematica uses this approach to handle such functions, or other algebro-geometric methods. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 21:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GabeK : It is possible to reduce many problems involving logarithms to algebraic problems, since the derivative of $\ln$ is algebraic. Mathematica's Reduce[] can indeed solve some problems involving logarithms. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2019 at 22:13
0
$\begingroup$

Remark: Actually, the inequality is quite easy. The trick is to take $x, y$ as parameters.

Denote the expression by $f(q)$.

It suffices to prove that $f(q) \ge 0$ provided that \begin{align*} &x, y > 0,\\ &x + y < 1,\\ &3y > (x + y)^2,\\ &3x > (x + y)^2, \\ &y < q < 1 - x, \\ &1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y} \le q \le \frac{3x}{x + y} - x. \end{align*} (Note: Condition $(x+y)\left[1+max\{\frac{1-q}{y},\frac{q}{x}\}\right]\leq3$ is equivalent to $(x + y)[1 + (1-q)/y] \le 3$ and $(x + y)(1 + q/x) \le 3$ which are equivalent to $1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y} \le q \le \frac{3x}{x + y} - x$. Also, from $y < \frac{3x}{x + y} - x$, we have $3x > (x + y)^2$, and from $1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y} < 1 - x $, we have $3y > (x + y)^2$.)

Note that $f(q)$ is quadratic and concave (the coefficient of $q^2$ is $-3x - 3y$).

Also, we have \begin{align*} f(y) &= \frac{3x(1 - x - y)(2y - x)}{x + y},\\ f(1 - x) &= \frac{3y(1 - x - y)(2x - y)}{x + y},\\ f\left(1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y}\right) &= \frac{3y(2 - x - y)(x - 2y)}{x + y}, \\ f\left(\frac{3x}{x + y} - x\right) &= \frac{3x(2 - x - y)(y - 2x)}{x + y}. \end{align*}

We split into three cases:

(1) If $x > 2y$, we have $1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y} > y$ and $1 - x \le \frac{3x}{x + y} - x$, and $f(1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y}) \ge 0$ and $f(1 - x) \ge 0$. Thus, $f(q) \ge 0$.

(2) If $y/2 \le x \le 2y$, we have $1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y} \le y$ and $1 - x \le \frac{3x}{x + y} - x$, and $f(y) \ge 0$ and $f(1 - x) \ge 0$. Thus, we have $f(q) \ge 0$.

(3) If $x < y/2$, we have $1 + y - \frac{3y}{x + y} \le y$ and $1 - x > \frac{3x}{x + y} - x$, and $f(y) \ge 0$ and $f(\frac{3x}{x + y} - x) \ge 0$. Thus, $f(q) \ge 0$.

We are done.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.