Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/CommonHTML/jax.js

Pages

Inequality involving Lagrange Multipliers


I'm not a big fan of inequalities, as I can't really solve one without having a book with theory in front of me. Who knows, maybe I'll make a post about interesting inequalities once.

Even though I'm not really a big fan of inequalities, I am a fan of analysis, and this was my introduction to multivariable calculus, so I enjoyed this problem. Of course, my approach may not be the simplest; when I asked one of my friends over at a beer about this problem, he said that he could have solved it using elementary inequalities. If you can find a solution using only elementary inequalities, I encourage you to write it down below. The problem was taken, yet again, from an AoPS post.

The problem goes something like this:

If $x,y,z,t,u \in\mathbb{R}$ and $x+y+z+t+u=0, x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2+u^2=20$ then prove that $x^4+y^4+z^4+t^4+u^4 \le 260$.


First off, we have to find an interval in which lie all the solutions of the given equations.
Thus, by using CBS,
(x+y+z+t)2<4(x2+y2+z2+t2), which implies that (u)2<4(20u2).

u2<804u2, so 5u2<80, and, thus, 4<u<4. Obviously, all the other variables satisfy the same condition. Now we know that x,y,z,t,u are in [-4,4]. Let us now denote the following functions defined on [4,4]5 with values in the reals:

g1(x,y,z,t,u)=x+y+z+t+u
g2(x,y,z,t,u)=x2+y2+z2+t2+u220
f(x,y,z,t,u)=x4+y4+z4+t4+u4

We need to find the maximum value of the function F=f+ag1+bg2. Since f,g1,g2 are derivable with a continuous derivative, the function F has a maximum on the given intervals, and, to find the maximum, we must differentiate F in x, y, z, t and u. In order to find the maximum, we must also use the fact that g1=g2=0, which we know from the hypothesis. 

After differentiating, we get the following set of equations:

4x3+a+2xb=0
4y3+a+2yb=0
4z3+a+2zb=0
4t3+a+2tb=0
4u3+a+2ub=0

Since the equation 4x3+2xb+c=0 has a maximum number of three solutions, we can discern between two cases: One in which there are two pairs of equal numbers among (x,y,z,t,u), and one in which there are 3 equal numbers.

FIRST CASE: x=y, z=t.

We now have that 2x+2y+u=0 and 2x2+2y2+u2=20. By writing u=2(x+y), we get that 

2x2+2y2+4(x+y)2=20, and, thus, 6x2+8xy+6y2=20, so 3x2+4xy+3y2=10 (1). 

By rising to the second power, we get that (3x2+4xy+3y2)2=100, and, thus,

9x4+24x3y+34x2y2+24xy3+9y4=100, and, multiplying it by 2, we get that

18x4+48x3y+68x2y2+48xy3+18y4=200 

Now, x4+y4+z4+t4+u4=2x4+2y4+16(x4+4x3y+6x2y2+4xy3+y4=
=18x4+18y4+64x3y+64xy3+96x2y2=
=200+16x3y+16xy3+28x2y2

which is smaller or equal to 260 if and only if

16x3y+16xy3+28x2y2<60and, by dividing by 2,
8x3y+8xy3+14x2y2<30which can be written as
xy(8x2+8y2+14xy)<30 (*)

We know that |u|=|2(x+y)|<4, so |x+y|<2. By squaring, we get that (x+y)2<4, and x2+y2>2xy,soxy<1 (2).

Since (x+y)2=x2+y2+2xy<4,

2x2+4xy+2y2<8, while 3x2+4xy+3y2=10 (from (1)). Thus, we get a new inequality:

x2+y2>2 (3)

Now, we write 14xy=(28xy)/2=[7021(x2+y2)]/2. Back to (*), we get that

xy(8x2+8y2+14xy)<xy[8x2+8y2+35(21/2)(x2+y2)]=
(xy/2)[70+16(x2+y2)21(x2+y2)]=(xy/2)[(705(x2+y2)], which is, according to (3), smaller than (xy/2)(7010)<30xy<30, so (*) is proven.

If you have come this far, I suppose you are curious about the second case, too. Writing this is kind of tedious, but fun nonetheless.

SECOND CASE: x=y=z

3x+u+t=0, 3x2+u2+t2=20, so u+t=3x and u2+t2+2ut=9x2.
We also know that u2+t2=203x2, so ut=6x210

Thus, t4+u4=(t2+u2)22(tu)2=
=400120x2+9x42(36x4120x2+100)=200+120x263x4.

x4+y4+z4+t4+u4=60x4+120x2+200.

We have to find the maximum value of this expression on the interval [-4,4]. Let us write A=x2. Now, the function we have to evaluate is g(A)=60A2+120A+200, which obviously has a maximum value, because it's a grade two function and the coefficient of the greatest power is negative.

By differentiating, we have to find the A for which g(A)=120A+120=0 only when A=1, and, thus, the maximum value of x4+y4+z4+t4+u4=260.

Thus, after solving both cases, we can conclude that x4+y4+z4+t4+u4<260.

Note that, wherever I wrote <, I meant smaller or equal to something. I am still working on my Latex skills, and, for me, writing the full proof of this inequality was a feat of strength.

I have found another inequality that seems solvable with Lagrange Multipliers a while ago, yet I haven't solved it yet. If I manage to solve it, I'll make sure to post it. If you people have a solution to this problem that doesn't involve Lagrange Multipliers, please write it in the comments. I'm really curious about it :)

Cris.



No comments:

Post a Comment