An inequality for positive definite matrix with trace 1












2












$begingroup$


Given a positive definite matrix $A in mathbb R^{n times n}$. If $operatorname{trace}(A) = 1$, for $n geq 3$, prove that $$text{det}(A) leq frac{n^n}{(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2$$ and the equation only holds when $A = frac{1}{n}I$.



What I have tried:
For any positive definite matrix $P in mathbb{R}^{n times n}$, there exists an invertible matrix $Omega$, s.t.
begin{align}
&P = Omega^{-1} Sigma Omega \
&Sigma = text{diag}(x_1, cdots, x_n) \
&x_1, cdots, x_n > 0
end{align}

We have $text{det}(P) = text{det}(Sigma) =prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and $text{det}(I - P) = text{det}(I - Sigma) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)$.
Therefore, we only need to prove $forall x_1, cdots, x_n$ with $x_1, cdots, x_n > 0$ and $sum_{i=1}^n x_i=1$, the inequality holds:
begin{align}
prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 geq frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n} prod_{i = 1}^n x_i
end{align}

Assume $f(x_1, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 / prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and we then find the minimum of $f$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What have you tried so far?
    $endgroup$
    – sehigle
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:46






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I have added it into the question
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:55






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Isn't $text{det}(A) leq frac{1}{n^n(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2 $? Notice that $(1-x_i)=sum_{jneq i} x_j $ then use the Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:57


















2












$begingroup$


Given a positive definite matrix $A in mathbb R^{n times n}$. If $operatorname{trace}(A) = 1$, for $n geq 3$, prove that $$text{det}(A) leq frac{n^n}{(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2$$ and the equation only holds when $A = frac{1}{n}I$.



What I have tried:
For any positive definite matrix $P in mathbb{R}^{n times n}$, there exists an invertible matrix $Omega$, s.t.
begin{align}
&P = Omega^{-1} Sigma Omega \
&Sigma = text{diag}(x_1, cdots, x_n) \
&x_1, cdots, x_n > 0
end{align}

We have $text{det}(P) = text{det}(Sigma) =prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and $text{det}(I - P) = text{det}(I - Sigma) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)$.
Therefore, we only need to prove $forall x_1, cdots, x_n$ with $x_1, cdots, x_n > 0$ and $sum_{i=1}^n x_i=1$, the inequality holds:
begin{align}
prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 geq frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n} prod_{i = 1}^n x_i
end{align}

Assume $f(x_1, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 / prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and we then find the minimum of $f$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What have you tried so far?
    $endgroup$
    – sehigle
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:46






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I have added it into the question
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:55






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Isn't $text{det}(A) leq frac{1}{n^n(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2 $? Notice that $(1-x_i)=sum_{jneq i} x_j $ then use the Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:57
















2












2








2


2



$begingroup$


Given a positive definite matrix $A in mathbb R^{n times n}$. If $operatorname{trace}(A) = 1$, for $n geq 3$, prove that $$text{det}(A) leq frac{n^n}{(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2$$ and the equation only holds when $A = frac{1}{n}I$.



What I have tried:
For any positive definite matrix $P in mathbb{R}^{n times n}$, there exists an invertible matrix $Omega$, s.t.
begin{align}
&P = Omega^{-1} Sigma Omega \
&Sigma = text{diag}(x_1, cdots, x_n) \
&x_1, cdots, x_n > 0
end{align}

We have $text{det}(P) = text{det}(Sigma) =prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and $text{det}(I - P) = text{det}(I - Sigma) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)$.
Therefore, we only need to prove $forall x_1, cdots, x_n$ with $x_1, cdots, x_n > 0$ and $sum_{i=1}^n x_i=1$, the inequality holds:
begin{align}
prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 geq frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n} prod_{i = 1}^n x_i
end{align}

Assume $f(x_1, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 / prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and we then find the minimum of $f$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Given a positive definite matrix $A in mathbb R^{n times n}$. If $operatorname{trace}(A) = 1$, for $n geq 3$, prove that $$text{det}(A) leq frac{n^n}{(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2$$ and the equation only holds when $A = frac{1}{n}I$.



What I have tried:
For any positive definite matrix $P in mathbb{R}^{n times n}$, there exists an invertible matrix $Omega$, s.t.
begin{align}
&P = Omega^{-1} Sigma Omega \
&Sigma = text{diag}(x_1, cdots, x_n) \
&x_1, cdots, x_n > 0
end{align}

We have $text{det}(P) = text{det}(Sigma) =prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and $text{det}(I - P) = text{det}(I - Sigma) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)$.
Therefore, we only need to prove $forall x_1, cdots, x_n$ with $x_1, cdots, x_n > 0$ and $sum_{i=1}^n x_i=1$, the inequality holds:
begin{align}
prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 geq frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n} prod_{i = 1}^n x_i
end{align}

Assume $f(x_1, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i = 1}^n (1 - x_i)^2 / prod_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and we then find the minimum of $f$.







inequality optimization convex-optimization determinant positive-definite






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 19 '18 at 11:50









A.Γ.

22.7k32656




22.7k32656










asked Dec 17 '18 at 16:44









Rubisco LeeRubisco Lee

1148




1148












  • $begingroup$
    What have you tried so far?
    $endgroup$
    – sehigle
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:46






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I have added it into the question
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:55






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Isn't $text{det}(A) leq frac{1}{n^n(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2 $? Notice that $(1-x_i)=sum_{jneq i} x_j $ then use the Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:57




















  • $begingroup$
    What have you tried so far?
    $endgroup$
    – sehigle
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:46






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I have added it into the question
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:55






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Isn't $text{det}(A) leq frac{1}{n^n(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2 $? Notice that $(1-x_i)=sum_{jneq i} x_j $ then use the Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means.
    $endgroup$
    – mouthetics
    Dec 17 '18 at 16:57


















$begingroup$
What have you tried so far?
$endgroup$
– sehigle
Dec 17 '18 at 16:46




$begingroup$
What have you tried so far?
$endgroup$
– sehigle
Dec 17 '18 at 16:46




4




4




$begingroup$
I have added it into the question
$endgroup$
– Rubisco Lee
Dec 17 '18 at 16:55




$begingroup$
I have added it into the question
$endgroup$
– Rubisco Lee
Dec 17 '18 at 16:55




2




2




$begingroup$
Isn't $text{det}(A) leq frac{1}{n^n(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2 $? Notice that $(1-x_i)=sum_{jneq i} x_j $ then use the Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Dec 17 '18 at 16:57






$begingroup$
Isn't $text{det}(A) leq frac{1}{n^n(n-1)^{2n}} text{det}(I -A)^2 $? Notice that $(1-x_i)=sum_{jneq i} x_j $ then use the Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Dec 17 '18 at 16:57












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

In order to investigate behavior of the function $f$, at the first we consider the following auxiliary problem.



Let $0<x,y,a$ and $x+y+a=1$. If $a$ is fixed then



$$h(x,y)=frac{(1-x)^2(1-y)^2}{xy}=frac{(a+xy)^2}{xy}=frac{a^2}{xy}+2a+xy.$$



A function $frac{a^2}{t}+t$ has a derivative $-frac{a^2}{t^2}+1$, so it decreases when $0<t<a$ and increases when $a<t<1$. By AM-GM inequality, $xyle frac{(1-a)^2}4$ and the equality is attained iff $x=y$. In particular, if $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ then $h(x,y)$ attains its minimum at $(x,y)$ iff $x=y$. It is easy to check that $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ iff $$age 3-2sqrt{2}=0.1715dots.$$



Consider the function $f(x_1,dots, x_n)$. Fixing the smallest $x_l$ we restrict domain of $f$ to a compact set $C$ consisting of $x$ such that ${x_jge x_l}$ for each $j$ and $sum x_j=1$. Since $f$ on $C$ is continuous, it attains its minimum at some point $x$. Let $x_i$ be the largest coordinate of $x$. Then $$x_j+x_kle frac 23(x_i+x_j+x_k)le frac 23<1-(3-2sqrt{2})$$ for each remaining distinct $j$ and $k$, so the minimality of $f(x)$ on $C$ and the properties of the function $h$ imply that $x_j=x_k=t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. Then $x_i=1-(n-1)t$ and



$$f(x)=r(t)=frac{((n-1)t)^2}{1-(n-1)t}left(frac{(1-t)^2}{t}right)^{n-1}=frac{(n-1)^2(1-t)^{2n-2}}{(1-(n-1)t)t^{n-3}}.$$



If $t$ tends to $0$ or to $frac 1{n-1}$ then $r(t)$ tends to infinity. So $r(t)$ attains its minimum at a compact subset of an interval $(0, frac 1{n-1})$ in some its point $s$. Then $r’(s)=0$. This easily implies that



$$left((1-s)^{2n-2}right)’ (1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)^{2n-2}left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



The following cases are possible



1) $n=3$. Then $-4(1-2s)=(1-s)left(1-2sright)'$ and $s=frac 13$.



2) $n>3$. Then



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((n-3)s^{n-4}-(n-1)(n-2)s^{n-3}right)$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s=(1-s)left((n-3)-(n-1)(n-2)sright)$$



$$s^2(n^2-n)+s(n^2-4n+1)-n+3=0$$



$$s=frac 1nmbox{ or }s=-frac {n-3}{n-1}<0.$$



Thus anyway $s=frac 1n $. Then all $x_j$ equal to $frac 1n$ and $f(x)=frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 14:14












  • $begingroup$
    @RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:38



















1












$begingroup$

Thanks so much for the help from @Alex Ravsky. I also write one proof based on his ideas.



When $n = 3$, since $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 1$, at least one of $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ is larger than $frac{1}{3}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Then construct the function $h(x_2, x_3)$ for $x_2, x_3 > 0$ and $x_2 + x_3 = 1 - x_1$:
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_2)^2 (1 - x_3)^2}{x_2 x_3} = frac{x_1^2}{x_2 x_3} + x_2 x_3 + 2 x_1
end{align}

Using the mean value inequality, we have $x_2 x_3 leq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4}$. Thus if $frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} leq x_1$, i.e. $x_1 geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) geq frac{4 x_1^2}{(1 - x_1)^2} + frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} + 2 x_1
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$. Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{3} > 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, the condition holds. Now consider the function $f(x_1, x_2, x_3)$. Then
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x1} h(x_2, x_3) geq 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$ for every $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Assume $p(x_1) = 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2$, then for $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$, we have
begin{align}
p'(x_1) = frac{(1 + x)^3 (-1 + 3 x)}{4 x^2} geq 0,
end{align}

thus $p(x_1)$ attains it minimum iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$, i.e.
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{3})^2}{frac{1}{3}}right)^3 = frac{(3 - 1)^{2 cdot 3}}{3^3}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$ and $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2} = frac{1}{3}$.



Then we consider the case for $n > 3$. Similarly, without loss of generality, we can assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$. We still first fix $x_1$ and define
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i=2}^n frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We then assume $x_n$ is the largest one in $x_2, cdots, x_n$. For $sum_{i neq 1, n} x_i = 1 - x_1 - x_n$, we define the following functions ($1 < j, k < n$, $j neq k$):
begin{align}
g_{j, k}(x_j, x_k) = frac{(1 - x_j)^2 (1 - x_k)^2}{x_j x_k} = frac{a^2}{x_j x_k} + x_j x_k + 2 a,
end{align}

where $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i$. Similarly, if $a geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then $g_{j, k}$ attains its minimum iff $x_j = x_k$. If there exists $j$ and $k$ s.t. $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i < 3 - 2sqrt 2$, i.e. $x_j + x_k > 2sqrt 2 -2 > 0.82$. Then at least one of $x_j$ and $x_k$ is no less than $0.41$, e.g. $x_j$, then $x_n geq x_j geq 0.41$ and thus $a > x_n geq 0.41$, which is a contradiction. Therefore all $sum_{i neq j, k} x_i geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$. Now consider the function
begin{align}
g(x_2, cdots, x_{n-1}) = prod_{i=2}^{n-1} frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We first only let $x_2$ and $x_3$ move and fix the others. To attain the minimum we only need to consider $g_{2, 3}(x_2, x_3)$ and it must be $x_2 = x_3 = t$ for any other fixed variables. Then let $x_4$ move and we need to consider $g_{3, 4}(t, x_4)$. To attain the minimum, we then have $x_3 = x_4 = t$. Repeatedly, we get $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = t$, thus $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}$. Now consider $h(x_2, cdots, x_n)$, we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_n)^2}{x_n} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

%Denote the right side as $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ and it can be proved that $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ attains the minimum when $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ if $x_1 leq frac{1}{n}$ ($x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$).
Since $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n - 2}$, $x_n = 1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t$. Therefore we can consider the function
begin{align}
r (t) = frac{(x_1 +(n - 2) t)^2}{1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t} left(frac{(1 - t)^2}{t} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$. It can be proved that $r(t)$ attains the minimum at $t = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. The proof is nothing than straightforward but complicated calculation thus we omit the proof. Therefore, $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ and $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. Eventually we have
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x_1} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}} right)^{n-1}
end{align}

Denote the right side as $q(x_1)$, then we have
begin{align}
q'(x_1) = frac{(n - 1) (1 - x_1)^2
left(frac{(n - 1) left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{(1 - x_1)} right)^n
(n - x_1 - 2) (n x_1 - 1)
}{(x_1^2 (n + x_1 - 2)^3}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $1 - x_1 > 0$, $n + x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n - x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n x_1 - 1 geq 0$. Thus $q'(x_1) geq 0$ and $q(x_1)$ attains its minimum at $x_1 = frac{1}{n}$, thus $x_2 = cdots, x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}=frac{1}{n}$. In other words, we prove that
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{n})^2}{frac{1}{n}}right)^n = frac{(n - 1)^{2 cdot n}}{n^n}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = cdots x_n = frac{1}{n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 30 '18 at 15:12













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3044157%2fan-inequality-for-positive-definite-matrix-with-trace-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

In order to investigate behavior of the function $f$, at the first we consider the following auxiliary problem.



Let $0<x,y,a$ and $x+y+a=1$. If $a$ is fixed then



$$h(x,y)=frac{(1-x)^2(1-y)^2}{xy}=frac{(a+xy)^2}{xy}=frac{a^2}{xy}+2a+xy.$$



A function $frac{a^2}{t}+t$ has a derivative $-frac{a^2}{t^2}+1$, so it decreases when $0<t<a$ and increases when $a<t<1$. By AM-GM inequality, $xyle frac{(1-a)^2}4$ and the equality is attained iff $x=y$. In particular, if $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ then $h(x,y)$ attains its minimum at $(x,y)$ iff $x=y$. It is easy to check that $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ iff $$age 3-2sqrt{2}=0.1715dots.$$



Consider the function $f(x_1,dots, x_n)$. Fixing the smallest $x_l$ we restrict domain of $f$ to a compact set $C$ consisting of $x$ such that ${x_jge x_l}$ for each $j$ and $sum x_j=1$. Since $f$ on $C$ is continuous, it attains its minimum at some point $x$. Let $x_i$ be the largest coordinate of $x$. Then $$x_j+x_kle frac 23(x_i+x_j+x_k)le frac 23<1-(3-2sqrt{2})$$ for each remaining distinct $j$ and $k$, so the minimality of $f(x)$ on $C$ and the properties of the function $h$ imply that $x_j=x_k=t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. Then $x_i=1-(n-1)t$ and



$$f(x)=r(t)=frac{((n-1)t)^2}{1-(n-1)t}left(frac{(1-t)^2}{t}right)^{n-1}=frac{(n-1)^2(1-t)^{2n-2}}{(1-(n-1)t)t^{n-3}}.$$



If $t$ tends to $0$ or to $frac 1{n-1}$ then $r(t)$ tends to infinity. So $r(t)$ attains its minimum at a compact subset of an interval $(0, frac 1{n-1})$ in some its point $s$. Then $r’(s)=0$. This easily implies that



$$left((1-s)^{2n-2}right)’ (1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)^{2n-2}left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



The following cases are possible



1) $n=3$. Then $-4(1-2s)=(1-s)left(1-2sright)'$ and $s=frac 13$.



2) $n>3$. Then



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((n-3)s^{n-4}-(n-1)(n-2)s^{n-3}right)$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s=(1-s)left((n-3)-(n-1)(n-2)sright)$$



$$s^2(n^2-n)+s(n^2-4n+1)-n+3=0$$



$$s=frac 1nmbox{ or }s=-frac {n-3}{n-1}<0.$$



Thus anyway $s=frac 1n $. Then all $x_j$ equal to $frac 1n$ and $f(x)=frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 14:14












  • $begingroup$
    @RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:38
















2












$begingroup$

In order to investigate behavior of the function $f$, at the first we consider the following auxiliary problem.



Let $0<x,y,a$ and $x+y+a=1$. If $a$ is fixed then



$$h(x,y)=frac{(1-x)^2(1-y)^2}{xy}=frac{(a+xy)^2}{xy}=frac{a^2}{xy}+2a+xy.$$



A function $frac{a^2}{t}+t$ has a derivative $-frac{a^2}{t^2}+1$, so it decreases when $0<t<a$ and increases when $a<t<1$. By AM-GM inequality, $xyle frac{(1-a)^2}4$ and the equality is attained iff $x=y$. In particular, if $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ then $h(x,y)$ attains its minimum at $(x,y)$ iff $x=y$. It is easy to check that $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ iff $$age 3-2sqrt{2}=0.1715dots.$$



Consider the function $f(x_1,dots, x_n)$. Fixing the smallest $x_l$ we restrict domain of $f$ to a compact set $C$ consisting of $x$ such that ${x_jge x_l}$ for each $j$ and $sum x_j=1$. Since $f$ on $C$ is continuous, it attains its minimum at some point $x$. Let $x_i$ be the largest coordinate of $x$. Then $$x_j+x_kle frac 23(x_i+x_j+x_k)le frac 23<1-(3-2sqrt{2})$$ for each remaining distinct $j$ and $k$, so the minimality of $f(x)$ on $C$ and the properties of the function $h$ imply that $x_j=x_k=t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. Then $x_i=1-(n-1)t$ and



$$f(x)=r(t)=frac{((n-1)t)^2}{1-(n-1)t}left(frac{(1-t)^2}{t}right)^{n-1}=frac{(n-1)^2(1-t)^{2n-2}}{(1-(n-1)t)t^{n-3}}.$$



If $t$ tends to $0$ or to $frac 1{n-1}$ then $r(t)$ tends to infinity. So $r(t)$ attains its minimum at a compact subset of an interval $(0, frac 1{n-1})$ in some its point $s$. Then $r’(s)=0$. This easily implies that



$$left((1-s)^{2n-2}right)’ (1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)^{2n-2}left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



The following cases are possible



1) $n=3$. Then $-4(1-2s)=(1-s)left(1-2sright)'$ and $s=frac 13$.



2) $n>3$. Then



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((n-3)s^{n-4}-(n-1)(n-2)s^{n-3}right)$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s=(1-s)left((n-3)-(n-1)(n-2)sright)$$



$$s^2(n^2-n)+s(n^2-4n+1)-n+3=0$$



$$s=frac 1nmbox{ or }s=-frac {n-3}{n-1}<0.$$



Thus anyway $s=frac 1n $. Then all $x_j$ equal to $frac 1n$ and $f(x)=frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 14:14












  • $begingroup$
    @RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:38














2












2








2





$begingroup$

In order to investigate behavior of the function $f$, at the first we consider the following auxiliary problem.



Let $0<x,y,a$ and $x+y+a=1$. If $a$ is fixed then



$$h(x,y)=frac{(1-x)^2(1-y)^2}{xy}=frac{(a+xy)^2}{xy}=frac{a^2}{xy}+2a+xy.$$



A function $frac{a^2}{t}+t$ has a derivative $-frac{a^2}{t^2}+1$, so it decreases when $0<t<a$ and increases when $a<t<1$. By AM-GM inequality, $xyle frac{(1-a)^2}4$ and the equality is attained iff $x=y$. In particular, if $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ then $h(x,y)$ attains its minimum at $(x,y)$ iff $x=y$. It is easy to check that $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ iff $$age 3-2sqrt{2}=0.1715dots.$$



Consider the function $f(x_1,dots, x_n)$. Fixing the smallest $x_l$ we restrict domain of $f$ to a compact set $C$ consisting of $x$ such that ${x_jge x_l}$ for each $j$ and $sum x_j=1$. Since $f$ on $C$ is continuous, it attains its minimum at some point $x$. Let $x_i$ be the largest coordinate of $x$. Then $$x_j+x_kle frac 23(x_i+x_j+x_k)le frac 23<1-(3-2sqrt{2})$$ for each remaining distinct $j$ and $k$, so the minimality of $f(x)$ on $C$ and the properties of the function $h$ imply that $x_j=x_k=t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. Then $x_i=1-(n-1)t$ and



$$f(x)=r(t)=frac{((n-1)t)^2}{1-(n-1)t}left(frac{(1-t)^2}{t}right)^{n-1}=frac{(n-1)^2(1-t)^{2n-2}}{(1-(n-1)t)t^{n-3}}.$$



If $t$ tends to $0$ or to $frac 1{n-1}$ then $r(t)$ tends to infinity. So $r(t)$ attains its minimum at a compact subset of an interval $(0, frac 1{n-1})$ in some its point $s$. Then $r’(s)=0$. This easily implies that



$$left((1-s)^{2n-2}right)’ (1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)^{2n-2}left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



The following cases are possible



1) $n=3$. Then $-4(1-2s)=(1-s)left(1-2sright)'$ and $s=frac 13$.



2) $n>3$. Then



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((n-3)s^{n-4}-(n-1)(n-2)s^{n-3}right)$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s=(1-s)left((n-3)-(n-1)(n-2)sright)$$



$$s^2(n^2-n)+s(n^2-4n+1)-n+3=0$$



$$s=frac 1nmbox{ or }s=-frac {n-3}{n-1}<0.$$



Thus anyway $s=frac 1n $. Then all $x_j$ equal to $frac 1n$ and $f(x)=frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



In order to investigate behavior of the function $f$, at the first we consider the following auxiliary problem.



Let $0<x,y,a$ and $x+y+a=1$. If $a$ is fixed then



$$h(x,y)=frac{(1-x)^2(1-y)^2}{xy}=frac{(a+xy)^2}{xy}=frac{a^2}{xy}+2a+xy.$$



A function $frac{a^2}{t}+t$ has a derivative $-frac{a^2}{t^2}+1$, so it decreases when $0<t<a$ and increases when $a<t<1$. By AM-GM inequality, $xyle frac{(1-a)^2}4$ and the equality is attained iff $x=y$. In particular, if $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ then $h(x,y)$ attains its minimum at $(x,y)$ iff $x=y$. It is easy to check that $frac{(1-a)^2}4le a$ iff $$age 3-2sqrt{2}=0.1715dots.$$



Consider the function $f(x_1,dots, x_n)$. Fixing the smallest $x_l$ we restrict domain of $f$ to a compact set $C$ consisting of $x$ such that ${x_jge x_l}$ for each $j$ and $sum x_j=1$. Since $f$ on $C$ is continuous, it attains its minimum at some point $x$. Let $x_i$ be the largest coordinate of $x$. Then $$x_j+x_kle frac 23(x_i+x_j+x_k)le frac 23<1-(3-2sqrt{2})$$ for each remaining distinct $j$ and $k$, so the minimality of $f(x)$ on $C$ and the properties of the function $h$ imply that $x_j=x_k=t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. Then $x_i=1-(n-1)t$ and



$$f(x)=r(t)=frac{((n-1)t)^2}{1-(n-1)t}left(frac{(1-t)^2}{t}right)^{n-1}=frac{(n-1)^2(1-t)^{2n-2}}{(1-(n-1)t)t^{n-3}}.$$



If $t$ tends to $0$ or to $frac 1{n-1}$ then $r(t)$ tends to infinity. So $r(t)$ attains its minimum at a compact subset of an interval $(0, frac 1{n-1})$ in some its point $s$. Then $r’(s)=0$. This easily implies that



$$left((1-s)^{2n-2}right)’ (1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)^{2n-2}left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}right)'$$



The following cases are possible



1) $n=3$. Then $-4(1-2s)=(1-s)left(1-2sright)'$ and $s=frac 13$.



2) $n>3$. Then



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s^{n-3}=(1-s)left((n-3)s^{n-4}-(n-1)(n-2)s^{n-3}right)$$



$$(2-2n)(1-(n-1)s)s=(1-s)left((n-3)-(n-1)(n-2)sright)$$



$$s^2(n^2-n)+s(n^2-4n+1)-n+3=0$$



$$s=frac 1nmbox{ or }s=-frac {n-3}{n-1}<0.$$



Thus anyway $s=frac 1n $. Then all $x_j$ equal to $frac 1n$ and $f(x)=frac{(n - 1)^{2n}}{n^n}$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 30 '18 at 14:48

























answered Dec 18 '18 at 8:52









Alex RavskyAlex Ravsky

41.4k32282




41.4k32282








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 14:14












  • $begingroup$
    @RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:38














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 14:14












  • $begingroup$
    @RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Rubisco Lee
    Dec 18 '18 at 15:38








1




1




$begingroup$
The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
$endgroup$
– Rubisco Lee
Dec 18 '18 at 14:14






$begingroup$
The step $x_j = x_k = t$ for each remaining $j$ and $k$. I guess you cannot include $x_l$ into this step since you have fixed it at the beginning. What I think is we first prove that $x_j = x_k = t$ for $j$, $k$ other than $i$ and $l$, then prove $x_i$ also equals to this value and at last prove $x_l$ equals to this value. The last step is very similar to what you have written.
$endgroup$
– Rubisco Lee
Dec 18 '18 at 14:14














$begingroup$
@RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Ravsky
Dec 18 '18 at 15:12




$begingroup$
@RubiscoLee Right, I was aware about this problem. Nevertheless, we can include $x_l$ because if some remaining $x_j$ and $x_k$ (including $x_l$) are not equal, then when I replace each of them by their halfsum, I obain a new point $x’$ such that $f(x’)<f(x)$ and the point $x’$ is still in $C$, because the halfsum is not less than $x_l$.
$endgroup$
– Alex Ravsky
Dec 18 '18 at 15:12




1




1




$begingroup$
Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
$endgroup$
– Rubisco Lee
Dec 18 '18 at 15:38




$begingroup$
Thanks for your help. I think I need some time to understand this point. I also write a proof based on your idea. It is more complicated.
$endgroup$
– Rubisco Lee
Dec 18 '18 at 15:38











1












$begingroup$

Thanks so much for the help from @Alex Ravsky. I also write one proof based on his ideas.



When $n = 3$, since $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 1$, at least one of $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ is larger than $frac{1}{3}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Then construct the function $h(x_2, x_3)$ for $x_2, x_3 > 0$ and $x_2 + x_3 = 1 - x_1$:
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_2)^2 (1 - x_3)^2}{x_2 x_3} = frac{x_1^2}{x_2 x_3} + x_2 x_3 + 2 x_1
end{align}

Using the mean value inequality, we have $x_2 x_3 leq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4}$. Thus if $frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} leq x_1$, i.e. $x_1 geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) geq frac{4 x_1^2}{(1 - x_1)^2} + frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} + 2 x_1
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$. Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{3} > 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, the condition holds. Now consider the function $f(x_1, x_2, x_3)$. Then
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x1} h(x_2, x_3) geq 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$ for every $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Assume $p(x_1) = 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2$, then for $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$, we have
begin{align}
p'(x_1) = frac{(1 + x)^3 (-1 + 3 x)}{4 x^2} geq 0,
end{align}

thus $p(x_1)$ attains it minimum iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$, i.e.
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{3})^2}{frac{1}{3}}right)^3 = frac{(3 - 1)^{2 cdot 3}}{3^3}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$ and $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2} = frac{1}{3}$.



Then we consider the case for $n > 3$. Similarly, without loss of generality, we can assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$. We still first fix $x_1$ and define
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i=2}^n frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We then assume $x_n$ is the largest one in $x_2, cdots, x_n$. For $sum_{i neq 1, n} x_i = 1 - x_1 - x_n$, we define the following functions ($1 < j, k < n$, $j neq k$):
begin{align}
g_{j, k}(x_j, x_k) = frac{(1 - x_j)^2 (1 - x_k)^2}{x_j x_k} = frac{a^2}{x_j x_k} + x_j x_k + 2 a,
end{align}

where $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i$. Similarly, if $a geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then $g_{j, k}$ attains its minimum iff $x_j = x_k$. If there exists $j$ and $k$ s.t. $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i < 3 - 2sqrt 2$, i.e. $x_j + x_k > 2sqrt 2 -2 > 0.82$. Then at least one of $x_j$ and $x_k$ is no less than $0.41$, e.g. $x_j$, then $x_n geq x_j geq 0.41$ and thus $a > x_n geq 0.41$, which is a contradiction. Therefore all $sum_{i neq j, k} x_i geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$. Now consider the function
begin{align}
g(x_2, cdots, x_{n-1}) = prod_{i=2}^{n-1} frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We first only let $x_2$ and $x_3$ move and fix the others. To attain the minimum we only need to consider $g_{2, 3}(x_2, x_3)$ and it must be $x_2 = x_3 = t$ for any other fixed variables. Then let $x_4$ move and we need to consider $g_{3, 4}(t, x_4)$. To attain the minimum, we then have $x_3 = x_4 = t$. Repeatedly, we get $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = t$, thus $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}$. Now consider $h(x_2, cdots, x_n)$, we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_n)^2}{x_n} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

%Denote the right side as $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ and it can be proved that $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ attains the minimum when $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ if $x_1 leq frac{1}{n}$ ($x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$).
Since $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n - 2}$, $x_n = 1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t$. Therefore we can consider the function
begin{align}
r (t) = frac{(x_1 +(n - 2) t)^2}{1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t} left(frac{(1 - t)^2}{t} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$. It can be proved that $r(t)$ attains the minimum at $t = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. The proof is nothing than straightforward but complicated calculation thus we omit the proof. Therefore, $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ and $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. Eventually we have
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x_1} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}} right)^{n-1}
end{align}

Denote the right side as $q(x_1)$, then we have
begin{align}
q'(x_1) = frac{(n - 1) (1 - x_1)^2
left(frac{(n - 1) left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{(1 - x_1)} right)^n
(n - x_1 - 2) (n x_1 - 1)
}{(x_1^2 (n + x_1 - 2)^3}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $1 - x_1 > 0$, $n + x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n - x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n x_1 - 1 geq 0$. Thus $q'(x_1) geq 0$ and $q(x_1)$ attains its minimum at $x_1 = frac{1}{n}$, thus $x_2 = cdots, x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}=frac{1}{n}$. In other words, we prove that
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{n})^2}{frac{1}{n}}right)^n = frac{(n - 1)^{2 cdot n}}{n^n}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = cdots x_n = frac{1}{n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 30 '18 at 15:12


















1












$begingroup$

Thanks so much for the help from @Alex Ravsky. I also write one proof based on his ideas.



When $n = 3$, since $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 1$, at least one of $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ is larger than $frac{1}{3}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Then construct the function $h(x_2, x_3)$ for $x_2, x_3 > 0$ and $x_2 + x_3 = 1 - x_1$:
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_2)^2 (1 - x_3)^2}{x_2 x_3} = frac{x_1^2}{x_2 x_3} + x_2 x_3 + 2 x_1
end{align}

Using the mean value inequality, we have $x_2 x_3 leq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4}$. Thus if $frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} leq x_1$, i.e. $x_1 geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) geq frac{4 x_1^2}{(1 - x_1)^2} + frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} + 2 x_1
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$. Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{3} > 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, the condition holds. Now consider the function $f(x_1, x_2, x_3)$. Then
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x1} h(x_2, x_3) geq 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$ for every $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Assume $p(x_1) = 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2$, then for $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$, we have
begin{align}
p'(x_1) = frac{(1 + x)^3 (-1 + 3 x)}{4 x^2} geq 0,
end{align}

thus $p(x_1)$ attains it minimum iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$, i.e.
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{3})^2}{frac{1}{3}}right)^3 = frac{(3 - 1)^{2 cdot 3}}{3^3}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$ and $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2} = frac{1}{3}$.



Then we consider the case for $n > 3$. Similarly, without loss of generality, we can assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$. We still first fix $x_1$ and define
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i=2}^n frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We then assume $x_n$ is the largest one in $x_2, cdots, x_n$. For $sum_{i neq 1, n} x_i = 1 - x_1 - x_n$, we define the following functions ($1 < j, k < n$, $j neq k$):
begin{align}
g_{j, k}(x_j, x_k) = frac{(1 - x_j)^2 (1 - x_k)^2}{x_j x_k} = frac{a^2}{x_j x_k} + x_j x_k + 2 a,
end{align}

where $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i$. Similarly, if $a geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then $g_{j, k}$ attains its minimum iff $x_j = x_k$. If there exists $j$ and $k$ s.t. $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i < 3 - 2sqrt 2$, i.e. $x_j + x_k > 2sqrt 2 -2 > 0.82$. Then at least one of $x_j$ and $x_k$ is no less than $0.41$, e.g. $x_j$, then $x_n geq x_j geq 0.41$ and thus $a > x_n geq 0.41$, which is a contradiction. Therefore all $sum_{i neq j, k} x_i geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$. Now consider the function
begin{align}
g(x_2, cdots, x_{n-1}) = prod_{i=2}^{n-1} frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We first only let $x_2$ and $x_3$ move and fix the others. To attain the minimum we only need to consider $g_{2, 3}(x_2, x_3)$ and it must be $x_2 = x_3 = t$ for any other fixed variables. Then let $x_4$ move and we need to consider $g_{3, 4}(t, x_4)$. To attain the minimum, we then have $x_3 = x_4 = t$. Repeatedly, we get $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = t$, thus $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}$. Now consider $h(x_2, cdots, x_n)$, we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_n)^2}{x_n} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

%Denote the right side as $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ and it can be proved that $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ attains the minimum when $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ if $x_1 leq frac{1}{n}$ ($x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$).
Since $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n - 2}$, $x_n = 1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t$. Therefore we can consider the function
begin{align}
r (t) = frac{(x_1 +(n - 2) t)^2}{1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t} left(frac{(1 - t)^2}{t} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$. It can be proved that $r(t)$ attains the minimum at $t = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. The proof is nothing than straightforward but complicated calculation thus we omit the proof. Therefore, $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ and $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. Eventually we have
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x_1} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}} right)^{n-1}
end{align}

Denote the right side as $q(x_1)$, then we have
begin{align}
q'(x_1) = frac{(n - 1) (1 - x_1)^2
left(frac{(n - 1) left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{(1 - x_1)} right)^n
(n - x_1 - 2) (n x_1 - 1)
}{(x_1^2 (n + x_1 - 2)^3}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $1 - x_1 > 0$, $n + x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n - x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n x_1 - 1 geq 0$. Thus $q'(x_1) geq 0$ and $q(x_1)$ attains its minimum at $x_1 = frac{1}{n}$, thus $x_2 = cdots, x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}=frac{1}{n}$. In other words, we prove that
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{n})^2}{frac{1}{n}}right)^n = frac{(n - 1)^{2 cdot n}}{n^n}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = cdots x_n = frac{1}{n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 30 '18 at 15:12
















1












1








1





$begingroup$

Thanks so much for the help from @Alex Ravsky. I also write one proof based on his ideas.



When $n = 3$, since $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 1$, at least one of $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ is larger than $frac{1}{3}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Then construct the function $h(x_2, x_3)$ for $x_2, x_3 > 0$ and $x_2 + x_3 = 1 - x_1$:
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_2)^2 (1 - x_3)^2}{x_2 x_3} = frac{x_1^2}{x_2 x_3} + x_2 x_3 + 2 x_1
end{align}

Using the mean value inequality, we have $x_2 x_3 leq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4}$. Thus if $frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} leq x_1$, i.e. $x_1 geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) geq frac{4 x_1^2}{(1 - x_1)^2} + frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} + 2 x_1
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$. Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{3} > 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, the condition holds. Now consider the function $f(x_1, x_2, x_3)$. Then
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x1} h(x_2, x_3) geq 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$ for every $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Assume $p(x_1) = 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2$, then for $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$, we have
begin{align}
p'(x_1) = frac{(1 + x)^3 (-1 + 3 x)}{4 x^2} geq 0,
end{align}

thus $p(x_1)$ attains it minimum iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$, i.e.
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{3})^2}{frac{1}{3}}right)^3 = frac{(3 - 1)^{2 cdot 3}}{3^3}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$ and $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2} = frac{1}{3}$.



Then we consider the case for $n > 3$. Similarly, without loss of generality, we can assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$. We still first fix $x_1$ and define
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i=2}^n frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We then assume $x_n$ is the largest one in $x_2, cdots, x_n$. For $sum_{i neq 1, n} x_i = 1 - x_1 - x_n$, we define the following functions ($1 < j, k < n$, $j neq k$):
begin{align}
g_{j, k}(x_j, x_k) = frac{(1 - x_j)^2 (1 - x_k)^2}{x_j x_k} = frac{a^2}{x_j x_k} + x_j x_k + 2 a,
end{align}

where $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i$. Similarly, if $a geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then $g_{j, k}$ attains its minimum iff $x_j = x_k$. If there exists $j$ and $k$ s.t. $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i < 3 - 2sqrt 2$, i.e. $x_j + x_k > 2sqrt 2 -2 > 0.82$. Then at least one of $x_j$ and $x_k$ is no less than $0.41$, e.g. $x_j$, then $x_n geq x_j geq 0.41$ and thus $a > x_n geq 0.41$, which is a contradiction. Therefore all $sum_{i neq j, k} x_i geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$. Now consider the function
begin{align}
g(x_2, cdots, x_{n-1}) = prod_{i=2}^{n-1} frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We first only let $x_2$ and $x_3$ move and fix the others. To attain the minimum we only need to consider $g_{2, 3}(x_2, x_3)$ and it must be $x_2 = x_3 = t$ for any other fixed variables. Then let $x_4$ move and we need to consider $g_{3, 4}(t, x_4)$. To attain the minimum, we then have $x_3 = x_4 = t$. Repeatedly, we get $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = t$, thus $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}$. Now consider $h(x_2, cdots, x_n)$, we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_n)^2}{x_n} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

%Denote the right side as $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ and it can be proved that $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ attains the minimum when $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ if $x_1 leq frac{1}{n}$ ($x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$).
Since $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n - 2}$, $x_n = 1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t$. Therefore we can consider the function
begin{align}
r (t) = frac{(x_1 +(n - 2) t)^2}{1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t} left(frac{(1 - t)^2}{t} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$. It can be proved that $r(t)$ attains the minimum at $t = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. The proof is nothing than straightforward but complicated calculation thus we omit the proof. Therefore, $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ and $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. Eventually we have
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x_1} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}} right)^{n-1}
end{align}

Denote the right side as $q(x_1)$, then we have
begin{align}
q'(x_1) = frac{(n - 1) (1 - x_1)^2
left(frac{(n - 1) left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{(1 - x_1)} right)^n
(n - x_1 - 2) (n x_1 - 1)
}{(x_1^2 (n + x_1 - 2)^3}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $1 - x_1 > 0$, $n + x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n - x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n x_1 - 1 geq 0$. Thus $q'(x_1) geq 0$ and $q(x_1)$ attains its minimum at $x_1 = frac{1}{n}$, thus $x_2 = cdots, x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}=frac{1}{n}$. In other words, we prove that
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{n})^2}{frac{1}{n}}right)^n = frac{(n - 1)^{2 cdot n}}{n^n}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = cdots x_n = frac{1}{n}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Thanks so much for the help from @Alex Ravsky. I also write one proof based on his ideas.



When $n = 3$, since $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 1$, at least one of $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ is larger than $frac{1}{3}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Then construct the function $h(x_2, x_3)$ for $x_2, x_3 > 0$ and $x_2 + x_3 = 1 - x_1$:
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_2)^2 (1 - x_3)^2}{x_2 x_3} = frac{x_1^2}{x_2 x_3} + x_2 x_3 + 2 x_1
end{align}

Using the mean value inequality, we have $x_2 x_3 leq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4}$. Thus if $frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} leq x_1$, i.e. $x_1 geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, x_3) geq frac{4 x_1^2}{(1 - x_1)^2} + frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{4} + 2 x_1
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$. Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{3} > 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, the condition holds. Now consider the function $f(x_1, x_2, x_3)$. Then
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) = frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x1} h(x_2, x_3) geq 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2}$ for every $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$. Assume $p(x_1) = 4 x_1 + frac{(1 - x_1)^4}{4 x_1} + 2 (1 - x_1)^2$, then for $x_1 geq frac{1}{3}$, we have
begin{align}
p'(x_1) = frac{(1 + x)^3 (-1 + 3 x)}{4 x^2} geq 0,
end{align}

thus $p(x_1)$ attains it minimum iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$, i.e.
begin{align}
f(x_1, x_2, x_3) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{3})^2}{frac{1}{3}}right)^3 = frac{(3 - 1)^{2 cdot 3}}{3^3}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = frac{1}{3}$ and $x_2 = x_3 = frac{1 - x_1}{2} = frac{1}{3}$.



Then we consider the case for $n > 3$. Similarly, without loss of generality, we can assume $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$. We still first fix $x_1$ and define
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) = prod_{i=2}^n frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We then assume $x_n$ is the largest one in $x_2, cdots, x_n$. For $sum_{i neq 1, n} x_i = 1 - x_1 - x_n$, we define the following functions ($1 < j, k < n$, $j neq k$):
begin{align}
g_{j, k}(x_j, x_k) = frac{(1 - x_j)^2 (1 - x_k)^2}{x_j x_k} = frac{a^2}{x_j x_k} + x_j x_k + 2 a,
end{align}

where $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i$. Similarly, if $a geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$, then $g_{j, k}$ attains its minimum iff $x_j = x_k$. If there exists $j$ and $k$ s.t. $a = sum_{i neq j, k} x_i < 3 - 2sqrt 2$, i.e. $x_j + x_k > 2sqrt 2 -2 > 0.82$. Then at least one of $x_j$ and $x_k$ is no less than $0.41$, e.g. $x_j$, then $x_n geq x_j geq 0.41$ and thus $a > x_n geq 0.41$, which is a contradiction. Therefore all $sum_{i neq j, k} x_i geq 3 - 2 sqrt 2$. Now consider the function
begin{align}
g(x_2, cdots, x_{n-1}) = prod_{i=2}^{n-1} frac{(1 - x_i)^2}{x_i}.
end{align}

We first only let $x_2$ and $x_3$ move and fix the others. To attain the minimum we only need to consider $g_{2, 3}(x_2, x_3)$ and it must be $x_2 = x_3 = t$ for any other fixed variables. Then let $x_4$ move and we need to consider $g_{3, 4}(t, x_4)$. To attain the minimum, we then have $x_3 = x_4 = t$. Repeatedly, we get $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = t$, thus $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}$. Now consider $h(x_2, cdots, x_n)$, we have
begin{align}
h(x_2, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_n)^2}{x_n} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n-2}} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

%Denote the right side as $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ and it can be proved that $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ attains the minimum when $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ if $x_1 leq frac{1}{n}$ ($x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$).
Since $t = frac{1 - x_1 - x_n}{n - 2}$, $x_n = 1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t$. Therefore we can consider the function
begin{align}
r (t) = frac{(x_1 +(n - 2) t)^2}{1 - x_1 - (n - 2) t} left(frac{(1 - t)^2}{t} right)^{n-2}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $x_n leq 1 - frac{1}{n}$. It can be proved that $r(t)$ attains the minimum at $t = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. The proof is nothing than straightforward but complicated calculation thus we omit the proof. Therefore, $x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$ and $x_2 = cdots = x_{n-1} = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}$. Eventually we have
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq frac{(1 - x_1)^2}{x_1} left( frac{left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}} right)^{n-1}
end{align}

Denote the right side as $q(x_1)$, then we have
begin{align}
q'(x_1) = frac{(n - 1) (1 - x_1)^2
left(frac{(n - 1) left(1 - frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}right)^2}{(1 - x_1)} right)^n
(n - x_1 - 2) (n x_1 - 1)
}{(x_1^2 (n + x_1 - 2)^3}
end{align}

Since $x_1 geq frac{1}{n}$, we have $1 - x_1 > 0$, $n + x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n - x_1 - 2 > 0$, $n x_1 - 1 geq 0$. Thus $q'(x_1) geq 0$ and $q(x_1)$ attains its minimum at $x_1 = frac{1}{n}$, thus $x_2 = cdots, x_n = frac{1 - x_1}{n - 1}=frac{1}{n}$. In other words, we prove that
begin{align}
f(x_1, cdots, x_n) geq left(frac{(1 - frac{1}{n})^2}{frac{1}{n}}right)^n = frac{(n - 1)^{2 cdot n}}{n^n}
end{align}

and the equality holds iff $x_1 = cdots x_n = frac{1}{n}$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:29

























answered Dec 18 '18 at 15:35









Rubisco LeeRubisco Lee

1148




1148












  • $begingroup$
    General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 30 '18 at 15:12




















  • $begingroup$
    General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Ravsky
    Dec 30 '18 at 15:12


















$begingroup$
General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
$endgroup$
– Alex Ravsky
Dec 30 '18 at 15:12






$begingroup$
General solution’s way looks good, but I remark that deriving the properties of $operatorname{argmin} g$ we need first to prove or to assume that it exists. Also we assume first that $x_1gefrac 1n$ but later investigate $p_{x_1}(x_n)$ for a minimum when $x_1lefrac 1n$. Maybe this is a misprint.
$endgroup$
– Alex Ravsky
Dec 30 '18 at 15:12




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3044157%2fan-inequality-for-positive-definite-matrix-with-trace-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei