Sum of numerators divided by sum of denominators $leq$ the maximum fraction [duplicate]












-2












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • shorter proof of generalized mediant inequality?

    2 answers




Let $tfrac{a_1}{b_1},dots,tfrac{a_n}{b_n}$ where $a_i,b_i>0$. How can one prove that $$frac{sum_i a_i}{sum_i b_i}leq max_j tfrac{a_j}{b_j}$$?






inequality summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Martin R, Shubham Johri, Community♦ Jan 5 at 21:26


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.























    -2












    $begingroup$



    This question already has an answer here:




    • shorter proof of generalized mediant inequality?

      2 answers




    Let $tfrac{a_1}{b_1},dots,tfrac{a_n}{b_n}$ where $a_i,b_i>0$. How can one prove that $$frac{sum_i a_i}{sum_i b_i}leq max_j tfrac{a_j}{b_j}$$?






    inequality summation







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$



    marked as duplicate by Martin R, Shubham Johri, Community♦ Jan 5 at 21:26


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.





















      -2












      -2








      -2





      $begingroup$



      This question already has an answer here:




      • shorter proof of generalized mediant inequality?

        2 answers




      Let $tfrac{a_1}{b_1},dots,tfrac{a_n}{b_n}$ where $a_i,b_i>0$. How can one prove that $$frac{sum_i a_i}{sum_i b_i}leq max_j tfrac{a_j}{b_j}$$?






      inequality summation







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      This question already has an answer here:




      • shorter proof of generalized mediant inequality?

        2 answers




      Let $tfrac{a_1}{b_1},dots,tfrac{a_n}{b_n}$ where $a_i,b_i>0$. How can one prove that $$frac{sum_i a_i}{sum_i b_i}leq max_j tfrac{a_j}{b_j}$$?





      This question already has an answer here:




      • shorter proof of generalized mediant inequality?

        2 answers







      inequality summation




      inequality summation






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 5 at 21:23









      Michael Rozenberg

      107k1894199




      107k1894199










      asked Jan 5 at 21:02









      Amihai ZivanAmihai Zivan

      1,87411625




      1,87411625




      marked as duplicate by Martin R, Shubham Johri, Community♦ Jan 5 at 21:26


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









      marked as duplicate by Martin R, Shubham Johri, Community♦ Jan 5 at 21:26


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Let for all $k$ we have
          $$frac{a_j}{b_j}geqfrac{a_k}{b_k}$$ or
          $$a_jb_kgeq a_kb_j.$$
          Thus, $$a_jsum_{k=1}^nb_kgeqsum_{k=1}^na_kb_j=b_jsum_{k=1}^na_k.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            Let $${a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$therefore $${a_iover b_i}le {a_kover b_k}$$for any $i$ which is equivalent to $$a_ib_kle a_kb_i$$by a summation we finally have $$b_ksum_i a_ile a_ksum_i b_i$$or $${sum_i a_iover sum_i b_i}le {a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$




















              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              Let for all $k$ we have
              $$frac{a_j}{b_j}geqfrac{a_k}{b_k}$$ or
              $$a_jb_kgeq a_kb_j.$$
              Thus, $$a_jsum_{k=1}^nb_kgeqsum_{k=1}^na_kb_j=b_jsum_{k=1}^na_k.$$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                Let for all $k$ we have
                $$frac{a_j}{b_j}geqfrac{a_k}{b_k}$$ or
                $$a_jb_kgeq a_kb_j.$$
                Thus, $$a_jsum_{k=1}^nb_kgeqsum_{k=1}^na_kb_j=b_jsum_{k=1}^na_k.$$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Let for all $k$ we have
                  $$frac{a_j}{b_j}geqfrac{a_k}{b_k}$$ or
                  $$a_jb_kgeq a_kb_j.$$
                  Thus, $$a_jsum_{k=1}^nb_kgeqsum_{k=1}^na_kb_j=b_jsum_{k=1}^na_k.$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Let for all $k$ we have
                  $$frac{a_j}{b_j}geqfrac{a_k}{b_k}$$ or
                  $$a_jb_kgeq a_kb_j.$$
                  Thus, $$a_jsum_{k=1}^nb_kgeqsum_{k=1}^na_kb_j=b_jsum_{k=1}^na_k.$$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 5 at 21:19









                  Michael RozenbergMichael Rozenberg

                  107k1894199




                  107k1894199























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      Let $${a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$therefore $${a_iover b_i}le {a_kover b_k}$$for any $i$ which is equivalent to $$a_ib_kle a_kb_i$$by a summation we finally have $$b_ksum_i a_ile a_ksum_i b_i$$or $${sum_i a_iover sum_i b_i}le {a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        Let $${a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$therefore $${a_iover b_i}le {a_kover b_k}$$for any $i$ which is equivalent to $$a_ib_kle a_kb_i$$by a summation we finally have $$b_ksum_i a_ile a_ksum_i b_i$$or $${sum_i a_iover sum_i b_i}le {a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          Let $${a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$therefore $${a_iover b_i}le {a_kover b_k}$$for any $i$ which is equivalent to $$a_ib_kle a_kb_i$$by a summation we finally have $$b_ksum_i a_ile a_ksum_i b_i$$or $${sum_i a_iover sum_i b_i}le {a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          Let $${a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$therefore $${a_iover b_i}le {a_kover b_k}$$for any $i$ which is equivalent to $$a_ib_kle a_kb_i$$by a summation we finally have $$b_ksum_i a_ile a_ksum_i b_i$$or $${sum_i a_iover sum_i b_i}le {a_kover b_k}=max_i{a_iover b_i}$$







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Jan 5 at 21:21









                          Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

                          15.7k3939




                          15.7k3939















                              -

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Quarter-circle Tiles

                              Image
                              up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
                              Read more

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

                              Image
                              0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
                              Read more

                              Mont Emei

                              Image
                              Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
                              Read more