the inequality shows symmetry in a, b and c. nature does not favor one or the other.
Wait is this an actual theorem? What is it called?the inequality shows symmetry in a, b and c. nature does not favor one or the other.
minimum value when a=b=c=3/4
Symmetry in variables does not mean that minima occur when all variables are equal...the inequality shows symmetry in a, b and c. nature does not favor one or the other.
minimum value when a=b=c=3/4
in this case when does minimum occur?Symmetry in variables does not mean that minima occur when all variables are equal...
Nice! Well done.
In this question it happens to occur when x,y and z are equal. But this isn't because of symmetry, this is because Davo has shown it above (the only steps where inequality was introduced was the applications of AM-GM, whose equality conditions we understand well.) Writing what you did is not valid because there is no reason (that you have provided) why such an expression HAS to be minimised at x=y=z.in this case when does minimum occur?
In this case the minimum 3/4 is given. The expression equals the min value when a=b=c, this is chosen due to symmetry, or should I say the cyclic nature of the expression. If a, b and c are different then the expression will be >= 3/4.In this question it happens to occur when x,y and z are equal. But this isn't because of symmetry, this is because Davo has shown it above (the only steps where inequality was introduced was the applications of AM-GM, whose equality conditions we understand well.) Writing what you did is not valid because there is no reason (that you have provided) why such an expression HAS to be minimised at x=y=z.
Yes, it does equal 3/4 when a=b=c. But this does not prove that this is a minimum, and you cannot assume 3/4 is a minimum because that is what the question is asking you to prove.In this case the minimum 3/4 is given. The expression equals the min value when a=b=c, this is chosen due to symmetry, or should I say the cyclic nature of the expression. If a, b and c are different then the expression will be >= 3/4.
Nice, very cleverNice! Well done.
Here is my solution:
(Using cyclical sum notation to shorten writing)
Picture it this way in two variables x and y:Yes, it does equal 3/4 when a=b=c. But this does not prove that this is a minimum, and you cannot assume 3/4 is a minimum because that is what the question is asking you to prove.
Symmetry means that a=b=c is often a good candidate for a minimum, but doesn't prove anything without additional information.
So what if some symmetric expressions have extrema when all variables are equal? This does not mean that all do, so we can't use it in proofs.Look at some easier examples to picture. Area of a rectangle of fixed perimeter = xy, symmetry in x and y; volume of a cuboid of fixed surface area = xyz, symmetry in x, y and z.
Great question!A triangle with side lengths a, b, c is inscribed in a circle of radius 1. Prove that a+b+c>=abc.
Because of the constants.So what if some symmetric expressions have extrema when all variables are equal? This does not mean that all do, so we can't use it in proofs.
Here is a symmetric expression in two variables, (switching x and y just switches the roles of the two bracketed terms).
But P only attains it's minimum of 0 at (1,-1) and (-1,1). When x=y, it is positive.
Why does your "rule" apply for the question Sy asked, but not for the expression in this post?