Difference between revisions of "Proofs of AM-GM"

Revision as of 15:29, 13 October 2020

This pages lists some proofs of the weighted AM-GM Inequality. The inequality's statement is as follows: for all nonnegative reals $a_1, \dotsc, a_n$ and nonnegative reals $\lambda_1, \dotsc, \lambda_n$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i = 1$ , then $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i a_i \ge \prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i},$ with equality if and only if $a_i = a_j$ for all $i,j$ such that $\lambda_i, \lambda_j \neq 0$ .

We first note that we may disregard any $a_i$ for which $\lambda_i= 0$ , as they contribute to neither side of the desired inequality. We also note that if $a_i= 0$ and $\lambda_i \neq 0$ , for some $i$ , then the right-hand side of the inequality is zero and the left hand of the inequality is greater or equal to zero, with equality if and only if $a_j = 0 = a_i$ whenever $\lambda_j\neq 0$ . Thus we may henceforth assume that all $a_i$ and $\lambda_i$ are strictly positive.

Complete Proofs

Proof by Convexity

We note that the function $x \mapsto \ln x$ is strictly concave. Then by Jensen's Inequality, $\ln \sum_i \lambda_i a_i \ge \sum_i \lambda_i \ln a_i = \ln \prod_i a_i^{\lambda_i} ,$ with equality if and only if all the $a_i$ are equal. Since $x \mapsto \ln x$ is a strictly increasing function, it then follows that $\sum_i \lambda_i a_i \ge \prod_i a_i^{\lambda_i},$ with equality if and only if all the $a_i$ are equal, as desired. $\blacksquare$

Alternate Proof by Convexity

This proof is due to G. Pólya.

Note that the function $f:x \mapsto e^x$ is strictly convex. Let $g(x)$ be the line tangent to $f$ at $(0,1)$ ; then $g(x) = x+1$ . Since $f$ is also a continuous, differentiable function, it follows that $f(x) \ge g(x)$ for all $x$ , with equality exactly when $x=0$ , i.e., $1+x \le e^x,$ with equality exactly when $x=0$ .

Now, set $r_i = a_i/\biggl( \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j \biggr) - 1,$ for all integers $1\le i \le n$ . Our earlier bound tells us that $r_i +1 \le \exp(r_i),$ so $(r_i +1)^{\lambda_i} \le \exp(\lambda_i r_i) .$ Multiplying $n$ such inequalities gives us

$\prod_{i=1}^n (r_i + 1)^{\lambda_{i}} \le \prod_{i=1}^n \exp \lambda_i r_i$

Evaluating the left hand side:

$\prod_{i=1}^n (r_i + 1)^{\lambda_{i}} = \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} }{ (\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j)^{\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_i} } = \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} }{ \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j } ,$

for

$\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_i = 1 .$

Evaluating the right hand side:

$\prod_{i=1}^n \exp \lambda_i r_i = \prod_{i=1}^n \exp (\frac{a_i \lambda_i}{ \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_j a_j} - \lambda_i) = \exp (\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i \lambda_i}{ \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_j a_j} - \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i) = \exp 0 = 1 .$

Substituting the results for the left and right sides:

$\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} }{ \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j } \le 1$

$\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} \le \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j = \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i a_i ,$

as desired. $\blacksquare$

Proofs of Unweighted AM-GM

These proofs use the assumption that $\lambda_i = 1/n$ , for all integers $1 \le i \le n$ .

Proof by Rearrangement

Define the $n$ sequence $\{ r_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^{n}$ as $r_{i,j} = \sqrt[n]{a_i}$ , for all integers $1 \le i,j \le n$ . Evidently these sequences are similarly sorted. Then by the Rearrangement Inequality, $\sum_i a_i = \sum_i \prod_j r_{i,j} \ge \sum_i \prod_j r_{i+j,j} = n \prod_i \sqrt[n]{a_i} ,$ where we take our indices modulo $n$ , with equality exactly when all the $r_{i,j}$ , and therefore all the $a_i$ , are equal. Dividing both sides by $n$ gives the desired inequality. $\blacksquare$

Proof by Cauchy Induction

We first prove that the inequality holds for two variables. Note that $(\sqrt{a}, \sqrt{b}), (\sqrt{a}, \sqrt{b})$ are similarly sorted sequences. Then by the Rearrangement Inequality, $\sqrt{ab} = \frac{ \sqrt{a} \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{b} \sqrt{a}}{2} \le \frac{ \sqrt{a} \sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} \sqrt{b}}{2} = \frac{a+b}{2} ,$ with equality exactly when $a=b$ .

We next prove that if the inequality holds for $n$ variables (with equality when all are equal to zero), than it holds for $2n$ variables (with equality when all are equal to zero). Indeed, suppose the inequality holds for $n$ variables. Let $A_n, A'_n, A_{2n}$ denote the arithmetic means of $(a_1, \dotsc, a_n)$ , $(a_{n+1}, \dotsc, a_{2n})$ , $(a_1, \dotsc, a_{2n})$ , respectively; let $G_n, G'_n, G_{2n}$ denote their respective geometric means. Then $G_{2n} = \sqrt{G_n G'_n} \le \frac{G_n + G'_n}{2} \le \frac{A_n + A'_n}{2} = A_{2n},$ with equality when all the numbers $a_1, \dotsc, a_{2n}$ are equal, as desired.

These two results show by induction that the theorem holds for $n=2^k$ , for all integers $k$ . In particular, for every integer $n$ , there is an integer $N >n$ such that the theorem holds for $N$ variables.

Finally, we show that if $N>n$ and the theorem holds for $N$ variables, then it holds for $n$ variables $a_1, \dotsc, a_n$ with arithmetic mean $A_n$ and geometric mean $G_n$ . Indeed, set $b_k = a_k$ for $1\le k \le n$ , and let $b_k = A_n$ for $n < k \le N$ . Then $G_n^{n/N} \cdot A_n^{(N-n)/N} = \prod_{i=1}^N b_i^{1/N} \le \sum_{i=1}^N b_i/N = A_n .$ It follows that $G_k^{n/N} \le A_k^{n/N}$ , or $G_n \le A_n$ , with equality exactly when all the $a_i$ are equal to $A_k$ .

The last two results show that for all positive integers $n$ , the theorem holds for $n$ variables. Therefore the theorem is true. $\blacksquare$

Alternate Proof by Induction

Because $(a-b)^2$ is a square, $(a-b)^2\geq 0$ . Now, through algebra: $a^2-2ab+b^2 \geq 0$ $a^2+2ab+b^2 \geq 4ab$ $\frac{(a+b)^2}4 \geq ab$ $\frac{a+b}2 \geq \sqrt{ab}$ From here, we proceed with induction through the second paragraph of the above proof with Cauchy Induction to show the theorem is true. $\blacksquare$

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 with equality if and only if <math>a_i = a_j</math> for all <math>i,j</math> such that <math>\lambda_i, \lambda_j \neq 0</math>.
-We first note that we may disregard any <math>a_i</math> for which <math>\lambda_i= 0</math>, as they contribute to neither side of the desired inequality.  We also note that if <math>a_i= 0</math> and <math>\lambda_i \neq 0</math>, for some <math>i</math>, then the right-hand side of the inequality is zero and the right hand of the inequality is greater or equal to zero, with equality if and only if <math>a_j = 0 = a_i</math> whenever <math>\lambda_j\neq 0</math>.  Thus we may henceforth assume that all <math>a_i</math> and <math>\lambda_i</math> are ''strictly positive.''
+We first note that we may disregard any <math>a_i</math> for which <math>\lambda_i= 0</math>, as they contribute to neither side of the desired inequality.  We also note that if <math>a_i= 0</math> and <math>\lambda_i \neq 0</math>, for some <math>i</math>, then the right-hand side of the inequality is zero and the left hand of the inequality is greater or equal to zero, with equality if and only if <math>a_j = 0 = a_i</math> whenever <math>\lambda_j\neq 0</math>.  Thus we may henceforth assume that all <math>a_i</math> and <math>\lambda_i</math> are ''strictly positive.''
 == Complete Proofs ==
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 === Proof by Convexity ===
-We note that the [[function]] <math>x \mapsto \ln x</math> is trictly [[concave]].  Then by [[Jensen's Inequality]],
+We note that the [[function]] <math>x \mapsto \ln x</math> is strictly [[concave]].  Then by [[Jensen's Inequality]],
-<cmath> \ln \sum_i \lambda_i a_i \ge \lambda_i \sum_i \ln a_i = ln \prod_i a_i^{\lambda_i} , </cmath>
+<cmath> \ln \sum_i \lambda_i a_i \ge \sum_i \lambda_i \ln a_i = \ln \prod_i a_i^{\lambda_i} , </cmath>
 with equality if and only if all the <math>a_i</math> are equal.
 Since <math>x \mapsto \ln x</math> is a strictly increasing function, it then follows that
 <cmath> \sum_i \lambda_i a_i \ge \prod_i a_i^{\lambda_i}, </cmath>
 with equality if and only if all the <math>a_i</math> are equal, as desired.  <math>\blacksquare</math>
+=== Alternate Proof by Convexity ===
+''This proof is due to [[G. Pólya]].''
+Note that the function <math>f:x \mapsto e^x</math> is strictly convex.  Let <math>g(x)</math> be the line tangent to <math>f</math> at <math>(0,1)</math>; then <math>g(x) = x+1</math>.  Since <math>f</math> is also a [[continuous]], [[differentiable]] function, it follows that <math>f(x) \ge g(x)</math> for all <math>x</math>, with equality exactly when <math>x=0</math>, i.e.,
+<cmath> 1+x \le e^x, </cmath>
+with equality exactly when <math>x=0</math>.
+Now, set
+<cmath> r_i = a_i/\biggl( \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j \biggr) - 1, </cmath>
+for all integers <math>1\le i \le n</math>.  Our earlier bound tells us that
+<cmath> r_i +1 \le \exp(r_i), </cmath>
+so
+<cmath> (r_i +1)^{\lambda_i} \le \exp(\lambda_i r_i) .</cmath>
+Multiplying <math>n</math> such inequalities gives us
+<cmath>\prod_{i=1}^n (r_i + 1)^{\lambda_{i}} \le \prod_{i=1}^n \exp \lambda_i r_i </cmath>
+Evaluating the left hand side:
+<cmath>\prod_{i=1}^n (r_i + 1)^{\lambda_{i}} = \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} }{ (\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j)^{\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_i} } =  \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} }{ \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j } ,</cmath>
+for
+<cmath> \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_i = 1 .</cmath>
+Evaluating the right hand side:
+<cmath> \prod_{i=1}^n \exp \lambda_i r_i =  \prod_{i=1}^n \exp (\frac{a_i \lambda_i}{ \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_j a_j} -  \lambda_i) = \exp (\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i \lambda_i}{ \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_j a_j} - \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i) = \exp 0 = 1 .</cmath>
+Substituting the results for the left and right sides:
+<cmath> \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} }{ \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j } \le 1 </cmath>
+<cmath> \prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\lambda_i} \le  \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j a_j =  \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i a_i , </cmath>
+as desired. <math>\blacksquare</math>
 == Proofs of Unweighted AM-GM ==
@@ Line 22: / Line 60: @@
 === Proof by Rearrangement ===
-Define the <math>n</math> sequence <math>\{ r_{ij}\}_{i=1}^{n}</math> as <math>r_{ij} = \sqrt[n]{a_i}</math>, for all integers <math>1 \le i,j \le n</math>.  Evidently these sequences are similarly sorted.  Then by the [[Rearrangement Inequality]],
+Define the <math>n</math> sequence <math>\{ r_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^{n}</math> as <math>r_{i,j} = \sqrt[n]{a_i}</math>, for all integers <math>1 \le i,j \le n</math>.  Evidently these sequences are similarly sorted.  Then by the [[Rearrangement Inequality]],
-<cmath> \sum_i a_i = \sum_i \prod_j r_{ij} \ge \sum_i \prod_j r(i,i+j) = n \prod_i \sqrt[n]{a_i} , </cmath>
+<cmath> \sum_i a_i = \sum_i \prod_j r_{i,j} \ge \sum_i \prod_j r_{i+j,j} = n \prod_i \sqrt[n]{a_i} , </cmath>
-where we take our indices modulo <math>n</math>, with equality exactly when all the <math>r_{ij}</math>, and therefore all the <math>a_i</math>, are equal.  Dividing both sides by <math>n</math> gives the desired inequality.  <math>\blacksquare</math>
+where we take our indices modulo <math>n</math>, with equality exactly when all the <math>r_{i,j}</math>, and therefore all the <math>a_i</math>, are equal.  Dividing both sides by <math>n</math> gives the desired inequality.  <math>\blacksquare</math>
+=== Proof by [[Cauchy Induction]] ===
+We first prove that the inequality holds for two variables.  Note that <math>(\sqrt{a}, \sqrt{b}), (\sqrt{a}, \sqrt{b})</math> are similarly sorted sequences.  Then by the Rearrangement Inequality,
+<cmath> \sqrt{ab} = \frac{ \sqrt{a} \sqrt{b} + \sqrt{b} \sqrt{a}}{2} \le \frac{ \sqrt{a} \sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b} \sqrt{b}}{2} = \frac{a+b}{2} , </cmath>
+with equality exactly when <math>a=b</math>.
+We next prove that if the inequality holds for <math>n</math> variables (with equality when all are equal to zero), than it holds for <math>2n</math> variables (with equality when all are equal to zero).  Indeed, suppose the inequality holds for <math>n</math> variables.  Let <math>A_n, A'_n, A_{2n}</math> denote the arithmetic means of <math>(a_1, \dotsc, a_n)</math>, <math>(a_{n+1}, \dotsc, a_{2n})</math>, <math>(a_1, \dotsc, a_{2n})</math>, respectively; let <math>G_n, G'_n, G_{2n}</math> denote their respective geometric means.  Then
+<cmath> G_{2n} = \sqrt{G_n G'_n} \le \frac{G_n + G'_n}{2} \le \frac{A_n + A'_n}{2} = A_{2n}, </cmath>
+with equality when all the numbers <math>a_1, \dotsc, a_{2n}</math> are equal, as desired.
+These two results show by induction that the theorem holds for <math>n=2^k</math>, for all integers <math>k</math>.  In particular, for every integer <math>n</math>, there is an integer <math>N >n</math> such that the theorem holds for <math>N</math> variables.
+Finally, we show that if <math>N>n</math> and the theorem holds for <math>N</math> variables, then it holds for <math>n</math> variables <math>a_1, \dotsc, a_n</math> with arithmetic mean <math>A_n</math> and geometric mean <math>G_n</math>.  Indeed, set <math>b_k = a_k</math> for <math>1\le k \le n</math>, and let <math>b_k = A_n</math> for <math>n < k \le N</math>.  Then
+<cmath> G_n^{n/N} \cdot A_n^{(N-n)/N} = \prod_{i=1}^N b_i^{1/N} \le \sum_{i=1}^N b_i/N = A_n . </cmath>
+It follows that <math>G_k^{n/N} \le A_k^{n/N}</math>, or <math>G_n \le A_n</math>, with equality exactly when all the <math>a_i</math> are equal to <math>A_k</math>.
+The last two results show that for all positive integers <math>n</math>, the theorem holds for <math>n</math> variables.  Therefore the theorem is true.  <math>\blacksquare</math>
+=== Alternate Proof by Induction ===
+Because <math>(a-b)^2</math> is a square, <math>(a-b)^2\geq 0</math>. Now, through algebra:
+<cmath>a^2-2ab+b^2 \geq 0</cmath> <cmath>a^2+2ab+b^2 \geq 4ab</cmath> <cmath>\frac{(a+b)^2}4 \geq ab</cmath> <cmath>\frac{a+b}2 \geq \sqrt{ab}</cmath>
+From here, we proceed with induction through the second paragraph of the above proof with Cauchy Induction to show the theorem is true. <math>\blacksquare</math>
+[[Category:Inequality]]

Page

Toolbox

Search