The Harvard College Mathematics Review (HCMR) published its inaugural issue in April 2007, and the second issue was out almost a fortnight ago. Clearly, the level of exposition contained in the articles is extremely high, and it is a pleasure reading all the articles even though a lot of it may not make a lot of sense to a lot of people. I would recommend anyone to visit their website and browse all their issues. For problem-solvers, the problem section in each issue is a delight!

Anyway, the first issue’s problem section contained a somewhat hard inequality problem (proposed by Shrenik Shah), which I was able to solve and for which my solution was acknowledged in the problem section of the second issue. The HCMR carried Greg Price’s solution to that particular problem, and I must say his solution is somewhat more “natural” and “intuitive” than the one I gave.

Well, I want to present my solution here but in a more detailed fashion. In particular, I want to develop the familiar inequality up to a point where the solution to the aforesaid problem turns out to be somewhat “trivial.” The buildup to the final solution itself is non-trivial, however. This post relies on the material presented in the classic book *Problems and Theorems in Analysis I* by George Pólya and Gabor Szegö. Again, I strongly recommend all problem-solvers to study this book. Anyway, we will now state the problem and discuss its solution. (I have slightly changed the formulation of the problem in order to avoid any possible copyright issues.)

Problem:For all distinct positive reals and , show that.

First, let us discuss some facts.

**1.** *inequality*: If are positive real numbers, then

,

with equality if and only if .

**Proof:** For a hint on proving the above using mathematical induction, read this. However, we will make use of Jensen’s inequality to prove the above result. We won’t prove Jensen’s inequality here, though it too can be proved using induction.

*Jensen’s inequality*: Let be a continuous convex function. Let be positive reals such that . Then for all , we have

,

with equality if and only if .

Now, in order to prove **(1)**, consider the function defined by . Indeed, is continuous on the stated domain. Also, , which implies is convex on . Therefore, using Jensen’s inequality and setting , for positive reals , we have

(since is monotonically increasing on .)

This proves the first part of the inequality in **(1)**. Now, replace each with for to derive the second part of the inequality. And, this proves the inequality.

We can generalize this further. Indeed, for any positive reals and positive reals , replacing each with for , and using Jensen’s inequality for once again, we obtain the following generalized inequality, which we shall call by a different name:

**2.** *Generalized Cauchy Inequality* (non-integral version) : For any positive reals and positive reals , we have

.

Now, the remarkable thing is we can generalize the above inequality even further to obtain the following integral version of the inequality.

**3.** *Generalized Cauchy Inequality* (integral version) : Let and be continuous and positive functions on the interval [] ; also suppose is not a constant function. Then we have

,

where .

Okay, now we are finally ready to solve our original problem. First, without any loss of generality, we can assume . Now, we shall use the above version of the Generalized Cauchy Inequality, and so we set and . Here and are both positive functions on the interval []. Also, note that is not a constant function.

Thus, we have .

Also, .

And, .

Combining and , we immediately obtain the desired inequality. And, we are done.

## 5 comments

Comments feed for this article

January 8, 2008 at 2:34 am

John smithvishal ,

can the problem be solved using only basic algebra and no calculus or analysis?

January 8, 2008 at 2:35 am

John smithi havent really studied integrals yet

January 8, 2008 at 3:19 am

VishalHi John,

Here is the problem/solution section that carried the solution by Greg Price. (The pdf file is considerably smaller than the one containing the whole issue; so, it should take much less time to download.)

Greg’s solution uses Taylor series expansion of a logarithmic function and relies on differentiation. I am not sure if you will find it elementary enough.

In fact, “the proposer noted that the inequality in the problem was obtained by taking the limit of the

AM-GM-HMinequality for an arithmetic sequence ofnterms fromatobasngoes to infinity.” And, I believe that approach is an elementary one, but I think it isn’t “strong” enough to establish strict inequality.January 8, 2008 at 6:12 am

John smithWell let me ask, what is the most basic solution?

..involving nothing but (high school) algebra is it possible or not given that it involves the log function?

January 8, 2008 at 8:24 am

VishalHi John,

I think it will be a good idea if you send an email to the guys who publish the HCMR to inquire about the original source of the problem, which was proposed by Shrenik Shah, as you might know. I

dothink there might be a solution involving just high school math, though I don’t have such a solution right now with me.