Inequality that I believe can be conquered with Cauchy Schwarz I.E











up vote
-2
down vote

favorite












There are ten real numbers $x_0, . . . , x_9$ with $x_0 = 0, x_9 = 9$. What is the smallest possible value of the expression
$$(x_1 − x_0)^2/1 +(x_2 − x_1)^2/2+(x_3 − x_2)^2/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)^2/9$$?
I thought this problem had cauchy schwartz I.E written all over it , I was able to get the $x_i$'s to telescope down to $9^2$ or $ 81$ but then Im getting confused what will be the bi in the sum. will it be the sum of $1+1/2+1/3...+1/9$ or just $1+2+3...+9$ ? please help :(










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    well the expression is just $1+(1-1/2)x_1+(1/2-1/3)x_2+cdots+(1/8-1/9)x_8$ so you can make it as small as you like, as there are no constraints on $x_1,cdots,x_8$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 13 at 7:56












  • maybe $x_i$'s are ordered?
    – pointguard0
    Nov 13 at 8:00










  • Please clarify how $x_i$ are selected among 0,1,...,9
    – gimusi
    Nov 13 at 8:18










  • thats exactly how contest author worded it .. xi are real
    – Randin
    Nov 13 at 8:31








  • 1




    @Randin: With $(x_0, ldots, x_9) = (0, a, ldots, a, 9)$ the expression becomes $frac 89 a$, that can be arbitrary large or small.
    – Martin R
    Nov 13 at 8:41

















up vote
-2
down vote

favorite












There are ten real numbers $x_0, . . . , x_9$ with $x_0 = 0, x_9 = 9$. What is the smallest possible value of the expression
$$(x_1 − x_0)^2/1 +(x_2 − x_1)^2/2+(x_3 − x_2)^2/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)^2/9$$?
I thought this problem had cauchy schwartz I.E written all over it , I was able to get the $x_i$'s to telescope down to $9^2$ or $ 81$ but then Im getting confused what will be the bi in the sum. will it be the sum of $1+1/2+1/3...+1/9$ or just $1+2+3...+9$ ? please help :(










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    well the expression is just $1+(1-1/2)x_1+(1/2-1/3)x_2+cdots+(1/8-1/9)x_8$ so you can make it as small as you like, as there are no constraints on $x_1,cdots,x_8$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 13 at 7:56












  • maybe $x_i$'s are ordered?
    – pointguard0
    Nov 13 at 8:00










  • Please clarify how $x_i$ are selected among 0,1,...,9
    – gimusi
    Nov 13 at 8:18










  • thats exactly how contest author worded it .. xi are real
    – Randin
    Nov 13 at 8:31








  • 1




    @Randin: With $(x_0, ldots, x_9) = (0, a, ldots, a, 9)$ the expression becomes $frac 89 a$, that can be arbitrary large or small.
    – Martin R
    Nov 13 at 8:41















up vote
-2
down vote

favorite









up vote
-2
down vote

favorite











There are ten real numbers $x_0, . . . , x_9$ with $x_0 = 0, x_9 = 9$. What is the smallest possible value of the expression
$$(x_1 − x_0)^2/1 +(x_2 − x_1)^2/2+(x_3 − x_2)^2/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)^2/9$$?
I thought this problem had cauchy schwartz I.E written all over it , I was able to get the $x_i$'s to telescope down to $9^2$ or $ 81$ but then Im getting confused what will be the bi in the sum. will it be the sum of $1+1/2+1/3...+1/9$ or just $1+2+3...+9$ ? please help :(










share|cite|improve this question















There are ten real numbers $x_0, . . . , x_9$ with $x_0 = 0, x_9 = 9$. What is the smallest possible value of the expression
$$(x_1 − x_0)^2/1 +(x_2 − x_1)^2/2+(x_3 − x_2)^2/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)^2/9$$?
I thought this problem had cauchy schwartz I.E written all over it , I was able to get the $x_i$'s to telescope down to $9^2$ or $ 81$ but then Im getting confused what will be the bi in the sum. will it be the sum of $1+1/2+1/3...+1/9$ or just $1+2+3...+9$ ? please help :(







inequality






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago

























asked Nov 13 at 7:51









Randin

259116




259116








  • 2




    well the expression is just $1+(1-1/2)x_1+(1/2-1/3)x_2+cdots+(1/8-1/9)x_8$ so you can make it as small as you like, as there are no constraints on $x_1,cdots,x_8$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 13 at 7:56












  • maybe $x_i$'s are ordered?
    – pointguard0
    Nov 13 at 8:00










  • Please clarify how $x_i$ are selected among 0,1,...,9
    – gimusi
    Nov 13 at 8:18










  • thats exactly how contest author worded it .. xi are real
    – Randin
    Nov 13 at 8:31








  • 1




    @Randin: With $(x_0, ldots, x_9) = (0, a, ldots, a, 9)$ the expression becomes $frac 89 a$, that can be arbitrary large or small.
    – Martin R
    Nov 13 at 8:41
















  • 2




    well the expression is just $1+(1-1/2)x_1+(1/2-1/3)x_2+cdots+(1/8-1/9)x_8$ so you can make it as small as you like, as there are no constraints on $x_1,cdots,x_8$
    – TheSimpliFire
    Nov 13 at 7:56












  • maybe $x_i$'s are ordered?
    – pointguard0
    Nov 13 at 8:00










  • Please clarify how $x_i$ are selected among 0,1,...,9
    – gimusi
    Nov 13 at 8:18










  • thats exactly how contest author worded it .. xi are real
    – Randin
    Nov 13 at 8:31








  • 1




    @Randin: With $(x_0, ldots, x_9) = (0, a, ldots, a, 9)$ the expression becomes $frac 89 a$, that can be arbitrary large or small.
    – Martin R
    Nov 13 at 8:41










2




2




well the expression is just $1+(1-1/2)x_1+(1/2-1/3)x_2+cdots+(1/8-1/9)x_8$ so you can make it as small as you like, as there are no constraints on $x_1,cdots,x_8$
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 13 at 7:56






well the expression is just $1+(1-1/2)x_1+(1/2-1/3)x_2+cdots+(1/8-1/9)x_8$ so you can make it as small as you like, as there are no constraints on $x_1,cdots,x_8$
– TheSimpliFire
Nov 13 at 7:56














maybe $x_i$'s are ordered?
– pointguard0
Nov 13 at 8:00




maybe $x_i$'s are ordered?
– pointguard0
Nov 13 at 8:00












Please clarify how $x_i$ are selected among 0,1,...,9
– gimusi
Nov 13 at 8:18




Please clarify how $x_i$ are selected among 0,1,...,9
– gimusi
Nov 13 at 8:18












thats exactly how contest author worded it .. xi are real
– Randin
Nov 13 at 8:31






thats exactly how contest author worded it .. xi are real
– Randin
Nov 13 at 8:31






1




1




@Randin: With $(x_0, ldots, x_9) = (0, a, ldots, a, 9)$ the expression becomes $frac 89 a$, that can be arbitrary large or small.
– Martin R
Nov 13 at 8:41






@Randin: With $(x_0, ldots, x_9) = (0, a, ldots, a, 9)$ the expression becomes $frac 89 a$, that can be arbitrary large or small.
– Martin R
Nov 13 at 8:41












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













cauchy schwartz inequality with writing the denominators as a sequence of radicals ]1






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    As noticed by TheSimpliFire we have



    $$(x_1 − x_0)/1 +(x_2 − x_1)/2+(x_3 − x_2)/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)/9=$$$$=(-1)cdot x_0+left(1-frac12right)x_1+left(frac12-frac13right)x_2+ldots+left(frac18-frac19right)x_8+frac19cdot x_9=$$



    and by $x_0=0$ and $x_9=9$



    $$frac12x_1+frac16x_2+frac1{12}x_3+frac1{20}x_4+frac1{30}x_5+frac1{42}x_6+frac1{56}x_7+frac1{72}x_8+1$$



    which can assume any value if $x_1,...,x_8$ are free and if we assume $x_0le x_1le ldots le x_8le x_9$ it is bounded between $1$ and $frac{33}4$.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
      – Martin R
      Nov 13 at 8:12










    • I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
      – gimusi
      Nov 13 at 8:14










    • Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
      – Martin R
      Nov 13 at 8:16












    • In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
      – gimusi
      Nov 13 at 8:17










    • Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
      – Martin R
      Nov 13 at 8:33




















    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    [![enter image description here][1]][1]



    [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fXUVO.jpg by cauchy schwarz the (xi+1 -x i ) telescope leaving 9^2=81 but then we have the denominators which are the sum of integers from 1 to 9 , this gives a total of 9/5






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      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',
      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%2f2996460%2finequality-that-i-believe-can-be-conquered-with-cauchy-schwarz-i-e%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote













      cauchy schwartz inequality with writing the denominators as a sequence of radicals ]1






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        cauchy schwartz inequality with writing the denominators as a sequence of radicals ]1






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          cauchy schwartz inequality with writing the denominators as a sequence of radicals ]1






          share|cite|improve this answer












          cauchy schwartz inequality with writing the denominators as a sequence of radicals ]1







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 16 hours ago









          Randin

          259116




          259116






















              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              As noticed by TheSimpliFire we have



              $$(x_1 − x_0)/1 +(x_2 − x_1)/2+(x_3 − x_2)/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)/9=$$$$=(-1)cdot x_0+left(1-frac12right)x_1+left(frac12-frac13right)x_2+ldots+left(frac18-frac19right)x_8+frac19cdot x_9=$$



              and by $x_0=0$ and $x_9=9$



              $$frac12x_1+frac16x_2+frac1{12}x_3+frac1{20}x_4+frac1{30}x_5+frac1{42}x_6+frac1{56}x_7+frac1{72}x_8+1$$



              which can assume any value if $x_1,...,x_8$ are free and if we assume $x_0le x_1le ldots le x_8le x_9$ it is bounded between $1$ and $frac{33}4$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:12










              • I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:14










              • Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:16












              • In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:17










              • Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:33

















              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              As noticed by TheSimpliFire we have



              $$(x_1 − x_0)/1 +(x_2 − x_1)/2+(x_3 − x_2)/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)/9=$$$$=(-1)cdot x_0+left(1-frac12right)x_1+left(frac12-frac13right)x_2+ldots+left(frac18-frac19right)x_8+frac19cdot x_9=$$



              and by $x_0=0$ and $x_9=9$



              $$frac12x_1+frac16x_2+frac1{12}x_3+frac1{20}x_4+frac1{30}x_5+frac1{42}x_6+frac1{56}x_7+frac1{72}x_8+1$$



              which can assume any value if $x_1,...,x_8$ are free and if we assume $x_0le x_1le ldots le x_8le x_9$ it is bounded between $1$ and $frac{33}4$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























              • For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:12










              • I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:14










              • Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:16












              • In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:17










              • Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:33















              up vote
              -1
              down vote










              up vote
              -1
              down vote









              As noticed by TheSimpliFire we have



              $$(x_1 − x_0)/1 +(x_2 − x_1)/2+(x_3 − x_2)/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)/9=$$$$=(-1)cdot x_0+left(1-frac12right)x_1+left(frac12-frac13right)x_2+ldots+left(frac18-frac19right)x_8+frac19cdot x_9=$$



              and by $x_0=0$ and $x_9=9$



              $$frac12x_1+frac16x_2+frac1{12}x_3+frac1{20}x_4+frac1{30}x_5+frac1{42}x_6+frac1{56}x_7+frac1{72}x_8+1$$



              which can assume any value if $x_1,...,x_8$ are free and if we assume $x_0le x_1le ldots le x_8le x_9$ it is bounded between $1$ and $frac{33}4$.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              As noticed by TheSimpliFire we have



              $$(x_1 − x_0)/1 +(x_2 − x_1)/2+(x_3 − x_2)/3+ · · · +(x_9 − x_8)/9=$$$$=(-1)cdot x_0+left(1-frac12right)x_1+left(frac12-frac13right)x_2+ldots+left(frac18-frac19right)x_8+frac19cdot x_9=$$



              and by $x_0=0$ and $x_9=9$



              $$frac12x_1+frac16x_2+frac1{12}x_3+frac1{20}x_4+frac1{30}x_5+frac1{42}x_6+frac1{56}x_7+frac1{72}x_8+1$$



              which can assume any value if $x_1,...,x_8$ are free and if we assume $x_0le x_1le ldots le x_8le x_9$ it is bounded between $1$ and $frac{33}4$.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Nov 13 at 13:13

























              answered Nov 13 at 8:00









              gimusi

              84.7k74292




              84.7k74292












              • For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:12










              • I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:14










              • Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:16












              • In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:17










              • Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:33




















              • For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:12










              • I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:14










              • Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:16












              • In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
                – gimusi
                Nov 13 at 8:17










              • Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
                – Martin R
                Nov 13 at 8:33


















              For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
              – Martin R
              Nov 13 at 8:12




              For $(x_0, ldots, x_8, x_9) = (0, ldots, 0, 9)$ the given expression evaluates to $1$, that is smaller than your alleged minimum.
              – Martin R
              Nov 13 at 8:12












              I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
              – gimusi
              Nov 13 at 8:14




              I thought we needed to select 9 different values among $0,1,...,9$. Isn’t it?
              – gimusi
              Nov 13 at 8:14












              Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
              – Martin R
              Nov 13 at 8:16






              Where do you see that in the question? The $x_i$ are only described as “ten real numbers.”
              – Martin R
              Nov 13 at 8:16














              In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
              – gimusi
              Nov 13 at 8:17




              In the first line they seem defined in that way. I ask for a clarification on that.
              – gimusi
              Nov 13 at 8:17












              Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
              – Martin R
              Nov 13 at 8:33






              Even if the $x_i$ are a permutation of $0, ldots, 9$: The question is about $sum frac{x_i - x_{i-1}}{i}$, not about $sum frac{x_i}{i}$.
              – Martin R
              Nov 13 at 8:33












              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              [![enter image description here][1]][1]



              [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fXUVO.jpg by cauchy schwarz the (xi+1 -x i ) telescope leaving 9^2=81 but then we have the denominators which are the sum of integers from 1 to 9 , this gives a total of 9/5






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                -1
                down vote













                [![enter image description here][1]][1]



                [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fXUVO.jpg by cauchy schwarz the (xi+1 -x i ) telescope leaving 9^2=81 but then we have the denominators which are the sum of integers from 1 to 9 , this gives a total of 9/5






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote









                  [![enter image description here][1]][1]



                  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fXUVO.jpg by cauchy schwarz the (xi+1 -x i ) telescope leaving 9^2=81 but then we have the denominators which are the sum of integers from 1 to 9 , this gives a total of 9/5






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  [![enter image description here][1]][1]



                  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fXUVO.jpg by cauchy schwarz the (xi+1 -x i ) telescope leaving 9^2=81 but then we have the denominators which are the sum of integers from 1 to 9 , this gives a total of 9/5







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 13 at 13:55









                  Randin

                  259116




                  259116






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996460%2finequality-that-i-believe-can-be-conquered-with-cauchy-schwarz-i-e%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

                      How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

                      When does type information flow backwards in C++?

                      Grease: Live!