# Are all inequalities based on the fact that a square is never negative?

Before any practice, I was once exposed to an olympiad problem that asked to prove a certain inequality. I had not a clue on how to tackle that problem. Then I found out about the AM-GM-HM inequalities, and I figured you would always have to manipulate those in order to prove a certain inequality. But surely these inequalities must be proved as well, so how is that done? I looked it up, and found out they're all based on the simple fact that a square of a real number is never negative.

So, my question is, are all inequalities based on that simple fact, in the end?

Note by Tim Vermeulen
6 years, 3 months ago

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

• Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
• Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
• Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold
- bulleted- list
• bulleted
• list
1. numbered2. list
1. numbered
2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in $$ ... $$ or $ ... $ to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 $2 \times 3$
2^{34} $2^{34}$
a_{i-1} $a_{i-1}$
\frac{2}{3} $\frac{2}{3}$
\sqrt{2} $\sqrt{2}$
\sum_{i=1}^3 $\sum_{i=1}^3$
\sin \theta $\sin \theta$
\boxed{123} $\boxed{123}$

Sort by:

Although a major number of them have the positivity of a square number at their core, it's wrong to say that all of them do. Some are based on the triangle inequality. Others, like Jensen's are based on the positivity of the second derivative.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

This is a good comment, which raises more questions.

What is the triangle inequality based on? What makes a geometric picture true?

What is the positivity of the second derivative based on? Does this have anything to do with squares?

Staff - 6 years, 3 months ago

As per my knowledge and understanding, triangle inequality could be easily proved by Pythagoras' theorem or cosine law. But obviously this method of proof only applies to euclidean geometry.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

True, and i think there lies the answer... you cannot have a side's LENGTH to be negative..

- 6 years, 3 months ago

yes you are right.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

Indeed, that's a great observation! If you use the cosine rule, then it is based on the fact that $-1 \leq \cos \theta \leq 1$, which from unit circle trigonometry is based on the fact that if $-1 \leq x \leq 1$, then the distance of $(x,0)$ from $(0,0)$ is also between -1 and 1.

This begs a further question. if points $A, B, C$ are 3 points on a line in order, why must we have $AB\leq AC$? In other words, as you mentioned, why must the side lengths of a triangle be positive (non-negative)? Does this have anything to do with the trivial inequality?

Staff - 6 years, 3 months ago

Actually, I have found that most of the major ones are based on rearrangement. For example, most of the mean inquality chain is just cauchy which can be proved with rearrangement.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

Cauchy can be proven by the Trivial Inequality as well, by considering the discriminant of the polynomial $f(x)=\sum_{i=1}^n(a_ix+b_i)^2.$

- 6 years, 3 months ago

Well yes :) Also, there are geometric inequalities such as R >= 2r and such which seem to be based upon the triangle inequality.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

Interesting observation! Your next comment begs the question: If we prove something by only using discriminant considerations, does it avoid having to use the trivial inequality?

For example, we know that $x^2 - \frac{1}{4} = 0$ has real roots. Hence, the discriminant, which is $0^2 - 4 \times 1 \times ( -\frac{1}{4})$ is greater than 0. So $1>0$. Does this use the trivial inequality anywhere? If so, how?

Staff - 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, I know that the quadratic polynomial I wrote in my last post uses the Trivial Inequality in its discriminant considerations; since the polynomial in question is always greater than or equal to $0$, its discriminant must always be less than or equal to $0$. But I'm not sure if your polynomial uses the trivial inequality in the same way.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

Your polynomial uses the trivial inequality in establishing that $f(x) \geq 0$. It then uses the discriminant condition of no real roots to prove Cauchy Schwarz.

Think about what the discriminant condition means, and if it requires the use of the trivial inequality.

Staff - 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, the quadratic formula states that for any quadratic $ax^2+bx+c=0$, we have $x=\dfrac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a},$ and the discriminant of this, $b^2-4ac$, is inside a square root. Now, I think that the discriminant being less than zero implies nonreal roots, since otherwise there would be a real number $r$ such that $\sqrt{D}=r\implies D=r^2$, but since $D<0$ this can not hold. So in essence the discriminant kinda has to do with the trivial inequality, since it follows directly in hand with the square root and its domain restrictions?

- 6 years, 3 months ago

That is great analysis! At it's heart, the inequality from discriminants still arise from the trivial identity.

We have real roots if and only if the discriminant is a perfect square, which must be non-negative from the trivial inequality.

Staff - 6 years, 3 months ago

Actually, there are four basic inequalities that can imply the others: 1) A square is nonnegative 2) AM-GM 3) Cauchy-Schwarz 4) Rearrangement

So basically, if you assume any one of the four above as axiomatic, then you can prove the rest. There might be more, but those are the ones I remember.

- 6 years, 3 months ago

I did not know about 3 and 4, but the AM-GM inequality can be proved by the fact that a square is nonnegative. It seems that the rearrangement inequality is not based on 1, though. :)

- 6 years, 3 months ago

But 2,3,4 are all due to 1

- 6 years, 3 months ago

How do you get Rearrangement out of AM-GM?

- 6 years, 3 months ago

No one suggests you can?

- 6 years, 3 months ago

I was referring to the comment "But 2,3,4 are all due to 1" by Shourya P

- 6 years, 3 months ago

1 was "A square is nonnegative", not AM-GM

- 6 years, 3 months ago

In addition to Jensen's, Bernoulli's inequality does not rely on this fact. The answer you're looking for though I guess is that it depends on how strong the inequality is. Remember that a certain type of problems can be solved with power means inequalities, another type requires Holder type inequalities( Cauchy Schwartz is a special case), other types fall for Schur or Muirhead. It may also be necessary to find suitable substitutions and play a lot with the different variables.In general weak inequalities will fall for Am-Gm and thus they are consequences of the trivial inequality.

- 6 years, 3 months ago