×

# Calling All Cauch Polyatatoes

Hello all! I was recently reading a proof of the AM-GM inequality by George Polya in my book titled "The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class" by professor J. Michael Steele. I think it's an extraordinary, beautiful proof, but there's one step that I don't quite understand. I'll post a relatively quick proof, pointing out my area of confusion when I get there.

So, we want to prove that for a sequence of reals $$a_k$$ with $$1\leq k\leq n$$ and a sequence of reals $$p_k$$ with $$1\leq k \leq n$$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k = 1$$, that

$a_1^{p_1}a_2^{p_2}a_3^{p_3}...a_n^{p_n}\leq a_1p_1+a_2p_2+a_3p_3+...+a_np_n$

Polya's proof begins with the observation that $$1+x\leq e^x$$ which can easily be seen graphically with equality occurring only at $$x=0$$. If we make the change of variables $$x\mapsto x-1$$, our initial observation becomes $$x\leq e^{x-1}$$. Applying this to our sequence $$a_k$$ we get $a_k\leq e^{a_k -1}$

$a_k^{p_k}\leq e^{a_kp_k - p_k}$ now, we can see that $G=\prod_{k=1}^{n} a_k^{p_k} \leq \exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} a_kp_k - \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_k\right)$ $G=\prod_{k=1}^{n} a_k^{p_k} \leq \exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} a_kp_k - 1\right)$ however, we can also see from one of our initial observation that $A=\sum_{k=1}^{n} a_kp_k \leq \exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} a_kp_k -1\right)$ which is the same bound we just found for $$G$$. So we could say

$A, G \leq \exp \left (\sum_{k=1}^{n} a_kp_k -1 \right )$ So we have related $$A$$ and $$G$$ by inequality, but we have not separated them. Now we look closer at the case where $$A$$ and $$G$$ are equal to the expression on the right. The idea of "normalization" then comes to mind. Normalization was discussed earlier in the book, but $$\color{LimeGreen}{\text{this is precisely where I got lost.}}$$ What Steele does is the following:

Define a new sequence $$\alpha_k$$ with $$1\leq k \leq n$$ where we have $\alpha_k = \frac{a_k}{A}$ where we have $A=a_1p_1+a_2p_2+a_3p_3+...+a_np_n$

Applying our earlier bound for $$G$$ for our new variables $$\alpha_k$$, we get $\prod_{k=1}^{n} \alpha_k^{p_k} \leq \exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} \alpha_kp_k-1\right)$ $\prod_{k=1}^{n} \left(\frac{a_k}{A}\right)^{p_k} \leq \exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{a_k}{A}p_k-1\right)$ Now, Steele implies that $\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{a_k}{A}p_k = 1$ and it follows that $\exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{a_k}{A}p_k-1\right) = 1$

Now from here, showing that the AM-GM inequality holds is easy. The only place that brings me confusion is the purpose of introducing and defining the sequence $$\alpha_k$$ in the way that Steele does. If someone could help me out with this, it would be greatly appreciated! Consider this a recommendation for "The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class," it's a fantastic book and you'd all love it!

Note by Ryan Tamburrino
2 years, 5 months ago

Sort by:

Update: a few minutes later, while proofreading the post for errors, I looked at what I was confused with and I have seen the light! I now understand why the sequence was introduced.

$\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{a_k}{A}p_k = \frac{a_1p_1+a_2p_2+a_3p_3+...+a_np_n}{A} = \frac{A}{A} = 1$

Seems so obvious now, but I guess that's how it always goes. I will leave the post and proof up because I think it's a great proof for the more general version of the AM-GM Inequality. Also, I feel like this is a prime example of how sometimes, one just needs to take a step back and look at problems from a fresh perspective. · 2 years, 5 months ago

A bit of a confusing point for me too, but fantastic proof nonetheless. · 2 years, 5 months ago

This is great! Can you add this to the AM-GM wiki? Thanks! Staff · 2 years, 5 months ago