级数不等式问题

The following is probably a math contest problem. I have been unable to locate the original source.

Suppose that {ai}{ai} is a set of positive real numbers and the series n=11ann=11an converges.

Show n=1n2an(a1++an)2n=1n2an(a1++an)2

also converges.


Define at first some quantities to simplify the typing for the rest of the proof

- C2:=+n=11an.C2:=+n=11an.
- An=a1++an.An=a1++an.

Moreover let PN:=Nn=1n2an(a1++an)2.PN:=Nn=1n2an(a1++an)2. Clearly PN+1>PNPN+1>PN, that is, PNPN is an increasing sequence. If we can prove that it is also bounded above, we are done with the proof. To reach this goal, notice that PN<1a1+Nn=2n2(AnAn1)AnAn1=1a1+Nn=2(n2An1n2An).PN<1a1+Nn=2n2(AnAn1)AnAn1=1a1+Nn=2(n2An1n2An).(1) Since (n+1)2n2=2n+1<5n(n+1)2n2=2n+1<5n for every nNnN, one gets from (1)(1) that PN<1a1+4a1+N1n=22n+1AnN2AN<5a1+5A2++2N1AN1N2AN<5(1A1+2A2++NAN).PN<1a1+4a1+N1n=22n+1AnN2AN<5a1+5A2++2N1AN1N2AN<5(1A1+2A2++NAN).(2) By Cauchy Schwarz we also have (1a1++1aN)(a1A21++N2aNA2N)(1A1+2A2++NAN),(1a1++1aN) (a1A21++N2aNA2N)(1A1+2A2++NAN),(3) from which, following (2)(2), it turns out that PN<5CPN.PN<5CPN. It is then clear that the sequence PNPN is bounded from above, since for any NNNN, we have estabilished PN<25C2.PN<25C2. Therefore, since PNPN is also increasing as observed at the beginning, we can conclude that PNPN converges. This concludes the proof.


I wrote this answer for the [closed duplicate of this question](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/241436/showing-a-series-is-convergent), but it works here as well.

Define
ˉpn=1nnk=1pk¯pn=1nnk=1pk(1)
then the series in question is
k=1pkˉp2kk=1pk¯p2k(2)
Simply, for nmnm, we have that
ˉpn=1nnk=1pkmn1mmk=1pk=mnˉpm¯pn=1nnk=1pkmn1mmk=1pk=mn¯pm(3)
which, for n1n1, says that
ˉpn+112ˉpnandˉp2n+123ˉp2n¯pn+112¯pnand¯p2n+123¯p2n(4)
Furthermore,
k=1pk+1ˉpk+1ˉpk=k=1(k+1)ˉpk+1kˉpkˉpk+1ˉpk=k=1(kˉpk+1ˉpkk+1ˉpk+1+1ˉpk+1)=2k=11ˉpkk=1pk+1¯pk+1¯pk=k=1(k+1)¯pk+1k¯pk¯pk+1¯pk=k=1(k¯pk+1¯pkk+1¯pk+1+1¯pk+1)=2k=11¯pk(1)(2)(5)
Combining (4)(4) and (5)(5) yields
k=1pkˉp2k=1p1+k=1pk+1ˉp2k+11p1+2k=1pk+1ˉpk+1ˉpk=1p1+4k=11ˉpkk=1pk¯p2k=1p1+k=1pk+1¯p2k+11p1+2k=1pk+1¯pk+1¯pk=1p1+4k=11¯pk(3)(4)(6)
Use (4)(4), [Jensen's InequalityJensen's Inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen%27s_inequality), and change the order of summationorder of summation to get
k=11ˉpk=1p1+k=1(1ˉp2k+1ˉp2k+1)1p1+52k=11ˉp2k1p1+5k=1122k2kj=k+1pj1p1+5k=11k2kj=k+11pj=1p1+5j=21pjj1k=j/21k1p1+5j=21pjk=11¯pk=1p1+k=1(1¯p2k+1¯p2k+1)1p1+52k=11¯p2k1p1+5k=1122k2kj=k+1pj1p1+5k=11k2kj=k+11pj=1p1+5j=21pjj1k=j/21k1p1+5j=21pj(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(7)
Combining (6)(6) and (7)(7) gives
k=1pkˉp2k20j=11pjk=1pk¯p2k20j=11pj(8)


Assume this fact ()(): https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/214634/prove-that-sum-k-1n-frac2k1a-1a-2-a-k4-sum-k-1n-frac1a-k/223836#223836.

If you define PN=Nn=1an,C=+n=11anPN=Nn=1an,C=+n=11an and
SN=Nn=1n2anP2nSN=Nn=1n2anP2n you have:

SN<1a1+Nn=2n2(PnPn1)PnPn1=5a1+N1n=22n+1PnN2PN,SN<1a1+Nn=2n2(PnPn1)PnPn1=5a1+N1n=22n+1PnN2PN,

so, in virtue of ()(), you have:

SN<2a1+4C.SN<2a1+4C. 这里


 

 

Prove that for ak>0,k=1,2,,nak>0,k=1,2,,n,

nk=12k+1a1+a2++ak<4nk=11ak.nk=12k+1a1+a2++ak<4nk=11ak.


I must confess this problem took me a **very** long time!

**Step1.** If a1,a2,α,β,γa1,a2,α,β,γ are positive real numbers and γ=α+βγ=α+β holds,
γ2a1+a2α2a1+β2a2γ2a1+a2α2a1+β2a2
holds too, since it is equivalent to (αa2βa1)20(αa2βa1)20.

**Step2.** If a1,a2,α,β,γ,δa1,a2,α,β,γ,δ are positive real numbers and δ=α+β+γδ=α+β+γ holds,
δ2a1+(a2+a3)α2a1+(β+γ)2a2+a3α2a1+β2a2+γ2a3δ2a1+(a2+a3)α2a1+(β+γ)2a2+a3α2a1+β2a2+γ2a3
holds too, in virtue of Step2. By induction, it is easy to prove the analogous statement for kk variables a1,,aka1,,ak. In fact, this is useless to the proof, but quite interesting in itself :)

**Step3.**
By Step1,
nk=12k+1a1++ak4ann1k=12k+1a1++ak+(2n+12)2a1++an1n2k=12k+1a1++ak+n2a1++an1nk=12k+1a1++ak4ann1k=12k+1a1++ak+(2n+12)2a1++an1n2k=12k+1a1++ak+n2a1++an1

**Step4.**
By Step3,
nk=12k+1a1++ak(4an+4an1)n2k=12k+1a1++ak+(n2)2a1++an2n3k=12k+1a1++ak+(n1)2a1++an2.nk=12k+1a1++ak(4an+4an1)n2k=12k+1a1++ak+(n2)2a1++an2n3k=12k+1a1++ak+(n1)2a1++an2.

**Step5.**
By Step3, Step4, induction and Step1 again:
nk=12k+1a1++ak3a1+9a2+nj=34ajnj=14aj.nk=12k+1a1++ak3a1+9a2+nj=34ajnj=14aj.

 In fact, it is much easier to prove the stronger inequality:

nk=12k+1a1++akn2a1++an+nk=14ak.nk=12k+1a1++akn2a1++an+nk=14ak.


 

In virtue of this result: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/214634/prove-that-sum-k-1n-frac2k1a-1a-2-a-k4-sum-k-1n-frac1a-k/223836#223836 it is possible to state that, if 

+n=11an+n=11an

is a converging series with positive terms,

+n=1na1++an<2+n=11an,+n=1na1++an<2+n=11an,

and this is exactly the statement of the [Hardy's inequality][1] for p=1p=1.

 

**(1)** Is the constant 22 in the RHS the best possible constant?

 

**(2)** Does the integral analogue holds? I.e., is it true that, if ff is a positive function belonging to L1(R+)L1(R+),

+0(1xx0dyf(y))1dx<2+0f(x)dx?+0(1xx0dyf(y))1dx<2+0f(x)dx?

 

**(3)** Does the Hardy-type inequality with negative exponent

+0(1xx0dyf(y)p)1/pdx<Cp+0f(x)dx?+0(1xx0dyf(y)p)1/pdx<Cp+0f(x)dx?

holds for any p1p1? If so, what are the best possible constants CpCp?

 

 

  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%27s_inequality 


I managed to prove many things through the following inequality.

For any p1p1 and for every a,b,α,β>0a,b,α,β>0 we have:
((α+β)p+1ap+bp)1/p(αp+1ap)1/p+(βp+1bp)1/p.((α+β)p+1ap+bp)1/p(αp+1ap)1/p+(βp+1bp)1/p.
If we set b/a=xb/a=x, it is sufficient to prove that the minimum of the function f:R+R+f:R+R+ defined by:
f(x)=αp+1p(1+xp)1/p+βp+1p(1+xp)1/pf(x)=αp+1p(1+xp)1/p+βp+1p(1+xp)1/p
is exactly (α+β)p+1p(α+β)p+1p. To do that, it is sufficient to consider that f(x)f(x) has a unique zero in
x=(βα)1/p.x=(βα)1/p.

Using this inequality, I managed to show that for any real number p1p1 there exists a constant CpR+CpR+ such that, if a1,,aNa1,,aN are positive real numbers,
Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p<CpNn=11anNn=1(nap1++apn)1/p<CpNn=11an
holds. I prove that there exists a positive increasing function f:N0R+f:N0R+ for which:
()(f(N)Nn=1apn)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/pCpaN+(f(N1)N1n=1apn)1/p+N1n=1(nap1++apn)1/p,()(f(N)Nn=1apn)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/pCpaN+(f(N1)N1n=1apn)1/p+N1n=1(nap1++apn)1/p,
such that, by induction, we have:
(f(N)Nn=1apn)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p1+f(1)1/pa1+Nn=2Cpan.(f(N)Nn=1apn)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p1+f(1)1/pa1+Nn=2Cpan.
In order to ()() imply the discrete "reverse Hardy" inequality it is sufficient to have f(1)(Cp1)pf(1)(Cp1)p and:
N2,(f(N)Nn=1apn)1/p+(NNn=1apn)1/pCpan+(f(N1)N1n=1apn)1/p.N2,(f(N)Nn=1apn)1/p+(NNn=1apn)1/pCpan+(f(N1)N1n=1apn)1/p.
In virtue of the initial inequality, if we have f(N)1/p+N1/pCp/(p+1)pf(N)1/p+N1/pCp/(p+1)p, then:
f(N)1/p+N1/p(Nn=1apn)1/pCpaN+((f(N)1/p+N1/p)pp+1Cpp+1p)p+1p(N1n=1apn)1/p,f(N)1/p+N1/p(Nn=1apn)1/pCpaN+((f(N)1/p+N1/p)pp+1Cpp+1p)p+1p(N1n=1apn)1/p,
so it suffices to find a ff such that:
(f(N)1/p+N1/p)pp+1f(N1)1p+1+Cpp+1p.(f(N)1/p+N1/p)pp+1f(N1)1p+1+Cpp+1p.
Now we take Cp=(1+p)1pCp=(1+p)1p, since this is the best possible constant in the "reverse Hardy" inequality if an=nan=n, then we take f(N)=kNp+1f(N)=kNp+1; the previous inequality become:
()k1p+1N(1+1Nk1/p)pp+1k1p+1(N1)+(1+p)1p+1.()k1p+1N(1+1Nk1/p)pp+1k1p+1(N1)+(1+p)1p+1.
In virtue of the Bernoulli inequality we have:
(1+1Nk1/p)pp+11+pN(p+1)k1/p,(1+1Nk1/p)pp+11+pN(p+1)k1/p,
so, if we find a positive kk such that:
()pp+1k1p(p+1)+k1p+1Cpp+1p=(p+1)1p+1()pp+1k1p(p+1)+k1p+1Cpp+1p=(p+1)1p+1
the inequality ()() is fulfilled. By studying the stationary points of g(x)=Axα+xβg(x)=Axα+xβ it is quite simple to prove that, with the choice
k=(p+1)pk=(p+1)p
()() holds as an equality. The last thing is to verify that, with the choice f(N)=Np+1(p+1)pf(N)=Np+1(p+1)p we have f(1)(Cp1)pf(1)(Cp1)p, or Cp1+1p+1Cp1+1p+1, or:
(p+1)1p1+1p+1.(p+1)1p1+1p+1.
By multiplying both sides by (p+1)(p+1) we have that the inequality is equivalent to:
(p+1)p+1pp+2,(p+1)p+1pp+2,
that is a consequence of the Bernoulli inequality, since:
(p+1)p+1p1+p+1pp=p+2.(p+1)p+1p1+p+1pp=p+2.

This proves that for any p1p1 and for any sequence a1,,aNa1,,aN of positive real numbers we have:

Np+1p(p+1)(ap1++apN)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p(1+p)1pNn=11an,Np+1p(p+1)(ap1++apN)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p(1+p)1pNn=11an,
that is a substantial extension of the discrete Hardy inequality to negative exponents, with an optimal constant, too.

Once proven the discrete version, proving the integral version should be quite straightforward, now.


(2) is also a direct consequence of the Godunova's inequality
+0ϕ(1xx0g(t)dt)dxx+0ϕ(g(x))dxx+0ϕ(1xx0g(t)dt)dxx+0ϕ(g(x))dxx
which holds for any positive convex function ϕϕ over R+R+. It suffices to consider ϕ(x)=1xϕ(x)=1x then take the change of variable y=x2y=x2 to have:
+0dy1yy0g(z)dz2+0dyg(y).+0dy1yy0g(z)dz2+0dyg(y).

来源:这里


If a series n=1ann=1an is convergent, and an>0an>0...

1. Do not refer to [Carleman's inequality][1] or [Hardy's inequality][2],
show that the series

n=1n1a1+1a2++1ann=1n1a1+1a2++1an

is also convergent.

2. What is the minimum positive real number kk such that the following
inequality holds for all convergent series an>0an>0?


n=1n1a1+1a2++1ankn=1ann=1n1a1+1a2++1ankn=1an

3. Does it exist a positive real number ll such that

n=1anln=1n1a1+1a2++1ann=1anln=1n1a1+1a2++1an

holds?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleman%27s_inequality
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%27s_inequality


**Edit** One step was flawed in the proof of 1). Many thanks to my friend Luc for pointing this out. I have fixed it, thanks to a lemma that I prove at the end.

Using AM-GM inequality, we see that the general term is not greater than na1anna1an. Hence Carleman's inequality indeed shows that 2) holds with constant ee. But we need a significantly different approach if we want to get the optimal constant in this case, since it turns out to be 22. I found this method by investigating the integral version of the problem first. It is indeed easier (the lemma below is exactly what is tedious in the discrete case, while straightforward in the integral case) to see that
0xx01f(t)dtdx20f(t)dt0xx01f(t)dtdx20f(t)dt
for every positive measurable function ff, and that **22 is optimal**.

**The answer to 3) is no**.

**Remark** When proving 1), we can assume that akak is nonincreasing withtout loss of generality, since reordering the sequence does not affect the rhs, and can only increase the lhs when making the sequence nonincreasing. Maybe we coould take advantage of that observation to simplify the argument in 1).

___________________

1) We will show that for every positive sequence anan, we have
>n=1nnk=11ak2k=1akn=1nnk=11ak2k=1ak


By Faulhaber's formula and Cauchy-Schwarz
n2(n+1)24=(nk=1k)2=(nk=1kak1ak)2nk=1k2aknk=11akn2(n+1)24=(nk=1k)2=(nk=1kak1ak)2nk=1k2aknk=11ak
whence
nnk=11ak4n(n+1)2nk=1k2aknnk=11ak4n(n+1)2nk=1k2ak
Therefore
n=1nnk=11ak4n=11n(n+1)2nk=1k2akn=1nnk=11ak4n=11n(n+1)2nk=1k2ak
(by Fubini)
=4k=1k2akn=k1n(n+1)2=4k=1k2akn=k1n(n+1)2
(by the lemma below)
4k=1k2ak12k2=2k=1ak4k=1k2ak12k2=2k=1ak

2) We will now show that 22 is optimal. Assume C>0C>0 is such that
n=1nnk=11akCk=1akn=1nnk=11akCk=1ak
for every positive sequence anan. Then for every α>1α>1, consider an=1nαan=1nα. This yields
Cn=11nαn=1nnk=1kαn=1nn+1x=1xαdx=(α+1)n=1n(n+1)α+11Cn=11nαn=1nnk=1kαn=1nn+1x=1xαdx=(α+1)n=1n(n+1)α+11
Now
n=1n(n+1)α+11n=1n(n+1)α+1=n=11(n+1)α1(n+1)α+1n=1n(n+1)α+11n=1n(n+1)α+1=n=11(n+1)α1(n+1)α+1
=n=1(1nα1nα+1)n=1(1nα1n2)=n=11nαπ26=n=1(1nα1nα+1)n=1(1nα1n2)=n=11nαπ26
Since limα1+n=11nα=n=11n=+limα1+n=11nα=n=11n=+ by monotone convergence,
Cα+1n=11nαπ26n=11nαC21Cα+1n=11nαπ26n=11nαC21
by letting α>1α>1 tend to 11. So C2C2 which proves that 22 is optimal.

3) If such a constant existed, we would get, by AM-GM inequality
n=1anCn=1nnk=11akCn=1na1ann=1anCn=1nnk=11akCn=1na1an
for every positive sequence. That is, setting bn=na1anan=bnnbn1n1bn=na1anan=bnnbn1n1
n=1(bnbn1)nbn1Cn=1bnn=1(bnbn1)nbn1Cn=1bn
for every positive sequence bnbn. Of course this is true with C=1C=1 if bnbn is nonincreasing. To get our contradiction, we can construct a converging bnbn such that the lhs diverges. For example, set bn:=12nbn:=12n for every nn but bn=42nbn=42n for, say, every n=2kn=2k. That is: we make a bump at every n=2kn=2k which is large enough to make the lhs diverge, but small enough to keep the rhs converging.

__________
>**Lemma** For every k1k1 we have
nk1n(n+1)212k2nk1n(n+1)212k2

**Proof** Let us consider the sequence
xk:=12k2nk1n(n+1)2xk:=12k2nk1n(n+1)2
Note that limk+xk=0limk+xk=0.
Then compute
xkxk+1=12k21k(k+1)212(k+1)2=12k2(k+1)20xkxk+1=12k21k(k+1)212(k+1)2=12k2(k+1)20
So xkxk is nonincreasing and converges to 00.
Therefore xk0xk0 for every k1k1. 这里


 

let sequence an>0,nN+an>0,nN+,and such
n=11ann=11an convergent,show that
n=1n2a21+a22++a2nn=1n2a21+a22++a2n is also convergent?


Jack A related result:maybe I guess this also is hold?
nk=1k2a21++a2k(1a1++1an)2nk=1k2a21++a2k(1a1++1an)2


The Polya-Knopp's inequality (that is an instance of Hardy's inequality for negative exponents) states that for any p1p1 and for every positive sequence {an}nN{an}nN we have:

Np+1p(p+1)(ap1++apN)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p(1+p)1pNn=11an,Np+1p(p+1)(ap1++apN)1/p+Nn=1(nap1++apn)1/p(1+p)1pNn=11an,(1)
hence by taking p=2p=2 it follows that:

Nn=1na21+a22++a2n3Nn=11anNn=1na21+a22++a2n3Nn=11an(2)

Now we re-write the LHS of (2)(2) by partial summation.

Let Q2na21++a2nQ2na21++a2n and h(n)nk=1kh(n)nk=1k:

Nn=1nQn=h(N)QNN1n=1h(n)(1Qn+11Qn)=h(N)QN+N1n=1h(n)a2n+1QnQn+1(Qn+1+Qn)Nn=1nQn=h(N)QNN1n=1h(n)(1Qn+11Qn)=h(N)QN+N1n=1h(n)a2n+1QnQn+1(Qn+1+Qn)
since h(n)23n3/2, it follows that:

2NNQN+N1n=1n3/2a2n+1Q3n+133Nn=11an.
If we let g(n)=nk=1k2 and apply partial summation to the original series we get:

Nn=1n2Q2n=g(N)Q2N+N1n=1g(n)a2n+1Q2nQ2n+1
hence by (3) we just need to show that g(n)QnQn+1 is bounded by some constant times h(n)Qn+Qn+1, or:

g(n)(Qn+Qn+1)Kh(n)QnQn+1
or:
1Qn+1Qn+1Kh(n)g(n)
that follows from the fact that nQn is summable by (2).

**Edit:** A massive shortcut. If a positive sequence {bn} is such that bn is convergent, then nb2n is convergent too, since {nbn} must be bounded in order that bn converges. So we can just use this lemma and (2) to prove our claim. 这里


 

How to show that for a1,a2,,an>0 real numbers and for n3:

nk=1ka1+a2++ak(27ln28lnn)nk=11ak

This version seems stronger than the inequality mentioned [here](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/847709/129017).

**Addition:** *A sister problem*: For a1,a2,,an>0 real numbers and for n2, we have the version:

11+a1+11+a1+a2++11+a1+a2++an1a1+1a2++1an

The stronger vesrion claims that: For each n, cn=(1lnn2n) we have:
11+a1+11+a1+a2++11+a1+a2++ancn1a1+1a2++1an


 

Haven't had any progress with the original problem but I have done significant progress on the "sister" problem:

Let Ak=ki=1ai, thus the problem can be re-written as
nk=111+Aknk=11ak
or, since both sides are positive,
(nk=111+Ak)2nk=11ak
Now this is very similiar to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, that is, for any positive integers x1,x2...xn and y1,y2...yn, the following inequality holds:
(nk=1xkyk)2(nk=1x2k)(nk=1y2k)
So, assuming xk=1ak, we gain that yk=ak1+Ak,
now if nk=1y2k=nk=1ak(1+Ak)21
then the original inequality holds. A very nice proof of this due to r9m himself can be found [here][1].

In case of the stronger version
nk=111+Akcnnk=11ak
Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in a similiar fashion we gain that in order for the original inequality to hold,
nk=1ak(1+Ak)2cn must also hold.
To prove this let us look at the maximal values of nk=1ak(1+Ak)2. To obtain the maxima we must solve a system of n partial derivatives of this sum equal to zero, or notationally:

{a1nk=1ak(1+Ak)2=0a2nk=1ak(1+Ak)2=0..annk=1ak(1+Ak)2=0

Note that if we define S(i)=nk=iak(1+Ak)2, then, since no terms of our sum with index less than i contain ai, we may rewrite the system as:
{a1S(1)=0a2S(2)=0..anS(n)=0

Note that S(n)=an(1+An1+an)2, thus anS(n)=1+An1an(1+An1+an)3
Note that it is zero if an=1+An1
Now let us show that in order for maxima to be gained ai=bni(1+Ai1) for all natural i<n with some sequence bi. So we just gained that an=b0(1+An2) with b0=1.
The maximal value of S(n) is thus
max(S(n))=max(an(1+An1+an)2)=b0(1+An1)(1+An1+b0(1+An1))2=b0(1+b0)2(1+An1))

We may now simplify S(n1), since we know that an=b0(1+An1),
S(n1)=an1(1+An2+an1)2+S(n)=an1(1+An2+an1)2+an(1+An1+an)2=an1(1+An2+an1)2+b0(b0+1)2(1+An2+an1)=((b0+1)2+b0)an1+b0(1+An2)(b0+1)2(1+An2+an1)2


So the partial derivative:
an1S(n1)=an1((b0+1)2+b0)an1+b0(1+An2)(b0+1)2(1+An2+an1)2=((b0+1)2b0)(1+An2)((b0+1)2+b0)an1(1+b0)2(1+An2+an1)3

Thus for maxima to be atained, an1=b1(1+An2), and b1=(b0+1)2b0(b0+1)2+b0 (particularly, b1=35),

The maximal value of S(n1) is then
max(S(n1))=max(((b0+1)2+b0)an1+b0(1+An2)(1+b0)2(1+An2+an1)2)=((b0+1)2b0)(1+An2)+b0(1+An2)(b0+1)2(1+An2+b1(1+An2))2=(b0+1)2(1+An2)(b0+1)2(b1+1)2(1+An2)2=1(b1+1)2(1+An2)

S(n2) can then be calculated as
S(n2)=an2(1+An3+an2)2+S(n1)=an2(1+An3+an2)2+1(b1+1)2(1+An3+an2)=1+An3+(1+(b1+1)2)an2(b1+1)2(1+An3+an2)2

The partial derivative is thus:
an2S(n2)=an21+An3+(1+(b1+1)2)an2(b1+1)2(1+An3+an2)2=b1(b1+1)(1+An3)(1+(b1+1)2)an2(b1+1)2(1+An3+an2)3

So, once again to attain maxima an2=b2(1+An3) and b2=(b1+1)21(b1+1)2+1.
And the maximum of S(n2) is
max(S(n2))=max(1+An3+(1+(b1+1)2)an2(b1+1)2(1+An3+an2)2)=((b1+1)21)(1+An3)+1+An3(b1+1)2(1+An3+b2(1+An2))2=(b1+1)2(1+An3)(b1+1)2(b2+1)2(1+An3)2=1(b2+1)2(1+An3)


Notice that the expression for the maximum value of S(n2) is almost identical to the one with S(n1), only all the indices are shifted by one, thus all the following operations that will be done on higher indices will be analogous, thus we can say that in general
max(S(ni))=1(1+bi)2(1+Ani1)
bi=(bi1+1)21(bi1+1)2+1
Now notice that
nk=1ak(1+Ak)2=S(1)=S(nn+1)
So
max(nk=1ak(1+Ak)2)=max(S(nn+1))=1(1+bn1)2(1+A0)
A0=0 since it is the sum of no variables, thus the maxima of nk=1ak(1+Ak)2 can be expressed as
max(nk=1ak(1+Ak)2)=1(1+bn1)2
Now, let m(n)=1(1+bn1)2, it can be shown that m(n) follows the recurrence relation
m(n+1)=(m(n)+1)24
So, if cn=1ln(n)2n follows this property, we are done:
1ln(n+1)2(n+1)=(2ln(n)2n)24
42ln(n+1)n+1=(2ln(n)2n)2
42ln(n+1)n+1=42ln(n)n+ln(n)24n2
2ln(n+1)n+1=2ln(n)nln(n)24n2
Now this almost holds, since 2ln(n+1)n+12ln(n)n and ln(n)24n2 is a decreasing function in the interval (e;+), and its maxima in (1;+) is about 0.034, in other words very very small, so 2ln(n+1)n+1 comes very close to 2ln(n)nln(n)24n2, which explains why 1ln(n)2n was such a good bound, additionally, it is slightly bigger than the first few values of m(n) and I think that it keeps on being just a little bit larger than m(n) as n approaches infinity

Now to get the super sharp boundry, we should find a function satisfying m(n+1)=(m(n)+1)24
(On a sidenote: Happy new year!)
[1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/998612/question-regarding-an-inequality

这里


For any p>1 and for any sequence {aj}j=1 of nonnegative numbers, a classical inequality
of Hardy states that
nk=1(ki=1aik)p(pp1)pnk=1apk
for each nN.

There are now many many proofs of Hardy's inequality. Which proof is your favourite one, which would be the simplest proof? It is preferable if you could present the detailed proof here so that everyone can share it.


Let (R+,dtt) be the multiplicative group of positive real numbers with the usual topology and Haar measure dtt. Define functions g:R+[0,), h:R+[0,) by g(x)=|f(x)|x1bp and h(x)=xbpχ[1,)(x). We will apply Minkowski's inequality to the convolution F=gh. Note that:

F(x)=0|f(t)|t1bptbpxbpχ[1,)(xt)dtt=1xbpx0|f(t)|dt

if xR+. Furthermore,

hL1(R+,dtt)=1tbp1dt=pb

and

gLp(R+,dtt)=(0|f(t)|ptpb1dt)1p

Minkowski's inequality thus implies that

(0(x0|f(t)|dt)pxb1dx)1ppb(0|f(t)|ptpb1dt)1p

Let us now redefine the functions g:R+[0,),h:R+[0,) by g(x)=|f(x)|x1+bp and h(x)=xbpχ(0,1](x). We will apply Minkowski's inequality to the convolution F=gh. Note that,

F(x)=0|f(t)|t1+bpxbptbpχ(0,1](xt)dtt=xbpx|f(t)|dt

if xR+. Furthermore,

hL1(R+,dtt)=10tbp1dt=pb

and

gLp(R+,dtt)=(0|f(t)|ptp+b1dt)1p

Minkowski's inequality thus implies that,

(0(x|f(t)|dt)pxb1dx)1ppb(0|f(t)|ptp+b1dt)1p

这里.


 

Given a sequence (an)n=1 of positive reals. How do I prove that

n=1na1++an2n=11an

Of course if the right hand side converges, then an is eventually increasing to but the difficulty for me arises from the fact that the behaviour of some first finite number of terms can be arbitrary...


This is based on Grahame Bennett's solution to American Mathematical Monthly problem 11145 published in April 2005. The solution appeared in the October 2006 issue.

The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives (k1j)2k1j2/ajk1aj, or equivalently,
kkj=1aj4k(k+1)2kj=1j2aj.
Summing over k yields
k=1ka1++ak2j=1j2ajk=j2k(k+1)22j=1j2ajk=j2k+1k2(k+1)2=2j=1j2ajk=j(1k21(k+1)2)=2j=11aj.

这里


 

Prove that for real numbers a1,a2,...,an>0 the following inequality holds
1a1+2a1+a2+...+na1+a2+...+an4(1a1+1a2+...+1an).


**AMM problem 11145** (April 2005)

Proposed by Joel Zinn, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Find the least c such that if n1 and a1,,an>0, then
nk=1kkj=11/ajcnk=1ak.


----------


**A Sum Inequality** (October 2006)

Solution by Grahame Bennett, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Let Sn denote the sum on the left hand side of the proposed inequality. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives (k1j)2k1j2ajk11/aj, or equivalently,
kkj=11/aj4k(k+1)2kj=1j2aj.
Summing over k yields
Sn2nj=1j2ajnk=j2k(k+1)22nj=1j2ajnk=j2k+1k2(k+1)2=2nj=1j2ajnk=j(1k21(k+1)2)=2nj=1j2aj(1j21(j+1)2)<2nj=1aj,
from which it follows that the stated inequality holds with c=2.

To see that no smaller value of c is possible, we set aj=1/j, in which case the left side
is nk=12/(k+1) and the right side is cnk=11/k. Since the harmonic series diverges, we must have c2.

*Editorial comment.* The upper bound is a special case of a theorem in K. Knopp's article
"Uber Reihen mit positiven Gliedern," *J. London Math. Soc.* **3** (1928), 205--211.
It states that for positive p
n=1(nnj=11/aj)p(p+1p)n=1apn.


**Upper Bound**

By Cauchy-Schwarz, we have
(kj=1aj)(kj=1j2aj)(kj=1j)2=k2(k+1)24
Thus,
nk=1kkj=1ajnk=14k(k+1)2kj=1j2aj=nj=1j2ajnk=j4k(k+1)2nj=1j2ajnk=j2(1k21(k+1)2)nj=1j2aj2j2=2nj=11aj
Thus, the ratio is at most 2.
***
**Sharpness**

Set ak=kβ for 0<β<1. First
nk=1kkj=1aj=nk=1k11+βkβ+1+O(kβ)=(1+β)nk=11kβ+O(kβ1)=1+β1βn1β+O(1)1+β1βn1β
Next
nk=11ak=nk=11kβ=11βn1β+O(1)11βn1β
Thus, as β1, the ratio tends to 2 for large n. Therefore, 2 is sharp.


The linked proof of Carleman's Inequality (in the comment) indicates the method of balancing coefficients in weighted mean inequalities. In the same spirit we can show, 1a1+2a1+a2+...+na1+a2+...+an<2(1a1+1a2+...+1an) for positive ai's.

We choose a set of positive real numbers x1,x2,,xn such that, by Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality: (a1+a2++ak)(x21a1+x22a2++x2kak)(x1+x2++xk)2

ka1+a2++akk(x1+x2++xk)2(x21a1+x22a2++x2kak)

for each k=1,2,,n.

Adding them up from k=1 to n, we get:

1a1+2a1+a2+...+na1+a2+...+anc1a1+c2a2++cnan

Where, ck=kx2k(x1+x2++xk)2+(k+1)x2k(x1+x2++xk+1)2++nx2k(x1+x2++xn)2 for each k=1,2,,n.

It remains to choose a set of {xk}nk=1 such that maxk{1,2,,n}{ck} is minimized.

For example if we plug in xk=k, we have,

ck=k2(nj=kj(1+2++j)2)=4k2(nj=k1j(j+1)2)

2k2(nj=k2j+1j2(j+1)2)=2k2(nj=k1j2nj=k1(j+1)2)

=2k2(1k21(n+1)2)<2

这里


 

How can one prove for any sequence of positive numbers an,n1, we have
n=1na1+a2+a3++an2n=11an


----------
Added later:

Apparently, this is a version of [Hardy's inequality][1]. The above is the case p=1. (See the wiki for what p is).

The case p=2 appears here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/110963/proving-a-l-2-to-l-2-is-a-bounded-operator


[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%27s_inequality


Here is a proof.

We try using induction, but as usual, a direct approach seems to fail and we have to try and prove a stronger statement.

So we try and pick a positive function f(n) such that

f(n)a1+a2++an+nk=1ka1+a2++aknj=12aj

Let S=a1+a2++an and let x=an+1.

In order to prove that n implies n+1 it would be sufficient to prove

2x+f(n)Sf(n+1)+n+1S+x

This can be rearranged to

2S2+f(n)x2+(f(n)+2)Sx(f(n+1)+n+1)Sx

Since 2S2+f(n)x222f(n)Sx

it is sufficient to prove that f(n) satisfies

f(n)+2+22f(n)f(n+1)+n+1

Choosing f(n)=n22 does the trick.

We can easily verify the base case for this choice of f(n).

Thus we have:

n22(a1+a2++an)+nk=1ka1+a2++aknj=12aj

In the infinite summation case, the constant 2 is the best we can do, as we can see by setting a1=1 and an=2n2 for n>1.

这里


 

It is tagged as an open problem in the book Fractional parts,series and integrals. If this proof is valid , I don't have any idea how to get it published so I posted it here .

a1,a2,,an=1a1a2an(a1+a2++an)!=?

I am posting a proof for the closed form of the above series, please let me know if there are flaws,I came by some special cases of the above sum, that is for the case of 2 & 3 variables. They are .

a=1b=1ab(a+b)!=23e


a=1b=1c=1abc(a+b+c)!=31120e

This led me to solve the general version of the sum for any number of variables,So if S is our sum then,
S=k=n1k!(a1+a2++an=ka1a2an)

This was achieved by setting ni=1ai=k, and what remains to calculate is the inner sum enclosed by brackets.

We start by investigating the lower cases , suppose we have only two variables a1,a2 with a1+a2=k then

a1+a2=k(a1a2)=k1N=1N(kN)=k(k1)(k+1)3!=(k+13)

Now if we take the case of 3 variables where a1+a2+a3=k , we can achieve the sum as :

a1+a2+a3=ka1a2a3=k2N=1N(k+1N3)=k(k1)(k+1)(k2)(k+2)5!

Similarly for 4 variables it turns out to be ,

a1+a2+a3+a4=ka1a2a3a4=k(k1)(k+1)(k2)(k+2)(k3)(k+3)7!

I believe for the same reason that that ,

a1+a2++an=ka1a2an=k(2n1)!n1m=1(km)(k+m)

This is indeed tough to prove by induction , but I guess it can be proved due to the great symmetry and pattern this sequence follows. I haven't tried but will try to update a proof on this asap, but till then it's reasonable to conjecture this.

Lastly we have that ,

S=k=n1k!(k(2n1)!n1m=1(km)(k+m))=1(2n1)!k=n1k.k!(k)n(k)n=1(2n1)!k=n1k.k!(nr=1s(n,r)kr)(nt=1[nt]kt)=1(2n1)!nr,t=1(1)n+r[nr][nt](k=nkr+t1k!)

Now using Dobinski's Formula we have finally,

a1,a2,,an=1a1a2an(a1+a2++an)!=1(2n1)!nr=1nt=1(1)n+r[nr][nt][eBr+t1n1m=1mr+t1m!]

where Bn is the n-th Bell Number.

**Edit:**

After some investigation it was clear that the constant term in the final closed form which always disappeared whenever you calculate the sum for a specific n and you are left with a rational multiple of e was no magic but some logic. I proved it by induction.

Firstly, if we separate the answer into two parts and take the constant term which doesn't have e , we get

nr=1nt=1n1m=1(1)nr[nr][nt]mr+t1m!

A little modification and interchange of sums will give the result in terms of the Pochammer symbol.

n1m=1(m)nmt1m!=0

This sum is eventually equal to zero and is easy to prove by induction.

Thus the answer is :

a1,a2,,an=1a1a2an(a1+a2++an)!=e[1(2n1)!nr=1nt=1(1)n+r[nr][nt]Br+t1]


 

I did not check your computation thoroughly, but your idea of resummation followed by the use of Stirling numbers definitely seems to work.

Alternatively, here is another answer in finite sum:

a1,,an1a1an(a1++an)!=(nk=0(nk)(1)n+k1n+k1j=0(1)jj!)e.

This formula also tells that the sum is always a rational multiple of e.

---

**Proof of (1).** We begin by recalling the multivariate beta identity. Let

Δn1={(x1,,xn)Rn:xi0 and x1++xn=1}

denote the [(n1)-simplex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex). Then

B(a1,,an):=Δn1(nk=1xak1k)dx1dxn1=Γ(a1)Γ(an)Γ(a1++an).

This is essentially equivalent to the usual [beta identity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_function#Relationship_between_gamma_function_and_beta_function). Now denoting the sum by Sn, we have

Sn=a1,,an11a1++an(nk=1akΓ(ak))B(a1,,an)=a1,,an1(10ua1++an1du)(nk=1akΓ(ak))(Δn1(nk=1xak1k)dx)=Δn110(nk=1ak=1(uxk)ak1ak(ak1)!)un1dudx.

The inner sum can be easily computed by the formula

a=0a+1a!za=ez(1+z),

and hence we obtain

Sn=Δn110un1eu(1+ux1)(1+uxn)dudx=I{1,,n}10un+|I|1eu(Δn1iIxidx)du=nk=0(nk)B(2,,2k terms,1,,1nk terms)10un+k1eudu.

Evaluating the last sum gives the expression (1) as desired.

---

**Addendum.** I checked the preface of the book and found the quote:

> *Each chapter contains a section of difficult problems, motivated by other problems in the book, which are collected in a special section entitled “Open problems”...*.

That being said, they are truly intended as exercises for readers! 这里


 

Assume that an>0 such that n=1an converges.

>**Question:** For what values of sR does the following series :
Is=n=1(a1/s1+a1/s2++a1/snn)s. converges or diverges?

This question is partially motivated by some comments [on this post][1] where it is shown that Is converges for s>1. Moreover, [it is well known][n] that
lims(a1/s1+a1/s2++a1/snn)s=(a1a2an)1/n

Accordingly, Taking bn=1/an is one readily get,

lims(a1/s1+a1/s2++a1/snn)s=(a1a2an)1/n
it draws from [Carleman's inequality][a] that :

I=I=n=1(a1a2an)1/nen=1an<.
Patently it is also true that the convergence holds for s=1 this is proven [here][2]. Whereas the convergence fails for 0<s<1
Indeed, n=1(a1/s1+a1/s2++a1/snn)sn=1a1ns=

>**So we have that Is converges for 1<s or s=∈{1,} and diverges for 0<s<1**.

>Hence the original question reduces on studying Is for s0 can anyone help?

Clearly the hope is that Is converges for for s1 and diverges for 1<s<0.`

I don't know if one could infer some conjecture for the case s=0 since it seems pathological.

<and obviously for s=0+ and with an=2n2 we have
n=1(a1/s1+a1/s2++a1/snn)s=n=1(21/0++a1/s2++a1/snn)s

[n]:https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/357138/if-a-1-a-2-dotsc-a-n0-then-lim-limits-x-to-infty-left-frac-a-11?rq=1
[a]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleman%27s_inequality
[2]:https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/599999/the-series-sum-limits-n-1-infty-frac-n-frac1a-1-frac1a-2-dotsb-fra
[1]:https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2587408/proving-that-sum-n-1-infty-left-fraca-11-sa-21-s-cdots-a-n1


 

**Answer:** Using the [power mean (generalized mean) inequality][1] the convergence for s<0 follows easily from the convergence for s>1. This probably does not give optimal bounds for Is.

---
It's more natural to set s=1/t, so that the integrands are [generalized means][1] that, for fixed (an), are increasing in tR by the power mean inequality (which says exactly that). We know that I1/t converges for 0<t<1 (i.e. s>1, by Hardy's inequality, [see here][2]) and thus for all t<1 by the comparison test.

We also have that:

* the supremum St=sup(I1/t/an) over all sequences is finite for all t<1
* St is (monotonically) increasing in t
* S=1 (take a decreasing sequence)
* S1=2 ([see this question][3])
* S0e ([Carleman's inequality][4])
* St(1t)1/t for 0<t<1 (Hardy's inequality, [see this question][2])

It's natural to conjecture that St=(1t)1/t for all t<1, which is 1 at and e at 0.


[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
[2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2587408
[3]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/599999
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleman%27s_inequality

这里

posted on   Eufisky  阅读(841)  评论(0编辑  收藏  举报

编辑推荐:
· 开发者必知的日志记录最佳实践
· SQL Server 2025 AI相关能力初探
· Linux系列:如何用 C#调用 C方法造成内存泄露
· AI与.NET技术实操系列(二):开始使用ML.NET
· 记一次.NET内存居高不下排查解决与启示
阅读排行:
· Manus重磅发布:全球首款通用AI代理技术深度解析与实战指南
· 被坑几百块钱后,我竟然真的恢复了删除的微信聊天记录!
· 没有Manus邀请码?试试免邀请码的MGX或者开源的OpenManus吧
· 园子的第一款AI主题卫衣上架——"HELLO! HOW CAN I ASSIST YOU TODAY
· 【自荐】一款简洁、开源的在线白板工具 Drawnix
< 2025年3月 >
23 24 25 26 27 28 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5

导航

统计

点击右上角即可分享
微信分享提示