15

Let $\{a_{1,i}\}_{i=1}^k,\{a_{2,i}\}_{i=1}^k,\dots ,\{a_{n_,i}\}_{i=1}^k$ be real sequences. Does the following inequality hold
$$(\sum_{i=1}^k a_{1,i}^2)\cdot(\sum_{i=1}^k a_{2,i}^2)\cdots(\sum_{i=1}^k a_{n,i}^2)\geq (\sum_{i=1}^k a_{1,i}a_{2,i}\cdots a_{n,i})^2$$ for all $k,n \in \mathbb N$?

It can be easily seen that this is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality when $n=2$.
The motivation for the problem actually comes from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. While solving a Cauchy-Schwarz inequality problem, this problem came to my mind. I don't know if this is already a proved theorem in mathematics (because I am a high school student and I don't know much about inequalities). But I didn't find this on internet (I searched on google). So, I assume the problem statement is false. And a proof (or disproof) is needed for that.

My workings for $k=2$ and $n=3$:
However, I tried to prove the problem statement for $k=2$ and $n=3$ (and I think I actually proved that!). Here is my workings to do that:
For $a,b,c,d,e,f$ real numbers, we have from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (which is for $n=2$ and $k=2$), $$(a^2+b^2)(c^2+d^2) \geq (ac+bd)^2$$ $$\implies (a^2+b^2)(c^2+d^2)(e^2+f^2) \geq (ac+bd)^2(e^2+f^2)$$ $$=(a^2c^2+2abcd+b^2d^2)(e^2+f^2)$$ $$=a^2c^2(e^2+f^2)+2abcd(e^2+f^2)+b^2d^2(e^2+f^2)$$ $$\geq a^2c^2e^2+2abcdef+b^2d^2f^2$$ $$=(ace+bdf)^2$$ as desired.


I hope my workings are correct. So, I have the following questions:

  • Is the firstly stated problem statement true? If it is, how to prove that?
  • If it is not true, are there some other values (like $k=2$ and $n=3$ as in the above) for which the statement is true?

Any help would be appreciated and please try to answer the questions so that a high school student can understand them (if it is not possible, then no problem).

Oshawott
  • 4,028
  • 1
    The notations $a_{1_i}$, $a_{2_i}$ and $a_{n_i}$ don't make sense - you meant $a_{1,i}$, etc. – David C. Ullrich Jul 03 '21 at 15:48
  • 1
    the difference is that $a_{1,i}$ is standard notation for a doubly-indexed sequence, while $a_{1_i}$ is simply meaningless. It does not mean anything, because it doesn't have a definition. What is "$1_i$"??? – David C. Ullrich Jul 03 '21 at 15:59
  • 1
    maybe it's still not clear. sequence notation is shorthand for functional notation: $x_j=f(j)$. So when you write $a_{n_1}$ that should mean $a(n_i)$; $a$ is a function of one variable, evaluated at the point $n_1$. That makes sense (as opposed to the $1_i$ which is simply meaningless), but it's not what you meant. Its a double sequence, so a function of two variables: you meant $a(n,1)$, also written $a_{n,1}$. – David C. Ullrich Jul 03 '21 at 16:05
  • 1
    well done for the proof. In the last passage you have a typo – Thomas Jul 03 '21 at 20:15
  • There is a generalisation of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to a $k \times n$ matrix of real numbers $(a_{j,i})_{1\leqslant i\leqslant k,\ 1\leqslant j\leqslant n},$ as in the question, but it requires knowledge of linear algebra (of which my own knowledge is very patchy!): $\operatorname{det}(A^TA) \geqslant 0,$ with equality if and only if the columns of $A$ are linearly dependent. See, e.g., Gram determinant - Encyclopedia of Mathematics; also Theorem 8 of Hardy, Littlewood and Polya, Inequalities (1934, 1952). – Calum Gilhooley Jul 04 '21 at 17:24
  • @Cal Gilhooley-- You mentioned Polya. In college I had a class, Combinatorial Analysis, where we got to Burnside's inventory classes and Polya's counting theorem. We viewed some instructional videos starring Prof. Polya. (Back in those days they were on celluloid film.) And eventually I encountered Polya going up the elevator to the Stanford math library (which I highly recommend because they have EVERYTHING). I guess he was my second favorite Hungarian (after my then girlfriend). Maybe he tied with Edward Teller and the girlfriend's dad. – richard1941 Jul 06 '21 at 22:47

4 Answers4

12

I think your proof for the case $k = 2$ and $n = 3$ is valid.

Without explicitly using mathematical induction, as in Jorge's answer - although induction is always finally needed to justify an informal proof like this - one can see that the inequality for general $n \geqslant 2$ follows almost immediately from Cauchy's inequality, simply by losing most of the terms from the expanded product of the last $n - 1$ bracketed sums, thus: \begin{multline*} \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{1,i}^2\right) \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{2,i}^2\right) \cdots \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{n,i}^2\right) \geqslant \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{1,i}^2\right) \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{2,i}^2 \cdots a_{n,i}^2\right) = \\ \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{1,i}^2\right) \left(\sum_{i=1}^k(a_{2,i} \cdots a_{n,i})^2\right) \geqslant \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{1,i}(a_{2,i} \cdots a_{n,i})\right)^2 = \left(\sum_{i=1}^ka_{1,i}a_{2,i} \cdots a_{n,i}\right)^2. \end{multline*}

This proof "gives away" so much that the resulting inequality, when $n > 2,$ is very weak. This is illustrated by the fact that if there are $b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_n$ such that $a_{j,i} = b_j,$ for $j = 1, 2, \ldots, n,$ and $i = 1, 2, \ldots, k,$ then the inequality reduces to $(kb_1^2)(kb_2^2)\cdots(kb_n^2) \geqslant (kb_1b_2 \cdots b_n)^2,$ i.e., $k^n \geqslant k^2,$ which is of little interest when $n > 2$!

That probably explains why the case $n > 2$ is seldom mentioned. I did find the case $n = 3$ given as Exercise XVa, problem 37 in Clement V. Durell, Advanced Algebra, Vol. III (Bell, London 1937). A more up-to-date reference is Exercise 1.3 in J. Michael Steele, The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class (Cambridge University Press / Mathematical Association of America 2004). Steele gives a surprisingly complicated proof, which is why I thought it worth giving this very simple one. (In essence it duplicates Jorge's proof, but the idea seems worth repeating in different words.)

  • To illustrate, when $k = 2$ and $n = 3$: \begin{multline} (a^2 + b^2)(c^2 + d^2) (e^2 + f^2) \geqslant (a^2 + b^2)(c^2e^2 + d^2f^2) = \ (a^2 + b^2)((ce)^2 + (df)^2) \geqslant (a(ce) + b(df))^2 = (ace + bdf)^2. \end{multline} – Calum Gilhooley Jul 03 '21 at 19:01
  • @V.S.e.H. It's just using distributivity, and then dropping all the resulting product terms (which are all $\geqslant 0$) except those whose factors all have the same value of $i.$ In the example in the comment above: $$(c^2 + d^2) (e^2 + f^2) = c^2e^2 + c^2f^2 +d^2e^2 + d^2f^2 \geqslant c^2e^2 + d^2f^2.$$ It's as simple as that - unless I've goofed in some really daft way, of course! – Calum Gilhooley Jul 03 '21 at 23:38
  • Yes, thanks, figured it out:) +1 Why do you think that the solution from Steele is complicated? I think it's pretty straightforward, and it works very well when generalizing Holder's inequality in a similar manner. – V.S.e.H. Jul 04 '21 at 11:24
  • @V.S.e.H. Steele's solution isn't very complicated, just more complicated than it needs to be. When I did that exercise, my solution was already a little simpler than Steele's - it turned out that I had interpreted the hint for the exercise in a different way from what was intended - but still more complicated than the proof given here, whose simplicity surprised me when this question forced me to think about the problem afresh. (My memory of dipping into Steele's book years ago is pretty faint, and my notes aren't very clear.) – Calum Gilhooley Jul 04 '21 at 13:14
  • 1
    I think Steele intentionally did that to keep in line, and help practice the key technique presented in the chapter, which is that of normalization. It is indeed a nice "sledge hammer" technique for a lot of inequalities. Nevertheless, the book is indeed filled with many weird, and overly complicated solutions to some problems (and with a lot of errors, some of which are not on the official errata). – V.S.e.H. Jul 04 '21 at 16:34
  • 1
    @V.S.e.H. Thanks - I shall keep that in mind when I go back to the book. (I didn't read very much of it.) – Calum Gilhooley Jul 04 '21 at 16:44
  • There has recently been a downvote. Is there an error in the answer? – Calum Gilhooley Jul 25 '21 at 18:28
8

Here is a bit of context (that is, admittedly, overkill, see the last paragraph of my answer). The inequality that you mention is true and it is a special case of the generalized Hölder inequality. More precisely, let $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n\in\ell^{n}$ for some given integer $n\ge2$. Then generalized Hölder tells you that

$$\lVert a_1\cdot a_2\cdot\ldots\cdot a_n\rVert_{\ell^1}\le\lVert a_1\rVert_{\ell^n}\cdot\ldots\cdot\lVert a_n\rVert_{\ell^n}.$$

This tells you that $$\lVert a_1\rVert_{\ell^n}\cdot\ldots\cdot\lVert a_n\rVert_{\ell^n}\le\lVert a_1\rVert_{\ell^2}\cdot\ldots\cdot\lVert a_n\rVert_{\ell^2}.$$

Your case, vectors in $\mathbb R^k$, are a special case of the above, since a vector $a=(a^{(1)},\dots,a^{(k)})\in\mathbb R^k$ can always be embedded into $\ell^n$ as the sequence $$(a^{(1)},\dots,a^{(k)},0,0,\dots).$$


Finally I want to apologize for using a concept, the $\ell^p$ spaces (see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lp_space#The_p-norm_in_finite_dimensions and the following section), that are definitely not encountered in high school .

6

This proofs assume you are familiar with the concept of mathematical induction.

Statement does not hold for $n=1, k \neq 1$.

For every $k$, proceed by induction on $n$ (case $n=2$ is Cauchy-Schwarz). Then, we can reduce to the case $n-1$ as

$\left( \sum_{i=1}^k a_i^2 \right) \left( \sum_{i=1}^k b_i^2 \right) \geq \sum_{i=1}^k (a_ib_i)^2$

This inequality holds because $(a_ib_j)^2 \geq 0; i \neq j$. Further details remain as an execise.

Jorge
  • 1,210
5

Assume w.l.o.g. that all the numbers $\{a_{i,j}\}$ are nonnegative. The case $n=1,2$ is clear, so assume as induction hypothesis that $$ \sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}\cdots a_{(n-1),j} \leq \left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}^2\right)^{1/2}\cdots\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{(n-1),j}^2\right)^{1/2}. $$ Define $c_j = a_{n,j}/\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{n,j}^2\right)^{1/2}$, then using the hypothesis: \begin{align} \sum_{j=1}^kc_ja_{1,j}\cdots a_{(n-1),j} &= \sum_{j=1}^kc_j^{1/(n-1)}a_{1,j}\cdots c_j^{1/(n-1)}a_{(n-1),j} \leq\left(\sum_{j=1}^kc_ja_{1,j}^2\right)^{1/2}\cdots\left(\sum_{j=1}^kc_ja_{(n-1),j}^2\right)^{1/2} \\&\leq\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}^2\right)^{1/2}\cdots\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{(n-1),j}^2\right)^{1/2}, \end{align} since $c_j \leq 1$ for all $j$. Substituting back $a_{n,j}$, and multiplying both sides by $\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{n,j}^2\right)^{1/2}$: $$ \sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}\cdots a_{n,j} \leq\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}^2\right)^{1/2}\cdots\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{n,j}^2\right)^{1/2}, $$ thus the target inequality is proven by induction.

EDIT: Another silly proof. Let $\{x_{i,j}\}$ be nonnegative and assume that $n \geq 2$, then using AM-GM $$ x_{1,j}\cdots x_{n,j}\leq \frac{x_{1,j}^n+\cdots+x_{n,j}^n}{n}. $$

Now, make the substitution $x_{i,j} = a_{i,j}/\left(\sum_{l=1}^k a_{i,l}^2\right)^{1/2}$, then since $0\leq x_{i,j} \leq 1$ $$ x_{1,j}\cdots x_{n,j}\leq \frac{x_{1,j}^n+\cdots+x_{n,j}^n}{n}\leq\frac{x_{1,j}^2+\cdots+x_{n,j}^2}{n}. $$ Summing both sides along $j$ gives: $$ \frac{\sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}\cdots a_{n,j}}{\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{1,j}^2\right)^{1/2}\cdots\left(\sum_{j=1}^ka_{n,j}^2\right)^{1/2}} \leq 1, $$ which is the target inequality.

V.S.e.H.
  • 2,889
  • 1
  • 11
  • 23