My Favorite Proof of the A.M-G.M Inequality

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 23 фев 2024
  • The 38th Video
    + This channel is all about teaching people Mathematics from basic Algebra, Geometry, pre-Calculus to advanced Mathematics. This is more of a problem walkthrough channel, so If you like some quick solutions to these awesome problems Hit that juicy subscribe button!
    + Support my channel by subscribing and liking my videos. It helps a lot.
    Thanks so much for reading! Have a great day!!

Комментарии • 27

  • @a_man80
    @a_man80 3 месяца назад +15

    Finally I found a proof for n terms, not just 2 terms.

  • @renesperb
    @renesperb 4 месяца назад +9

    George Polya was a master in finding elegant proofs . I had the pleasure of meeting him personally on several occasions.

  • @GicaKontraglobalismului
    @GicaKontraglobalismului Месяц назад +6

    I knew two proofs of the means inequality. Now I know three; and this is the shortest!

  • @goncalofreitas2094
    @goncalofreitas2094 2 дня назад

    Top quality video!

  • @Maths_3.1415
    @Maths_3.1415 4 месяца назад +6

    Elegant
    Thanks for this video bro 😉

  • @levysarah2954
    @levysarah2954 4 месяца назад +7

    Top ! Bravo . merci de tout cœur pour cette preuve brillante.

  • @Maths_3.1415
    @Maths_3.1415 4 месяца назад +5

    0:01
    Combinatorics be like
    You ain't seen nothing yet 🗿

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 месяца назад

      * combinatorics needs clever visualisation
      * trig needs static memory
      * geometry requires "good boeks"

    • @beniocabeleleiraleila5799
      @beniocabeleleiraleila5799 11 дней назад

      In Brasil theres a book that i consider being sacred, it was written by Augusto Morgado, and was supposed to be read by professors who want to teach their students, but anyone who reads that book can understand perfectly combinatory like it is the easiest subject

  • @alphalunamare
    @alphalunamare 5 дней назад

    Well that was fun, not sure if I understood it so fast. But I like it. I have never come across this inequality before but then I don't talk to many people. On first sight it seems to offer so much but in fact delivers so little. Maybe that's for why I didn't know about it. My interest though is in that you have a statement about additions in correspondence with multiplications. To have even one is interesting. Maybe there is much more to be learned? This is pretty fundamental to be honest, and totally un understood by masses of Mathematicians. There in is a connection here worthy of a deep dive, but many do not have the breathing capacity :-) Of course I am new to this: add and divide is as to multiply and root. Not many people think like that these days methinks. The inequality is obvious though because the division by n is the same across all x where as the nth root is proportional to each x. It can only get smaller. I realise now that this is statistics duhhhh. I was thinking in terms of Prime Numbers and their mystery. But, and to the point: Anything that relates Addition to Multiplication in the higher indices of numbers is like Gold Dust. Perhaps this is the first Sovereign?

  • @drynshockgameplays
    @drynshockgameplays 13 дней назад +2

    By far the best proof

  • @Maths_3.1415
    @Maths_3.1415 4 месяца назад +4

    Inequalities is really tough
    See inequalities of Romanian Mathematical Magzine

  • @theupson
    @theupson 5 дней назад

    if f(x) is increasing but concave down on some interval including all the xi values you can show pretty easily using the 1st order taylor series with remainder that f(sum (pi*xi)) >= sum (pi *f(xi)). calling that first sum "AM" for convenience, express each xi as AM + ei. note all the remainders are negative where ei is nonzero, and sum (pi*ei) = 0.
    f(x) = logx completes the original request; f(x) = -1/x proves the HM-GM relationship.

  • @gregevgeni1864
    @gregevgeni1864 17 дней назад

    Nice proof

  • @Omer-dv2ef
    @Omer-dv2ef 27 дней назад +1

    An amazing proof
    I have another one which uses set theory
    R+^n gives all R+ series which contain n element
    Define a set that
    for some s belongs to R+^n
    Sum of s = SC
    and Product of s = x
    We will call that set as P
    Here s is a seri not number
    We clearly see that all members of P is smaller than SC^n
    Therefore there is a smallest reel number that for all x belongs to P x smaller or equal to that reel number We will call that reel number as Pmax
    Assume that
    SC = x1+x2...xn
    Pmax = x1x2...xn
    xa≠xb
    SC=x1+x2...(xa+xb)/2...(xa+xb)/2...xn
    So product of them in P However
    ((xa+xb)/2)²>xaxb
    x1x2......(xa+xb)/2...(xa+xb)/2...xn > Pmax
    A contribiction therefore
    x1=x2=...=xn
    After that as easy as pie
    If there is place you can't get that is bad of my A level english.

  • @samueldeandrade8535
    @samueldeandrade8535 4 месяца назад

    Now that's Math content.

  • @nicolascamargo8339
    @nicolascamargo8339 4 месяца назад +2

    Genial

  • @user-vy9ps2je9u
    @user-vy9ps2je9u 2 месяца назад +2

    this is the only method in my mind that prove AM GM inequality without using mathematical induction

    • @arielsasson3097
      @arielsasson3097 2 месяца назад +1

      You can also prove this very easily using the concavity of the natural log i think

    • @El0melette
      @El0melette Месяц назад

      @@arielsasson3097 That's equivalent to the video proof.

    • @Omer-dv2ef
      @Omer-dv2ef 27 дней назад

      Heres a proof without mathematical induction
      uses set theory
      R+^n gives all R+ series which contain n element
      Define a set that
      for some s belongs to R+^n
      Sum of s = SC
      and Product of s = x
      We will call that set as P
      Here s is a seri ,not number
      We clearly see that all members of P is smaller than SC^n
      Therefore there is a smallest reel number that for all x belongs to P x smaller or equal to that reel number We will call that reel number as Pmax
      Assume that
      SC = x1+x2...xn
      Pmax = x1x2...xn
      xa≠xb
      SC=x1+x2...(xa+xb)/2...(xa+xb)/2...xn
      So product of them in P However
      ((xa+xb)/2)²>xaxb
      x1x2......(xa+xb)/2...(xa+xb)/2...xn > Pmax
      A contribiction therefore
      x1=x2=...=xn
      After that as easy as pie
      If there is place you can't get that is bad of my A level english.

  • @berkaymeral9145
    @berkaymeral9145 3 месяца назад +1

    Pls do harmonic mean instead

  • @drynshockgameplays
    @drynshockgameplays 13 дней назад +3

    Bro, please change that voice

  • @spaicersoda7165
    @spaicersoda7165 3 дня назад +1

    Please use your real voice, AI is just not there yet.

    • @MathemadicaPrinkipia
      @MathemadicaPrinkipia  3 дня назад

      @@spaicersoda7165 True. but it is certainly more consistent than mine lol

    • @spaicersoda7165
      @spaicersoda7165 3 дня назад +1

      @@MathemadicaPrinkipia I'll get better with some practice, don't be too hard on yourself.