Difference between revisions of "1972 IMO Problems/Problem 4"
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
The other three cases are equivalent to these. | The other three cases are equivalent to these. | ||
− | In | + | In case 1, we have |
<cmath> | <cmath> | ||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
which implies <math>x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = x_4 = x_5</math> (remember that <math>x_n</math> are positive). | which implies <math>x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = x_4 = x_5</math> (remember that <math>x_n</math> are positive). | ||
− | For | + | For case 2, let us look at |
<cmath> | <cmath> | ||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
</cmath> | </cmath> | ||
− | + | Just like in case 1, this implies | |
+ | <math>x_2^2 \le x_3^2 \le x_4^2 \le x_5^2 \le x_1^2 \hspace{30pt} (6)</math>. | ||
+ | (4r) and (5l) imply <math>x_1 x_3 \le x_2 x_4</math>. Combining this with (6), | ||
+ | we obtain <math>x_1 x_2 \le x_1 x_3 \le x_2 x_4</math>. From this we deduce | ||
+ | <math>x_1 \le x_4</math>. Combining this with (6), we get <math>x_1 = x_4 = x_5</math>. | ||
+ | Now, (2r) and (3l) imply <math>x_4 x_1 \le x_5 x_2</math>, which implies | ||
+ | <math>x_1 \le x_2</math> (because <math>x_4 = x_5</math>). It follows that | ||
+ | <math>x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = x_4 = x_5</math>. | ||
+ | For case 3, let us look at | ||
+ | <cmath> | ||
+ | \begin{align*} | ||
+ | (x_1^2 - x_3x_5) \ge 0 \hspace{20pt} (1l) \hspace{40pt} (x_2^2 - x_3x_5) \le 0 \hspace{20pt} (1r) \\ | ||
+ | (x_2^2 - x_4x_1) \ge 0 \hspace{20pt} (2l) \hspace{40pt} (x_3^2 - x_4x_1) \le 0 \hspace{20pt} (2r) \\ | ||
+ | (x_3^2 - x_5x_2) \le 0 \hspace{20pt} (3l) \hspace{40pt} (x_4^2 - x_5x_2) \ge 0 \hspace{20pt} (3r) \\ | ||
+ | (x_4^2 - x_1x_3) \le 0 \hspace{20pt} (4l) \hspace{40pt} (x_5^2 - x_1x_3) \ge 0 \hspace{20pt} (4r) \\ | ||
+ | (x_5^2 - x_2x_4) \le 0 \hspace{20pt} (5l) \hspace{40pt} (x_1^2 - x_2x_4) \ge 0 \hspace{20pt} (5r) | ||
+ | \end{align*} | ||
+ | </cmath> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Just like in case 1, this implies | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>x_3^2 \le x_2^2 \le x_1^2 \hspace{55pt} (7)</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>x_3^2 \le x_4^2 \le x_5^2 \le x_1^2 \hspace{30pt} (8)</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Now, (3r) and (4l) imply <math>x_5 x_2 \le x_1 x_3</math>, and (4r) and (5l) | ||
+ | imply <math>x_1 x_3 \le x_2 x_4</math>. This implies <math>x_5 x_2 \le x_2 x_4</math>, | ||
+ | so <math>x_5 \le x_4</math>. Using (8), it follows that <math>x_4 = x_5</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Now, (2l) and (1r) imply <math>x_4 x_1 \le x_3 x_5</math>. Simplifying with | ||
+ | <math>x_4 = x_5</math>, we get <math>x_1 \le x_3</math>. Combining this with (7) and (8), | ||
+ | we get <math>x_1 = x_2 = x_3 = x_4 = x_5</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The only thing left to do is justify why in cases 2 and 3 it is OK | ||
+ | to consider the first, and respectively, the first two inequalities | ||
+ | to imply that the first factor <math>\ge 0</math> and the second factor <math>\le 0</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two possible arguments. One is that if other inequalities | ||
+ | would imply the positive/negative signs, the proof would be the same | ||
+ | except that we would have to change the indexes of <math>x_n</math> appropriately. | ||
+ | The other argument is that we can just make a substitution | ||
+ | <math>x_n = y_{\sigma(n)}</math>, where <math>\sigma</math> is an appropriately chosen | ||
+ | permutation, so that the new inequalities in <math>y_p</math>, would be like | ||
+ | in the particular cases 1, and respectively 2. I skip the details | ||
+ | of this last step. | ||
+ | [Solution by pf02, May 2025] | ||
− | |||
== See Also == {{IMO box|year=1972|num-b=3|num-a=5}} | == See Also == {{IMO box|year=1972|num-b=3|num-a=5}} |
Revision as of 02:31, 5 May 2025
Find all solutions of the system of inequalities
where
are positive real numbers.
Solution
Add the five inequalities together to get
Expanding, multiplying by , and re-combining terms, we get
Every term is , so every term must
.
From the first term, we can deduce that .
From the second term,
.
From the third term, . From the fourth term,
.
Therefore, is the only solution.
Borrowed from [1]
Solution 2
This solution is longer and less elegant than the previous one, but it is more direct, and based on a different idea, so it is worth mentioning.
Looking at the first inequality as an example, we can see that we have either
and
or
and
We have a similar conclusion from the other four inequalities. So, we have to look at three cases:
1. all five first factors are
2. four first factors are and one is
3. three first factors are and two are
The other three cases are equivalent to these.
In case 1, we have
(1l) and (1r) imply , and we have four similar inequalities
from the other four rows. Putting them together, we obtain
which implies (remember that
are positive).
For case 2, let us look at
Just like in case 1, this implies
.
(4r) and (5l) imply . Combining this with (6),
we obtain
. From this we deduce
. Combining this with (6), we get
.
Now, (2r) and (3l) imply , which implies
(because
). It follows that
.
For case 3, let us look at
Just like in case 1, this implies
Now, (3r) and (4l) imply , and (4r) and (5l)
imply
. This implies
,
so
. Using (8), it follows that
.
Now, (2l) and (1r) imply . Simplifying with
, we get
. Combining this with (7) and (8),
we get
.
The only thing left to do is justify why in cases 2 and 3 it is OK
to consider the first, and respectively, the first two inequalities
to imply that the first factor and the second factor
.
There are two possible arguments. One is that if other inequalities
would imply the positive/negative signs, the proof would be the same
except that we would have to change the indexes of appropriately.
The other argument is that we can just make a substitution
, where
is an appropriately chosen
permutation, so that the new inequalities in
, would be like
in the particular cases 1, and respectively 2. I skip the details
of this last step.
[Solution by pf02, May 2025]
See Also
1972 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 3 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 5 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |