Math wizards
 

I know this should be simple as hell, but for some reason I don't see it ???

How is the theorem:
If the sum of three positive quantities s, t, and u is constant, then their product stu is maximum if and only if s=t=u
a consequence of the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality?

arithmetic-geometric mean inequality is defined as: If a, b, and c are nonnegative real numbers, then ³√(abc) ≤ (a+b+c)/3, with equality holding if and only if a=b=c.

I know this should be cake, but the hamster in my head isn't turning the wheel. I should know this ----, learned it years ago, but I am just blank right now. ???

Re: Math wizards
 

what are you asking of us, if they are correct?

Re: Math wizards
 

modified it a little bit. Asking how the first theorem is a concequence of the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality

Re: Math wizards
 

come on, anybody, I give you 5 dolla for a legitimate answer. :P

Re: Math wizards
 

honestly, who the ---- is really gonna use some ---- like that in thier lifetime??

Re: Math wizards
 

uhm people who design turbos ;) Sorry murdoc, dont have a legit answer for you... go smoke some weed it might help :6

Re: Math wizards
 

theorem obviously comes from the word theory

theory = tested, not proven



who knows if this ---- is even correct??? wouldnt it be an equation if it was proven??





murdoc: sorry to babble in your thread but i doubt you're gonna get much help here :1

Re: Math wizards
 

i really dont understand what your asking. you ask "a consequence of the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality" but arithmetic-geometric mean inequality is defined as: If a, b, and c are nonnegative real numbers, then ³√(abc) ≤ (a+b+c)/3, with equality holding if and only if a=b=c . seems like what your asking is the definition. i dont know maybe im stupid and dont see it either. ??? so i mean technically you can assume its true :P

definitions are

1. An idea that is demonstrably true or is assumed to be so.
2. A mathematical proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.

Re: Math wizards
 

that's why i'm lost. maybe what i'm looking for is how the theorem can be derived from the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality ??? how about that, can you guys do that?

fucken ---- is due in an hour too. Maybe it's time for some grade A BS :-\

Re: Math wizards
 

:P

I'll ask my step-dad as soon as he gets back from his jog, he's good with this stuff.

Re: Math wizards
 

damn hopefully he can get back soon. Cause class starts at 5.30 and I'm about 20 minutes away :-\

Re: Math wizards
 

a=b=c --> a=3 --> Cube root of 3x3x3 is less than equal to 3+3+3 divided by 3.

Cube root of 27 is less than equal to 9/3

3 is less than equal to 3


:-\

EDIT: Use 5 for a since they all equal each other. It's going to be equal to the other side again. WHAT do you need to know though?


JP

Re: Math wizards
 

not that this applies to your situation directly but there has to be some type of forum that college prof/teachers go to talk about what they teach/curriculum and such. you need to get on there and start asking some questions

Re: Math wizards
 

haha, i just saw that. It's not procrastination, it's called thinking under pressure :P

that's what I've been fiddling with, but I... i gotta get to MS word, I just had a light bulb go off.

Re: Math wizards
 

yeah, but last time i used one of those they didn't help me much. :'(

Oh my idea doesn't make much sense anymore :P

Re: Math wizards
 

Sorry Murdizzle... Russ said "Oh what the heck" When I read it to him :(

Re: Math wizards
 

WHAT DO YOU NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY!?!?! LOL. Listen it will ALWAYS equal the other side and not only THAT but be the same starting number. You are cancelling out both affects by cubing then cube rooting and times by 3 then dividing by 3. Being the variables all equal it will ALWAYS equal itself.


JP

Re: Math wizards
 

haha... dang. :-\

yeah I understand all that, i just don't understand the initial question :-\ I don't know what I need to know exactly, this thing has got me puzzled.




:'( :'( :'(

Re: Math wizards
 

Throw in a "nukka what" and "grab a rope, nignog" and it'll suffice :)

Re: Math wizards
 

I should put that in the references huh :P

Re: Math wizards
 

the answer is Turd Ferguson

Re: Math wizards
 

welp, time to turn it in :1

Re: Math wizards
 

Thaks for the head ache Merdizzle :-X.


I hate ---- Like this.It reminds me of Electrical Theory.I have never once had to use it.Ive forgotten all of it and trying to refresh only gives me a head ache.

Re: Math wizards
 

you telling me. I turned it, maybe tomorrow I'll get it back. Hopefully I explained it correctly :S

Re: Math wizards
 

X< Chuck norris

Re: Math wizards
 

if your trying to make a proof, that ---- is weak... beyond weak.

you should have tried proof by counter example or proof by induction.

Re: Math wizards
 

good luck man. that confused the ---- out of me all 3 times i read it. :S

i think i'll go drink some vodka now to ease the pain.

Re: Math wizards
 

7. The answer is 7, right? :y

Re: Math wizards
 

i know this really doesn't help now that you had to turn it in, but using your definition of the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality and the theorem you can see:

1. the inequality is ≤, so the maximum of the cube root (which would be the maximum of the products also) is when the both sides of the inequality are equal. Your definition says that the equality holds only if a=b=c.

2. using this information, one can see that stu (or abc) would be the a maximun (have the highest cube root) when s=t=u (or a=b=c)

I hope this makes sense, and again I am sorry I didn't see until now.

Re: Math wizards
 

bah i'm done with that ----, and what was in the first post was the question being asked to me. Striaght out the mutha fucken project question. I'm still confused, but whatever.

Re: Math wizards
 

bastard, now im gonan be trying to figure it out for like 2 weeks till i get it

*pulls out trusty graphing calculator*