{
  "index": "2003-A-2",
  "type": "ANA",
  "tag": [
    "ANA",
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "Let $a_1, a_2, \\dots, a_n$  and  $b_1, b_2, \\dots, b_n$\nbe nonnegative real numbers.\nShow that\n\\begin{align*}\n& (a_1 a_2 \\cdots a_n)^{1/n} + (b_1 b_2 \\cdots b_n)^{1/n} \\\\\n&\\leq [(a_1+b_1) (a_2+b_2) \\cdots (a_n + b_n) ]^{1/n}.\n\\end{align*}",
  "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nAssume without loss of generality that $a_i + b_i > 0$\nfor each $i$ (otherwise both sides of the desired inequality are zero).\nThen the AM-GM inequality gives\n\\begin{multline*}\n\\left( \\frac{a_1\\cdots a_n}{(a_1+b_1)\\cdots(a_n+b_n)} \\right)^{1/n} \\\\\n\\leq \\frac{1}{n} \\left( \\frac{a_1}{a_1 + b_1} + \\cdots + \\frac{a_n}{a_n+b_n}\n\\right),\n\\end{multline*}\nand likewise with the roles of $a$ and $b$ reversed. Adding these two\ninequalities and clearing denominators yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:}\nWrite the desired inequality in the form\n\\[\n(a_1 + b_1)\\cdots(a_n+b_n) \\geq\n[(a_1\\cdots a_n)^{1/n} + (b_1\\cdots b_n)^{1/n}]^n,\n\\]\nexpand both sides, and compare the terms on both sides\nin which $k$ of the terms are among the $a_i$. On the left,\none has the product of each $k$-element subset of $\\{1, \\dots, n\\}$;\non the right, one has\n\\[\n\\binom{n}{k} (a_1\\cdots a_n)^{k/n} \\cdots (b_1 \\dots b_n)^{(n-k)/n},\n\\]\nwhich is precisely $\\binom{n}{k}$ times the geometric mean of the terms\non the left.  Thus AM-GM shows that the terms under consideration on the\nleft exceed those on the right; adding these inequalities over all $k$\nyields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nSince both sides are continuous in each $a_i$, it is sufficient to\nprove the claim with $a_1, \\dots, a_n$ all positive (the general case\nfollows by taking limits as some of the $a_i$ tend to zero).\nPut $r_i = b_i/a_i$; then the given inequality is equivalent to\n\\[\n(1 + r_1)^{1/n} \\cdots (1+r_n)^{1/n} \\geq 1 + (r_1\\cdots r_n)^{1/n}.\n\\]\nIn terms of the function\n\\[\nf(x) = \\log(1 + e^x)\n\\]\nand the quantities $s_i = \\log r_i$,\nwe can rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\frac{1}{n}(f(s_1) + \\cdots + f(s_n)) \\geq f\\left( \\frac{s_1 + \\cdots +\ns_n}{n} \\right).\n\\]\nThis will follow from Jensen's inequality if we can verify that $f$\nis a convex function; it is enough to check that $f''(x) > 0$ for all $x$.\nIn fact,\n\\[\nf'(x) = \\frac{e^x}{1+e^x} = 1 - \\frac{1}{1+e^x}\n\\]\nis an increasing function of $x$, so $f''(x) > 0$ and Jensen's inequality\nthus yields the desired result. (As long as the $a_i$ are all positive,\nequality holds when $s_1 = \\cdots = s_n$, i.e., when the vectors\n$(a_1, \\dots, a_n)$ and $(b_1, \\dots, b_n)$. Of course other equality\ncases crop up if some of the $a_i$ vanish, i.e., if $a_1=b_1=0$.)\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:}\nWe apply induction on $n$, the case $n=1$ being evident.\nFirst we verify the auxiliary inequality\n\\[\n(a^n + b^n)(c^n + d^n)^{n-1} \\geq (ac^{n-1} + b d^{n-1})^n\n\\]\nfor $a,b,c,d \\geq 0$.\nThe left side can be written as\n\\begin{align*}\na^n c^{n(n-1)} &+ b^n d^{n(n-1)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \\binom{n-1}{i} b^n c^{ni} d^{n(n-1-i)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \\binom{n-1}{i-1} a^n c^{n(i-1)} d^{n(n-i)}.\n\\end{align*}\nApplying the weighted AM-GM inequality between matching terms in the two\nsums yields\n\\begin{multline*}\n(a^n + b^n)(c^n + d^n)^{n-1} \\geq a^n c^{n(n-1)} + b^n d^{n(n-1)} \\\\\n+ \\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \\binom{n}{i} a^i b^{n-i} c^{(n-1)i} d^{(n-1)(n-i)},\n\\end{multline*}\nproving the auxiliary inequality.\n\nNow given the auxiliary inequality and the $n-1$ case of the desired\ninequality, we apply the auxiliary inequality with $a = a_1^{1/n}$,\n$b = b_1^{1/n}$, $c = (a_2 \\cdots a_n)^{1/n(n-1)}$,\n$d = (b_2 \\dots b_n)^{1/n(n-1)}$. The right side will be the $n$-th\npower of the desired inequality. The left side comes out to\n\\[\n(a_1 + b_1)((a_2 \\cdots a_n)^{1/(n-1)} + (b_2 \\cdots b_n)^{1/(n-1)})^{n-1},\n\\]\nand by the induction hypothesis, the second factor is less than\n$(a_2 + b_2)\\cdots(a_n+b_n)$. This yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Note:}\nEquality holds if and only if $a_i=b_i=0$ for some $i$ or if the vectors\n$(a_1, \\dots, a_n)$ and $(b_1, \\dots, b_n)$ are proportional.\nAs pointed out by Naoki Sato, the problem also appeared on the 1992\nIrish Mathematical Olympiad.\nIt is also a special case of a classical inequality,\nknown as H\\\"older's inequality, which generalizes the\nCauchy-Schwarz inequality (this is visible from the $n=2$ case); the\nfirst solution above is adapted from the standard proof of H\\\"older's\ninequality.\nWe don't know whether the declaration\n``Apply H\\\"older's inequality'' by itself is considered\nan acceptable solution to this problem.",
  "vars": [
    "a_1",
    "a_2",
    "a_n",
    "a_i",
    "b_1",
    "b_2",
    "b_n",
    "b_i",
    "r_i",
    "s_i",
    "f",
    "x",
    "k",
    "i",
    "a",
    "b",
    "c",
    "d"
  ],
  "params": [
    "n"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [
    "e"
  ],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "a_1": "firsta",
        "a_2": "seconda",
        "a_n": "finala",
        "a_i": "indexa",
        "b_1": "firstb",
        "b_2": "secondb",
        "b_n": "finalb",
        "b_i": "indexb",
        "r_i": "ratioi",
        "s_i": "logval",
        "f": "logfun",
        "x": "realvar",
        "k": "countk",
        "i": "indice",
        "a": "varalph",
        "b": "varbeta",
        "c": "vargamm",
        "d": "vardelt",
        "n": "countn"
      },
      "question": "Let $firsta, seconda, \\dots, finala$  and  $firstb, secondb, \\dots, finalb$\nbe nonnegative real numbers.\nShow that\n\\begin{align*}\n& (firsta seconda \\cdots finala)^{1/countn} + (firstb secondb \\cdots finalb)^{1/countn} \\\\\n&\\leq [(firsta+firstb) (seconda+secondb) \\cdots (finala + finalb) ]^{1/countn}.\n\\end{align*}",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nAssume without loss of generality that $indexa + indexb > 0$\nfor each $indice$ (otherwise both sides of the desired inequality are zero).\nThen the AM-GM inequality gives\n\\begin{multline*}\n\\left( \\frac{firsta\\cdots finala}{(firsta+firstb)\\cdots(finala+finalb)} \\right)^{1/countn} \\\\\n\\leq \\frac{1}{countn} \\left( \\frac{firsta}{firsta + firstb} + \\cdots + \\frac{finala}{finala+finalb}\n\\right),\n\\end{multline*}\nand likewise with the roles of $indexa$ and $indexb$ reversed. Adding these two\ninequalities and clearing denominators yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:}\nWrite the desired inequality in the form\n\\[\n(firsta + firstb)\\cdots(finala+finalb) \\geq\n[(firsta\\cdots finala)^{1/countn} + (firstb\\cdots finalb)^{1/countn}]^{countn},\n\\]\nexpand both sides, and compare the terms on both sides\nin which $countk$ of the terms are among the $indexa$. On the left,\none has the product of each $countk$-element subset of $\\{1, \\dots, countn\\}$;\non the right, one has\n\\[\n\\binom{countn}{countk} (firsta\\cdots finala)^{countk/countn} \\cdots (firstb \\dots finalb)^{(countn-countk)/countn},\n\\]\nwhich is precisely $\\binom{countn}{countk}$ times the geometric mean of the terms\non the left.  Thus AM-GM shows that the terms under consideration on the\nleft exceed those on the right; adding these inequalities over all $countk$\nyields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nSince both sides are continuous in each $indexa$, it is sufficient to\nprove the claim with $firsta, \\dots, finala$ all positive (the general case\nfollows by taking limits as some of the $indexa$ tend to zero).\nPut $ratioi = indexb/indexa$; then the given inequality is equivalent to\n\\[\n(1 + r_1)^{1/countn} \\cdots (1+r_{countn})^{1/countn} \\geq 1 + (r_1\\cdots r_{countn})^{1/countn}.\n\\]\nIn terms of the function\n\\[\nlogfun(realvar) = \\log(1 + e^{realvar})\n\\]\nand the quantities $logval = \\log ratioi$,\nwe can rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\frac{1}{countn}(logfun(s_1) + \\cdots + logfun(s_{countn})) \\geq logfun\\left( \\frac{s_1 + \\cdots +\ns_{countn}}{countn} \\right).\n\\]\nThis will follow from Jensen's inequality if we can verify that $logfun$\nis a convex function; it is enough to check that $logfun''(realvar) > 0$ for all $realvar$.\nIn fact,\n\\[\nlogfun'(realvar) = \\frac{e^{realvar}}{1+e^{realvar}} = 1 - \\frac{1}{1+e^{realvar}}\n\\]\nis an increasing function of $realvar$, so $logfun''(realvar) > 0$ and Jensen's inequality\nthus yields the desired result. (As long as the $indexa$ are all positive,\nequality holds when $s_1 = \\cdots = s_{countn}$, i.e., when the vectors\n$(firsta, \\dots, finala)$ and $(firstb, \\dots, finalb)$. Of course other equality\ncases crop up if some of the $indexa$ vanish, i.e., if $firsta=firstb=0$.)\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:}\nWe apply induction on $countn$, the case $countn=1$ being evident.\nFirst we verify the auxiliary inequality\n\\[\n(varalph^{countn} + varbeta^{countn})(vargamm^{countn} + vardelt^{countn})^{countn-1} \\geq (varalph vargamm^{countn-1} + varbeta vardelt^{countn-1})^{countn}\n\\]\nfor $varalph,varbeta,vargamm,vardelt \\geq 0$.\nThe left side can be written as\n\\begin{align*}\nvaralph^{countn} vargamm^{countn(countn-1)} &+ varbeta^{countn} vardelt^{countn(countn-1)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{\\indice=1}^{countn-1} \\binom{countn-1}{\\indice} varbeta^{countn} vargamm^{countn\\indice} vardelt^{countn(countn-1-\\indice)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{\\indice=1}^{countn-1} \\binom{countn-1}{\\indice-1} varalph^{countn} vargamm^{countn(\\indice-1)} vardelt^{countn(countn-\\indice)}.\n\\end{align*}\nApplying the weighted AM-GM inequality between matching terms in the two\nsums yields\n\\begin{multline*}\n(varalph^{countn} + varbeta^{countn})(vargamm^{countn} + vardelt^{countn})^{countn-1} \\geq varalph^{countn} vargamm^{countn(countn-1)} + varbeta^{countn} vardelt^{countn(countn-1)} \\\\\n+ \\sum_{\\indice=1}^{countn-1} \\binom{countn}{\\indice} varalph^{\\indice} varbeta^{countn-\\indice} vargamm^{(countn-1)\\indice} vardelt^{(countn-1)(countn-\\indice)},\n\\end{multline*}\nproving the auxiliary inequality.\n\nNow given the auxiliary inequality and the $countn-1$ case of the desired\ninequality, we apply the auxiliary inequality with $varalph = firsta^{1/countn}$,\n$varbeta = firstb^{1/countn}$, $vargamm = (seconda \\cdots finala)^{1/countn(countn-1)}$,\n$vardelt = (secondb \\dots finalb)^{1/countn(countn-1)}$. The right side will be the $countn$-th\npower of the desired inequality. The left side comes out to\n\\[\n(firsta + firstb)((seconda \\cdots finala)^{1/(countn-1)} + (secondb \\cdots finalb)^{1/(countn-1)})^{countn-1},\n\\]\nand by the induction hypothesis, the second factor is less than\n$(seconda + secondb)\\cdots(finala+finalb)$. This yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Note:}\nEquality holds if and only if $indexa=indexb=0$ for some $indice$ or if the vectors\n$(firsta, \\dots, finala)$ and $(firstb, \\dots, finalb)$ are proportional.\nAs pointed out by Naoki Sato, the problem also appeared on the 1992\nIrish Mathematical Olympiad.\nIt is also a special case of a classical inequality,\nknown as H\\\"older's inequality, which generalizes the\nCauchy-Schwarz inequality (this is visible from the $countn=2$ case); the\nfirst solution above is adapted from the standard proof of H\\\"older's\ninequality.\nWe don't know whether the declaration\n``Apply H\\\"older's inequality'' by itself is considered\nan acceptable solution to this problem."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "a_1": "oceanview",
        "a_2": "lighthouse",
        "a_n": "marshland",
        "a_i": "turnpike",
        "b_1": "driftwood",
        "b_2": "hummingbird",
        "b_n": "starlight",
        "b_i": "riverbank",
        "r_i": "goldfinch",
        "s_i": "trailhead",
        "f": "meadowlark",
        "x": "cinnamon",
        "k": "snowflake",
        "i": "rainstorm",
        "a": "sunflower",
        "b": "thunderbolt",
        "c": "moonstone",
        "d": "pebblestone",
        "n": "willowtree"
      },
      "question": "Let $oceanview, lighthouse, \\dots, marshland$  and  $driftwood, hummingbird, \\dots, starlight$ be nonnegative real numbers.\nShow that\n\\begin{align*}\n& (oceanview\\, lighthouse \\cdots marshland)^{1/willowtree} + (driftwood\\, hummingbird \\cdots starlight)^{1/willowtree} \\\\\n&\\leq [(oceanview+driftwood) (lighthouse+hummingbird) \\cdots (marshland + starlight) ]^{1/willowtree}.\n\\end{align*}",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nAssume without loss of generality that $turnpike + riverbank > 0$ for each $rainstorm$ (otherwise both sides of the desired inequality are zero).\nThen the AM-GM inequality gives\n\\begin{multline*}\n\\left( \\frac{oceanview\\cdots marshland}{(oceanview+driftwood)\\cdots(marshland+starlight)} \\right)^{1/willowtree} \\\\\n\\leq \\frac{1}{willowtree} \\left( \\frac{oceanview}{oceanview + driftwood} + \\cdots + \\frac{marshland}{marshland+starlight}\n\\right),\n\\end{multline*}\nand likewise with the roles of $sunflower$ and $thunderbolt$ reversed. Adding these two inequalities and clearing denominators yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:}\nWrite the desired inequality in the form\n\\[\n(oceanview + driftwood)\\cdots(marshland+starlight) \\geq\n[(oceanview\\cdots marshland)^{1/willowtree} + (driftwood\\cdots starlight)^{1/willowtree}]^{willowtree},\n\\]\nexpand both sides, and compare the terms on both sides in which $snowflake$ of the terms are among the $turnpike$. On the left, one has the product of each $snowflake$-element subset of $\\{1, \\dots, willowtree\\}$; on the right, one has\n\\[\n\\binom{willowtree}{snowflake} (oceanview\\cdots marshland)^{snowflake/willowtree} \\cdots (driftwood \\dots starlight)^{(willowtree-snowflake)/willowtree},\n\\]\nwhich is precisely $\\binom{willowtree}{snowflake}$ times the geometric mean of the terms on the left.  Thus AM-GM shows that the terms under consideration on the left exceed those on the right; adding these inequalities over all $snowflake$ yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nSince both sides are continuous in each $turnpike$, it is sufficient to prove the claim with $oceanview, \\dots, marshland$ all positive (the general case follows by taking limits as some of the $turnpike$ tend to zero).\nPut $goldfinch = riverbank/turnpike$; then the given inequality is equivalent to\n\\[\n(1 + r_1)^{1/willowtree} \\cdots (1+r_n)^{1/willowtree} \\geq 1 + (r_1\\cdots r_n)^{1/willowtree}.\n\\]\nIn terms of the function\n\\[\nmeadowlark(cinnamon) = \\log(1 + e^{cinnamon})\n\\]\nand the quantities $trailhead = \\log goldfinch$, we can rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\frac{1}{willowtree}(meadowlark(s_1) + \\cdots + meadowlark(s_n)) \\geq meadowlark\\left( \\frac{s_1 + \\cdots + s_n}{willowtree} \\right).\n\\]\nThis will follow from Jensen's inequality if we can verify that $meadowlark$ is a convex function; it is enough to check that $meadowlark''(cinnamon) > 0$ for all $cinnamon$. In fact,\n\\[\nmeadowlark'(cinnamon) = \\frac{e^{cinnamon}}{1+e^{cinnamon}} = 1 - \\frac{1}{1+e^{cinnamon}}\n\\]\nis an increasing function of $cinnamon$, so $meadowlark''(cinnamon) > 0$ and Jensen's inequality thus yields the desired result. (As long as the $turnpike$ are all positive, equality holds when $s_1 = \\cdots = s_n$, i.e., when the vectors $(oceanview, \\dots, marshland)$ and $(driftwood, \\dots, starlight)$. Of course other equality cases crop up if some of the $turnpike$ vanish, i.e., if $oceanview=driftwood=0$.)\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:}\nWe apply induction on $willowtree$, the case $willowtree=1$ being evident.\nFirst we verify the auxiliary inequality\n\\[\n(sunflower^{willowtree} + thunderbolt^{willowtree})(moonstone^{willowtree} + pebblestone^{willowtree})^{willowtree-1} \\geq (sunflower moonstone^{willowtree-1} + thunderbolt pebblestone^{willowtree-1})^{willowtree}\n\\]\nfor $sunflower, thunderbolt, moonstone, pebblestone \\geq 0$.\nThe left side can be written as\n\\begin{align*}\nsunflower^{willowtree} moonstone^{willowtree(willowtree-1)} &+ thunderbolt^{willowtree} pebblestone^{willowtree(willowtree-1)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{rainstorm=1}^{willowtree-1} \\binom{willowtree-1}{rainstorm} thunderbolt^{willowtree} moonstone^{willowtree rainstorm} pebblestone^{willowtree(willowtree-1-rainstorm)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{rainstorm=1}^{willowtree-1} \\binom{willowtree-1}{rainstorm-1} sunflower^{willowtree} moonstone^{willowtree(rainstorm-1)} pebblestone^{willowtree(willowtree-rainstorm)}.\n\\end{align*}\nApplying the weighted AM-GM inequality between matching terms in the two sums yields\n\\begin{multline*}\n(sunflower^{willowtree} + thunderbolt^{willowtree})(moonstone^{willowtree} + pebblestone^{willowtree})^{willowtree-1} \\geq sunflower^{willowtree} moonstone^{willowtree(willowtree-1)} + thunderbolt^{willowtree} pebblestone^{willowtree(willowtree-1)} \\\\\n+ \\sum_{rainstorm=1}^{willowtree-1} \\binom{willowtree}{rainstorm} sunflower^{rainstorm} thunderbolt^{willowtree-rainstorm} moonstone^{(willowtree-1)rainstorm} pebblestone^{(willowtree-1)(willowtree-rainstorm)},\n\\end{multline*}\nproving the auxiliary inequality.\n\nNow given the auxiliary inequality and the $willowtree-1$ case of the desired inequality, we apply the auxiliary inequality with $sunflower = oceanview^{1/willowtree}$,\n$thunderbolt = driftwood^{1/willowtree}$, $moonstone = (lighthouse \\cdots marshland)^{1/willowtree(willowtree-1)}$, $pebblestone = (hummingbird \\dots starlight)^{1/willowtree(willowtree-1)}$. The right side will be the $willowtree$-th power of the desired inequality. The left side comes out to\n\\[\n(oceanview + driftwood)((lighthouse \\cdots marshland)^{1/(willowtree-1)} + (hummingbird \\cdots starlight)^{1/(willowtree-1)})^{\\!\\, willowtree-1},\n\\]\nand by the induction hypothesis, the second factor is less than $(lighthouse + hummingbird)\\cdots(marshland+starlight)$. This yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Note:}\nEquality holds if and only if $turnpike=riverbank=0$ for some $rainstorm$ or if the vectors $(oceanview, \\dots, marshland)$ and $(driftwood, \\dots, starlight)$ are proportional. As pointed out by Naoki Sato, the problem also appeared on the 1992 Irish Mathematical Olympiad. It is also a special case of a classical inequality, known as H\"older's inequality, which generalizes the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (this is visible from the $willowtree=2$ case); the first solution above is adapted from the standard proof of H\"older's inequality.\nWe don't know whether the declaration ``Apply H\"older's inequality'' by itself is considered an acceptable solution to this problem."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "a_1": "negativerealone",
        "a_2": "negativerealtwo",
        "a_n": "negativerealn",
        "a_i": "negativerealvar",
        "b_1": "imaginaryone",
        "b_2": "imaginarytwo",
        "b_n": "imaginaryn",
        "b_i": "imaginaryvar",
        "r_i": "productindex",
        "s_i": "exponentindex",
        "f": "constantvalue",
        "x": "fixedconstant",
        "k": "totalcount",
        "i": "wholeindex",
        "a": "endvalue",
        "b": "startvalue",
        "c": "inputvalue",
        "d": "outputvalue",
        "n": "infinitesize"
      },
      "question": "Let $negativerealone, negativerealtwo, \\dots, negativerealn$  and  $imaginaryone, imaginarytwo, \\dots, imaginaryn$\nbe nonnegative real numbers.\nShow that\n\\begin{align*}\n& (negativerealone negativerealtwo \\cdots negativerealn)^{1/\\infinitesize} + (imaginaryone imaginarytwo \\cdots imaginaryn)^{1/\\infinitesize} \\\\\n&\\leq [(negativerealone+imaginaryone) (negativerealtwo+imaginarytwo) \\cdots (negativerealn + imaginaryn) ]^{1/\\infinitesize}.\n\\end{align*}",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nAssume without loss of generality that $negativerealvar + imaginaryvar > 0$\nfor each $wholeindex$ (otherwise both sides of the desired inequality are zero).\nThen the AM-GM inequality gives\n\\begin{multline*}\n\\left( \\frac{negativerealone\\cdots negativerealn}{(negativerealone+imaginaryone)\\cdots(negativerealn+imaginaryn)} \\right)^{1/\\infinitesize} \\\\\n\\leq \\frac{1}{\\infinitesize} \\left( \\frac{negativerealone}{negativerealone + imaginaryone} + \\cdots + \\frac{negativerealn}{negativerealn+imaginaryn}\n\\right),\n\\end{multline*}\nand likewise with the roles of $endvalue$ and $startvalue$ reversed. Adding these two\ninequalities and clearing denominators yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:}\nWrite the desired inequality in the form\n\\[\n(negativerealone + imaginaryone)\\cdots(negativerealn+imaginaryn) \\geq\n[(negativerealone\\cdots negativerealn)^{1/\\infinitesize} + (imaginaryone\\cdots imaginaryn)^{1/\\infinitesize}]^{\\infinitesize},\n\\]\nexpand both sides, and compare the terms on both sides\nin which $\\totalcount$ of the terms are among the $negativerealvar$. On the left,\none has the product of each $\\totalcount$-element subset of $\\{1, \\dots, \\infinitesize\\}$;\non the right, one has\n\\[\n\\binom{\\infinitesize}{\\totalcount} (negativerealone\\cdots negativerealn)^{\\totalcount/\\infinitesize} \\cdots (imaginaryone \\dots imaginaryn)^{(\\infinitesize-\\totalcount)/\\infinitesize},\n\\]\nwhich is precisely $\\binom{\\infinitesize}{\\totalcount}$ times the geometric mean of the terms\non the left.  Thus AM-GM shows that the terms under consideration on the\nleft exceed those on the right; adding these inequalities over all $\\totalcount$\nyields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nSince both sides are continuous in each $negativerealvar$, it is sufficient to\nprove the claim with $negativerealone, \\dots, negativerealn$ all positive (the general case\nfollows by taking limits as some of the $negativerealvar$ tend to zero).\nPut $productindex = imaginaryvar/negativerealvar$; then the given inequality is equivalent to\n\\[\n(1 + r_1)^{1/\\infinitesize} \\cdots (1+r_n)^{1/\\infinitesize} \\geq 1 + (r_1\\cdots r_n)^{1/\\infinitesize}.\n\\]\nIn terms of the function\n\\[\nconstantvalue(fixedconstant) = \\log(1 + e^{fixedconstant})\n\\]\nand the quantities $exponentindex = \\log r_i$,\nwe can rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\frac{1}{\\infinitesize}(constantvalue(s_1) + \\cdots + constantvalue(s_n)) \\geq constantvalue\\left( \\frac{s_1 + \\cdots +\ns_n}{\\infinitesize} \\right).\n\\]\nThis will follow from Jensen's inequality if we can verify that $constantvalue$\nis a convex function; it is enough to check that $constantvalue''(fixedconstant) > 0$ for all $fixedconstant$.\nIn fact,\n\\[\nconstantvalue'(fixedconstant) = \\frac{e^{fixedconstant}}{1+e^{fixedconstant}} = 1 - \\frac{1}{1+e^{fixedconstant}}\n\\]\nis an increasing function of $fixedconstant$, so $constantvalue''(fixedconstant) > 0$ and Jensen's inequality\nthus yields the desired result. (As long as the $negativerealvar$ are all positive,\nequality holds when $s_1 = \\cdots = s_n$, i.e., when the vectors\n$(negativerealone, \\dots, negativerealn)$ and $(imaginaryone, \\dots, imaginaryn)$. Of course other equality\ncases crop up if some of the $negativerealvar$ vanish, i.e., if $negativerealone=imaginaryone=0$.)\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:}\nWe apply induction on $\\infinitesize$, the case $\\infinitesize=1$ being evident.\nFirst we verify the auxiliary inequality\n\\[\n(endvalue^{\\infinitesize} + startvalue^{\\infinitesize})(inputvalue^{\\infinitesize} + outputvalue^{\\infinitesize})^{\\infinitesize-1} \\geq (endvalue inputvalue^{\\infinitesize-1} + startvalue outputvalue^{\\infinitesize-1})^{\\infinitesize}\n\\]\nfor $endvalue,startvalue,inputvalue,outputvalue \\geq 0$.\nThe left side can be written as\n\\begin{align*}\nendvalue^{\\infinitesize} inputvalue^{\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1)} &+ startvalue^{\\infinitesize} outputvalue^{\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{wholeindex=1}^{\\infinitesize-1} \\binom{\\infinitesize-1}{wholeindex} startvalue^{\\infinitesize} inputvalue^{\\infinitesize wholeindex} outputvalue^{\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1-wholeindex)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{wholeindex=1}^{\\infinitesize-1} \\binom{\\infinitesize-1}{wholeindex-1} endvalue^{\\infinitesize} inputvalue^{\\infinitesize(wholeindex-1)} outputvalue^{\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-wholeindex)}.\n\\end{align*}\nApplying the weighted AM-GM inequality between matching terms in the two\nsums yields\n\\begin{multline*}\n(endvalue^{\\infinitesize} + startvalue^{\\infinitesize})(inputvalue^{\\infinitesize} + outputvalue^{\\infinitesize})^{\\infinitesize-1} \\geq endvalue^{\\infinitesize} inputvalue^{\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1)} + startvalue^{\\infinitesize} outputvalue^{\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1)} \\\\\n+ \\sum_{wholeindex=1}^{\\infinitesize-1} \\binom{\\infinitesize}{wholeindex} endvalue^{wholeindex} startvalue^{\\infinitesize-wholeindex} inputvalue^{(\\infinitesize-1)wholeindex} outputvalue^{(\\infinitesize-1)(\\infinitesize-wholeindex)},\n\\end{multline*}\nproving the auxiliary inequality.\n\nNow given the auxiliary inequality and the $\\infinitesize-1$ case of the desired\ninequality, we apply the auxiliary inequality with $endvalue = negativerealone^{1/\\infinitesize}$,\n$startvalue = imaginaryone^{1/\\infinitesize}$, $inputvalue = (negativerealtwo \\cdots negativerealn)^{1/\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1)}$,\n$outputvalue = (imaginarytwo \\dots imaginaryn)^{1/\\infinitesize(\\infinitesize-1)}$. The right side will be the $\\infinitesize$-th\npower of the desired inequality. The left side comes out to\n\\[\n(negativerealone + imaginaryone)((negativerealtwo \\cdots negativerealn)^{1/(\\infinitesize-1)} + (imaginarytwo \\cdots imaginaryn)^{1/(\\infinitesize-1)})^{\\infinitesize-1},\n\\]\nand by the induction hypothesis, the second factor is less than\n$(negativerealtwo + imaginarytwo)\\cdots(negativerealn+imaginaryn)$. This yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Note:}\nEquality holds if and only if $negativerealvar=imaginaryvar=0$ for some $wholeindex$ or if the vectors\n$(negativerealone, \\dots, negativerealn)$ and $(imaginaryone, \\dots, imaginaryn)$ are proportional.\nAs pointed out by Naoki Sato, the problem also appeared on the 1992\nIrish Mathematical Olympiad.\nIt is also a special case of a classical inequality,\nknown as H\"older's inequality, which generalizes the\nCauchy-Schwarz inequality (this is visible from the $\\infinitesize=2$ case); the\nfirst solution above is adapted from the standard proof of H\"older's\ninequality.\nWe don't know whether the declaration\n``Apply H\"older's inequality'' by itself is considered\nan acceptable solution to this problem."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "a_1": "qzxwvtnp",
        "a_2": "hjgrksla",
        "a_n": "mldpqrvo",
        "a_i": "xkceqbzn",
        "b_1": "rtyusfgh",
        "b_2": "eopncvxz",
        "b_n": "iyklmwer",
        "b_i": "szadqplm",
        "r_i": "kobtuvny",
        "s_i": "plaernxz",
        "f": "jvchiduk",
        "x": "qlomnves",
        "k": "wirbpxsa",
        "i": "ucgmzrlo",
        "a": "nfqsyhjt",
        "b": "pxladrwo",
        "c": "vsgkmebu",
        "d": "hqntczay",
        "n": "tbruqkse"
      },
      "question": "Let $qzxwvtnp, hjgrksla, \\dots, mldpqrvo$  and  $rtyusfgh, eopncvxz, \\dots, iyklmwer$\nbe nonnegative real numbers.\nShow that\n\\begin{align*}\n& (qzxwvtnp hjgrksla \\cdots mldpqrvo)^{1/tbruqkse} + (rtyusfgh eopncvxz \\cdots iyklmwer)^{1/tbruqkse} \\\\\n&\\leq [(qzxwvtnp+rtyusfgh) (hjgrksla+eopncvxz) \\cdots (mldpqrvo + iyklmwer) ]^{1/tbruqkse}.\n\\end{align*}",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nAssume without loss of generality that $xkceqbzn + szadqplm > 0$\nfor each $ucgmzrlo$ (otherwise both sides of the desired inequality are zero).\nThen the AM-GM inequality gives\n\\begin{multline*}\n\\left( \\frac{qzxwvtnp\\cdots mldpqrvo}{(qzxwvtnp+rtyusfgh)\\cdots(mldpqrvo+iyklmwer)} \\right)^{1/tbruqkse} \\\\\n\\leq \\frac{1}{tbruqkse} \\left( \\frac{qzxwvtnp}{qzxwvtnp + rtyusfgh} + \\cdots + \\frac{mldpqrvo}{mldpqrvo+iyklmwer}\n\\right),\n\\end{multline*}\nand likewise with the roles of $nfqsyhjt$ and $pxladrwo$ reversed. Adding these two\ninequalities and clearing denominators yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:}\nWrite the desired inequality in the form\n\\[\n(qzxwvtnp + rtyusfgh)\\cdots(mldpqrvo+iyklmwer) \\geq\n[(qzxwvtnp\\cdots mldpqrvo)^{1/tbruqkse} + (rtyusfgh\\cdots iyklmwer)^{1/tbruqkse}]^{tbruqkse},\n\\]\nexpand both sides, and compare the terms on both sides\nin which $wirbpxsa$ of the terms are among the $xkceqbzn$. On the left,\none has the product of each $wirbpxsa$-element subset of $\\{1, \\dots, tbruqkse\\}$;\non the right, one has\n\\[\n\\binom{tbruqkse}{wirbpxsa} (qzxwvtnp\\cdots mldpqrvo)^{wirbpxsa/tbruqkse} \\cdots (rtyusfgh \\dots iyklmwer)^{(tbruqkse-wirbpxsa)/tbruqkse},\n\\]\nwhich is precisely $\\binom{tbruqkse}{wirbpxsa}$ times the geometric mean of the terms\non the left.  Thus AM-GM shows that the terms under consideration on the\nleft exceed those on the right; adding these inequalities over all $wirbpxsa$\nyields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nSince both sides are continuous in each $xkceqbzn$, it is sufficient to\nprove the claim with $qzxwvtnp, \\dots, mldpqrvo$ all positive (the general case\nfollows by taking limits as some of the $xkceqbzn$ tend to zero).\nPut $kobtuvny = szadqplm/xkceqbzn$; then the given inequality is equivalent to\n\\[\n(1 + kobtuvny_1)^{1/tbruqkse} \\cdots (1+kobtuvny_{tbruqkse})^{1/tbruqkse} \\geq 1 + (kobtuvny_1\\cdots kobtuvny_{tbruqkse})^{1/tbruqkse}.\n\\]\nIn terms of the function\n\\[\njvchiduk(qlomnves) = \\log(1 + e^{qlomnves})\n\\]\nand the quantities $plaernxz = \\log kobtuvny$,\nwe can rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\frac{1}{tbruqkse}(jvchiduk(plaernxz_1) + \\cdots + jvchiduk(plaernxz_{tbruqkse})) \\geq jvchiduk\\left( \\frac{plaernxz_1 + \\cdots +\nplaernxz_{tbruqkse}}{tbruqkse} \\right).\n\\]\nThis will follow from Jensen's inequality if we can verify that $jvchiduk$\nis a convex function; it is enough to check that $jvchiduk''(qlomnves) > 0$ for all $qlomnves$.\nIn fact,\n\\[\njvchiduk'(qlomnves) = \\frac{e^{qlomnves}}{1+e^{qlomnves}} = 1 - \\frac{1}{1+e^{qlomnves}}\n\\]\nis an increasing function of $qlomnves$, so $jvchiduk''(qlomnves) > 0$ and Jensen's inequality\nthus yields the desired result. (As long as the $qzxwvtnp$ are all positive,\nequality holds when $plaernxz_1 = \\cdots = plaernxz_{tbruqkse}$, i.e., when the vectors\n$(qzxwvtnp, \\dots, mldpqrvo)$ and $(rtyusfgh, \\dots, iyklmwer)$. Of course other equality\ncases crop up if some of the $qzxwvtnp$ vanish, i.e., if $qzxwvtnp=rtyusfgh=0$.)\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:}\nWe apply induction on $tbruqkse$, the case $tbruqkse=1$ being evident.\nFirst we verify the auxiliary inequality\n\\[\n(nfqsyhjt^{tbruqkse} + pxladrwo^{tbruqkse})(vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse} + hqntczay^{tbruqkse})^{tbruqkse-1} \\geq (nfqsyhjt vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse-1} + pxladrwo hqntczay^{tbruqkse-1})^{tbruqkse}\n\\]\nfor $nfqsyhjt,pxladrwo,vsgkmebu,hqntczay \\geq 0$.\nThe left side can be written as\n\\begin{align*}\nnfqsyhjt^{tbruqkse} vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1)} &+ pxladrwo^{tbruqkse} hqntczay^{tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{ucgmzrlo=1}^{tbruqkse-1} \\binom{tbruqkse-1}{ucgmzrlo} pxladrwo^{tbruqkse} vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse ucgmzrlo} hqntczay^{tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1-ucgmzrlo)} \\\\\n&+ \\sum_{ucgmzrlo=1}^{tbruqkse-1} \\binom{tbruqkse-1}{ucgmzrlo-1} nfqsyhjt^{tbruqkse} vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse(ucgmzrlo-1)} hqntczay^{tbruqkse(tbruqkse-ucgmzrlo)}.\n\\end{align*}\nApplying the weighted AM-GM inequality between matching terms in the two\nsums yields\n\\begin{multline*}\n(nfqsyhjt^{tbruqkse} + pxladrwo^{tbruqkse})(vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse} + hqntczay^{tbruqkse})^{tbruqkse-1} \\geq nfqsyhjt^{tbruqkse} vsgkmebu^{tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1)} + pxladrwo^{tbruqkse} hqntczay^{tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1)} \\\\\n+ \\sum_{ucgmzrlo=1}^{tbruqkse-1} \\binom{tbruqkse}{ucgmzrlo} nfqsyhjt^{ucgmzrlo} pxladrwo^{tbruqkse-ucgmzrlo} vsgkmebu^{(tbruqkse-1)ucgmzrlo} hqntczay^{(tbruqkse-1)(tbruqkse-ucgmzrlo)},\n\\end{multline*}\nproving the auxiliary inequality.\n\nNow given the auxiliary inequality and the $tbruqkse-1$ case of the desired\ninequality, we apply the auxiliary inequality with $nfqsyhjt = qzxwvtnp^{1/tbruqkse}$,\n$pxladrwo = rtyusfgh^{1/tbruqkse}$, $vsgkmebu = (hjgrksla \\cdots mldpqrvo)^{1/tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1)}$,\n$hqntczay = (eopncvxz \\dots iyklmwer)^{1/tbruqkse(tbruqkse-1)}$. The right side will be the $tbruqkse$-th\npower of the desired inequality. The left side comes out to\n\\[\n(qzxwvtnp + rtyusfgh)((hjgrksla \\cdots mldpqrvo)^{1/(tbruqkse-1)} + (eopncvxz \\cdots iyklmwer)^{1/(tbruqkse-1)})^{tbruqkse-1},\n\\]\nand by the induction hypothesis, the second factor is less than\n$(hjgrksla + eopncvxz)\\cdots(mldpqrvo+iyklmwer)$. This yields the desired result.\n\n\\textbf{Note:}\nEquality holds if and only if $xkceqbzn=szadqplm=0$ for some $ucgmzrlo$ or if the vectors\n$(qzxwvtnp, \\dots, mldpqrvo)$ and $(rtyusfgh, \\dots, iyklmwer)$ are proportional.\nAs pointed out by Naoki Sato, the problem also appeared on the 1992\nIrish Mathematical Olympiad.\nIt is also a special case of a classical inequality,\nknown as H\"older's inequality, which generalizes the\nCauchy-Schwarz inequality (this is visible from the $tbruqkse=2$ case); the\nfirst solution above is adapted from the standard proof of H\"older's\ninequality.\nWe don't know whether the declaration\n``Apply H\"older's inequality'' by itself is considered\nan acceptable solution to this problem."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $n,d\\in\\mathbb N$.  \nFor every $k\\in\\{1,\\dots ,n\\}$ assume  \n\n$\\bullet$ $A_k$ and $B_k$ are real $d\\times d$ symmetric positive–semidefinite matrices,  \n\n$\\bullet$ the $2n$ matrices $A_1,\\dots ,A_n,B_1,\\dots ,B_n$ pairwise commute (so they are\nsimultaneously orthogonally diagonalisable).\n\nPut  \n\\[\n\\Pi_{A}:=A_1A_2\\cdots A_n,\\qquad \n\\Pi_{B}:=B_1B_2\\cdots B_n,\n\\]\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}:=\\det(\\Pi_{A}),\\qquad \n\\Delta_{B}:=\\det(\\Pi_{B}),\\qquad \n\\Delta_{A+B}:=\\det\\!\\bigl[(A_1+B_1)(A_2+B_2)\\cdots(A_n+B_n)\\bigr].\n\\]\n\n(a)  Prove the determinantal matrix inequality  \n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}\\;\\le\\;\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}\\;}\n\\tag{$\\star$}\n\\]\n\n(b)  Analyse the equality cases in the {\\em scalar} situation $d=1$ and show that\n\\[\n\\text{equality in $(\\star)$ for $d=1$}\n\\;\\Longleftrightarrow\\;\n\\Bigl[\\text{there exists }k\\text{ with }A_k=B_k=0\\Bigr]\n\\;\\text{or}\\;\n\\Bigl[\\exists\\lambda\\ge0:\\;A_k=\\lambda B_k\\ \\text{ for every }k\\Bigr].\n\\]\n\n(c)  Prove that in the genuine matrix situation $d\\ge 2$ the inequality in $(\\star)$ is\n{\\em strict} whenever both determinants are strictly positive:\n\\[\nd\\ge 2,\\ \\Delta_{A}>0,\\ \\Delta_{B}>0\n\\quad\\Longrightarrow\\quad\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}<\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}.\n\\]\n\n(d)  Give at least one non-trivial example with $d\\ge 2$ in which equality holds\nin $(\\star)$ (necessarily implying $\\Delta_{A}\\,\\Delta_{B}=0$).\n\n(The complete description of all equality cases for $d\\ge 2$ is surprisingly\nintricate and is {\\em not} required.)\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%",
      "solution": "Throughout “$\\operatorname{diag}$’’ denotes a diagonal matrix with the listed\nentries in the displayed order.\n\n\\textbf{Step 1 – Simultaneous diagonalisation.}  \nBecause the $2n$ matrices are real symmetric and pairwise commuting, there\nexists an orthogonal matrix $U$ such that for each $k$\n\\[\nU^{\\mathrm T}A_kU=\\Lambda_k=\\operatorname{diag}(\\lambda_{k,1},\\dots ,\\lambda_{k,d}),\n\\qquad\nU^{\\mathrm T}B_kU=M_k=\\operatorname{diag}(\\mu_{k,1},\\dots ,\\mu_{k,d}),\n\\]\nwith $\\lambda_{k,i},\\mu_{k,i}\\ge 0$.  Define\n\\[\na_i:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}\\lambda_{k,i}\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\qquad\nb_i:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}\\mu_{k,i}\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\qquad\nr_i:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}(\\lambda_{k,i}+\\mu_{k,i})\\Bigr)^{1/n}.\n\\tag{1}\n\\]\nBecause determinants of diagonal matrices are products of their diagonal\nentries,\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}=\\prod_{i=1}^{d}a_i,\\qquad\n\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}=\\prod_{i=1}^{d}b_i,\\qquad\n\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}=\\prod_{i=1}^{d}r_i.\n\\tag{2}\n\\]\n\n\\textbf{Step 2 – A rowwise scalar inequality.}  \nFix an index $i\\in\\{1,\\dots ,d\\}$.  For this $i$ we have $2n$ non-negative\nnumbers\n$\\lambda_{1,i},\\dots ,\\lambda_{n,i},\\mu_{1,i},\\dots ,\\mu_{n,i}$,\nand the original Olympiad inequality gives  \n\\[\na_i+b_i\\;\\le\\;r_i\\qquad(i=1,\\dots ,d).\n\\tag{3}\n\\]\n\n\\textbf{Step 3 – From the rows to the determinant.}  \nMultiplying (3) over $i$ and using (2) yields  \n\\[\n\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(a_i+b_i)\\;\\le\\;\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}.\n\\tag{4}\n\\]\nFor arbitrary non-negative pairs $(x_i,y_i)$ the elementary inequality  \n\\[\n\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(x_i+y_i)\\;\\ge\\;\\prod_{i=1}^{d}x_i+\\prod_{i=1}^{d}y_i\n\\tag{5}\n\\]\nholds, because the left-hand side expands to those two “pure’’ monomials\nplus further non-negative mixed terms.  Taking $(x_i,y_i)=(a_i,b_i)$ and\ncombining (5) with (4) gives $(\\star)$, completing part (a).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\\medskip\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Step 4 – Scalar equality analysis ($d=1$).}  \n\nNow $d=1$, so there is only one index and (5) is an equality.  Equality\nin $(\\star)$ is therefore equivalent to equality in the {\\em scalar}\ninequality (3):\n\\[\na_1+b_1=r_1.\n\\tag{6}\n\\]\nWrite $a_k:=\\lambda_{k,1}$ and $b_k:=\\mu_{k,1}$ $(k=1,\\dots ,n)$.\nRelation (6) is exactly the classical inequality\n\\[\nA+B\\le C,\\qquad\nA:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}a_k\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\;\nB:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}b_k\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\;\nC:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}(a_k+b_k)\\Bigr)^{1/n},\n\\]\nso Hölder’s equality criterion applies:\n\\[\nA+B=C\n\\Longleftrightarrow\n\\Bigl[\\text{there exists }k\\text{ with }a_k=b_k=0\\Bigr]\\;\n\\text{or}\\;\n\\Bigl[\\exists\\lambda\\ge 0:\\,a_k=\\lambda b_k\\ \\forall k\\Bigr].\n\\tag{7}\n\\]\nTranslated back to the present matrix language (remember $d=1$ so\n$A_k=a_k$, $B_k=b_k$) this is exactly the statement required in part (b).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\\medskip\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Step 5 – Strictness when $d\\ge 2$ and both determinants are positive.}  \n\nAssume $d\\ge 2$ and $\\Delta_{A},\\Delta_{B}>0$.  \nThen every $a_i$ and $b_i$ defined in (1) is strictly positive.  \nConsequently each factor $(a_i+b_i)$ in (5) satisfies  \n$(a_i+b_i)>\\max\\{a_i,b_i\\}$, so the inequality (5) is \\emph{strict}:\n\\[\n\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(a_i+b_i)\\;>\\;\\prod_{i=1}^{d}a_i+\\prod_{i=1}^{d}b_i\n=\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}.\n\\tag{8}\n\\]\nCombining (8) with the (possibly non-strict) estimate (4) we obtain\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}\\;<\\;\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(a_i+b_i)\\;\\le\\;\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n},\n\\]\nwhich is exactly the desired strict inequality in part (c).\n\n(The crucial observation is that strictness of (5) already supplies the\nnecessary “gap’’; no strictness of (4) is required.)\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\\medskip\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Step 6 – A sample equality example for $d\\ge 2$.}  \n\nLet $n=2$, $d=2$.  After a common diagonalisation choose  \n\\[\n\\Lambda_1=\\operatorname{diag}(2,0),\\quad\n\\Lambda_2=\\operatorname{diag}(1,0),\\quad\nM_1=\\operatorname{diag}(1,0),\\quad\nM_2=\\operatorname{diag}(2,0).\n\\]\nThen\n\\[\na_1=b_1=\\sqrt 2,\\qquad a_2=b_2=r_2=0,\\qquad r_1=3,\n\\]\nhence\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/2}=0,\\quad\n\\Delta_{B}^{1/2}=0,\\quad\n\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/2}=0,\n\\]\nand equality holds in $(\\star)$ while neither family $\\{A_k\\}$ nor\n$\\{B_k\\}$ is identically zero.  This confirms that for $d\\ge 2$ equality\ncan occur only in degenerate situations with $\\Delta_{A}\\,\\Delta_{B}=0$,\nas asserted in part (d).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\nThe inequality $(\\star)$ together with parts (b), (c) and (d) is now\ncompletely proved.\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.777991",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "1. Higher dimensional objects: The problem moves from scalar variables to d×d matrices; determinants replace simple products, introducing multi-linear algebra.\n\n2. Additional structural hypotheses: Mutual commutativity and positive-semidefiniteness are required so that simultaneous diagonalisation (an advanced linear-algebraic technique) can be invoked.\n\n3. Deeper theoretical tools:  \n   • Spectral theory of commuting self–adjoint matrices.  \n   • Properties of determinants under orthogonal conjugation.  \n   • Lifting a scalar inequality to matrix level via eigenvalue decomposition.\n\n4. Interacting concepts: One must blend the original AM–GM (or Hölder) idea with linear-algebraic diagonalisation and with determinant multiplicativity.\n\n5. Richer equality analysis: Determining equality now involves both eigenvalue relations and matrix–scalar proportionality, far subtler than in the original scalar setting.\n\nHence the enhanced variant demands considerably more sophisticated knowledge and a multi-step argument, making it significantly harder than both the original Olympiad problem and its existing kernel variant."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $n,d\\in\\mathbb N$.  \nFor every $k\\in\\{1,\\dots ,n\\}$ assume  \n\n$\\bullet$ $A_k$ and $B_k$ are real $d\\times d$ symmetric positive–semidefinite matrices,  \n\n$\\bullet$ the $2n$ matrices $A_1,\\dots ,A_n,B_1,\\dots ,B_n$ pairwise commute (so they are\nsimultaneously orthogonally diagonalisable).\n\nPut  \n\\[\n\\Pi_{A}:=A_1A_2\\cdots A_n,\\qquad \n\\Pi_{B}:=B_1B_2\\cdots B_n,\n\\]\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}:=\\det(\\Pi_{A}),\\qquad \n\\Delta_{B}:=\\det(\\Pi_{B}),\\qquad \n\\Delta_{A+B}:=\\det\\!\\bigl[(A_1+B_1)(A_2+B_2)\\cdots(A_n+B_n)\\bigr].\n\\]\n\n(a)  Prove the determinantal matrix inequality  \n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}\\;\\le\\;\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}\\;}\n\\tag{$\\star$}\n\\]\n\n(b)  Analyse the equality cases in the {\\em scalar} situation $d=1$ and show that\n\\[\n\\text{equality in $(\\star)$ for $d=1$}\n\\;\\Longleftrightarrow\\;\n\\Bigl[\\text{there exists }k\\text{ with }A_k=B_k=0\\Bigr]\n\\;\\text{or}\\;\n\\Bigl[\\exists\\lambda\\ge0:\\;A_k=\\lambda B_k\\ \\text{ for every }k\\Bigr].\n\\]\n\n(c)  Prove that in the genuine matrix situation $d\\ge 2$ the inequality in $(\\star)$ is\n{\\em strict} whenever both determinants are strictly positive:\n\\[\nd\\ge 2,\\ \\Delta_{A}>0,\\ \\Delta_{B}>0\n\\quad\\Longrightarrow\\quad\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}<\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}.\n\\]\n\n(d)  Give at least one non-trivial example with $d\\ge 2$ in which equality holds\nin $(\\star)$ (necessarily implying $\\Delta_{A}\\,\\Delta_{B}=0$).\n\n(The complete description of all equality cases for $d\\ge 2$ is surprisingly\nintricate and is {\\em not} required.)\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%",
      "solution": "Throughout “$\\operatorname{diag}$’’ denotes a diagonal matrix with the listed\nentries in the displayed order.\n\n\\textbf{Step 1 – Simultaneous diagonalisation.}  \nBecause the $2n$ matrices are real symmetric and pairwise commuting, there\nexists an orthogonal matrix $U$ such that for each $k$\n\\[\nU^{\\mathrm T}A_kU=\\Lambda_k=\\operatorname{diag}(\\lambda_{k,1},\\dots ,\\lambda_{k,d}),\n\\qquad\nU^{\\mathrm T}B_kU=M_k=\\operatorname{diag}(\\mu_{k,1},\\dots ,\\mu_{k,d}),\n\\]\nwith $\\lambda_{k,i},\\mu_{k,i}\\ge 0$.  Define\n\\[\na_i:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}\\lambda_{k,i}\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\qquad\nb_i:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}\\mu_{k,i}\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\qquad\nr_i:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}(\\lambda_{k,i}+\\mu_{k,i})\\Bigr)^{1/n}.\n\\tag{1}\n\\]\nBecause determinants of diagonal matrices are products of their diagonal\nentries,\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}=\\prod_{i=1}^{d}a_i,\\qquad\n\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}=\\prod_{i=1}^{d}b_i,\\qquad\n\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}=\\prod_{i=1}^{d}r_i.\n\\tag{2}\n\\]\n\n\\textbf{Step 2 – A rowwise scalar inequality.}  \nFix an index $i\\in\\{1,\\dots ,d\\}$.  For this $i$ we have $2n$ non-negative\nnumbers\n$\\lambda_{1,i},\\dots ,\\lambda_{n,i},\\mu_{1,i},\\dots ,\\mu_{n,i}$,\nand the original Olympiad inequality gives  \n\\[\na_i+b_i\\;\\le\\;r_i\\qquad(i=1,\\dots ,d).\n\\tag{3}\n\\]\n\n\\textbf{Step 3 – From the rows to the determinant.}  \nMultiplying (3) over $i$ and using (2) yields  \n\\[\n\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(a_i+b_i)\\;\\le\\;\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n}.\n\\tag{4}\n\\]\nFor arbitrary non-negative pairs $(x_i,y_i)$ the elementary inequality  \n\\[\n\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(x_i+y_i)\\;\\ge\\;\\prod_{i=1}^{d}x_i+\\prod_{i=1}^{d}y_i\n\\tag{5}\n\\]\nholds, because the left-hand side expands to those two “pure’’ monomials\nplus further non-negative mixed terms.  Taking $(x_i,y_i)=(a_i,b_i)$ and\ncombining (5) with (4) gives $(\\star)$, completing part (a).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\\medskip\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Step 4 – Scalar equality analysis ($d=1$).}  \n\nNow $d=1$, so there is only one index and (5) is an equality.  Equality\nin $(\\star)$ is therefore equivalent to equality in the {\\em scalar}\ninequality (3):\n\\[\na_1+b_1=r_1.\n\\tag{6}\n\\]\nWrite $a_k:=\\lambda_{k,1}$ and $b_k:=\\mu_{k,1}$ $(k=1,\\dots ,n)$.\nRelation (6) is exactly the classical inequality\n\\[\nA+B\\le C,\\qquad\nA:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}a_k\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\;\nB:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}b_k\\Bigr)^{1/n},\\;\nC:=\\Bigl(\\prod_{k=1}^{n}(a_k+b_k)\\Bigr)^{1/n},\n\\]\nso Hölder’s equality criterion applies:\n\\[\nA+B=C\n\\Longleftrightarrow\n\\Bigl[\\text{there exists }k\\text{ with }a_k=b_k=0\\Bigr]\\;\n\\text{or}\\;\n\\Bigl[\\exists\\lambda\\ge 0:\\,a_k=\\lambda b_k\\ \\forall k\\Bigr].\n\\tag{7}\n\\]\nTranslated back to the present matrix language (remember $d=1$ so\n$A_k=a_k$, $B_k=b_k$) this is exactly the statement required in part (b).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\\medskip\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Step 5 – Strictness when $d\\ge 2$ and both determinants are positive.}  \n\nAssume $d\\ge 2$ and $\\Delta_{A},\\Delta_{B}>0$.  \nThen every $a_i$ and $b_i$ defined in (1) is strictly positive.  \nConsequently each factor $(a_i+b_i)$ in (5) satisfies  \n$(a_i+b_i)>\\max\\{a_i,b_i\\}$, so the inequality (5) is \\emph{strict}:\n\\[\n\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(a_i+b_i)\\;>\\;\\prod_{i=1}^{d}a_i+\\prod_{i=1}^{d}b_i\n=\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}.\n\\tag{8}\n\\]\nCombining (8) with the (possibly non-strict) estimate (4) we obtain\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/n}+\\Delta_{B}^{1/n}\\;<\\;\\prod_{i=1}^{d}(a_i+b_i)\\;\\le\\;\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/n},\n\\]\nwhich is exactly the desired strict inequality in part (c).\n\n(The crucial observation is that strictness of (5) already supplies the\nnecessary “gap’’; no strictness of (4) is required.)\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\\medskip\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Step 6 – A sample equality example for $d\\ge 2$.}  \n\nLet $n=2$, $d=2$.  After a common diagonalisation choose  \n\\[\n\\Lambda_1=\\operatorname{diag}(2,0),\\quad\n\\Lambda_2=\\operatorname{diag}(1,0),\\quad\nM_1=\\operatorname{diag}(1,0),\\quad\nM_2=\\operatorname{diag}(2,0).\n\\]\nThen\n\\[\na_1=b_1=\\sqrt 2,\\qquad a_2=b_2=r_2=0,\\qquad r_1=3,\n\\]\nhence\n\\[\n\\Delta_{A}^{1/2}=0,\\quad\n\\Delta_{B}^{1/2}=0,\\quad\n\\Delta_{A+B}^{1/2}=0,\n\\]\nand equality holds in $(\\star)$ while neither family $\\{A_k\\}$ nor\n$\\{B_k\\}$ is identically zero.  This confirms that for $d\\ge 2$ equality\ncan occur only in degenerate situations with $\\Delta_{A}\\,\\Delta_{B}=0$,\nas asserted in part (d).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\nThe inequality $(\\star)$ together with parts (b), (c) and (d) is now\ncompletely proved.\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.595848",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "1. Higher dimensional objects: The problem moves from scalar variables to d×d matrices; determinants replace simple products, introducing multi-linear algebra.\n\n2. Additional structural hypotheses: Mutual commutativity and positive-semidefiniteness are required so that simultaneous diagonalisation (an advanced linear-algebraic technique) can be invoked.\n\n3. Deeper theoretical tools:  \n   • Spectral theory of commuting self–adjoint matrices.  \n   • Properties of determinants under orthogonal conjugation.  \n   • Lifting a scalar inequality to matrix level via eigenvalue decomposition.\n\n4. Interacting concepts: One must blend the original AM–GM (or Hölder) idea with linear-algebraic diagonalisation and with determinant multiplicativity.\n\n5. Richer equality analysis: Determining equality now involves both eigenvalue relations and matrix–scalar proportionality, far subtler than in the original scalar setting.\n\nHence the enhanced variant demands considerably more sophisticated knowledge and a multi-step argument, making it significantly harder than both the original Olympiad problem and its existing kernel variant."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}