{
  "index": "2004-B-2",
  "type": "COMB",
  "tag": [
    "COMB",
    "NT",
    "ANA",
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers.  Show that\n\\[\n\\frac{(m+n)!}{(m+n)^{m+n}}\n< \\frac{m!}{m^m} \\frac{n!}{n^n}.\n\\]",
  "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nWe have\n\\[\n(m+n)^{m+n} > \\binom{m+n}{m} m^m n^n\n\\]\nbecause the binomial expansion of $(m+n)^{m+n}$ includes the term on\nthe right as well as some others. Rearranging this inequality yields\nthe claim.\n\n\\textbf{Remark:}\nOne can also interpret this argument combinatorially.\nSuppose that we choose $m+n$ times (with replacement) uniformly\nrandomly from a set of $m+n$ balls, of which $m$ are red and $n$ are\nblue. Then the probability of picking each ball exactly once is\n$(m+n)!/(m+n)^{m+n}$. On the other hand, if $p$ is the probability\nof picking exactly $m$ red balls, then $p<1$ and the probability\nof picking each ball exactly once is $p (m^m/m!)(n^n/n!)$.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:} (by David Savitt)\nDefine\n\\[\nS_k = \\{i/k: i=1, \\dots, k\\}\n\\]\nand rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\prod_{x \\in S_m} x \\prod_{y \\in S_n} y > \\prod_{z \\in S_{m+n}} z.\n\\]\nTo prove this, it suffices to check that if we sort the multiplicands\non both sides into increasing order, the $i$-th term on the left\nside is greater than or equal to the $i$-th term on the right side.\n(The equality is strict already for $i=1$, so you do get a strict inequality\nabove.)\n\nAnother way to say this is that for\nany $i$, the number of factors on the left side which are less than\n$i/(m+n)$ is less than $i$. But since $j/m < i/(m+n)$ is equivalent to\n$j < im/(m+n)$, that number is\n\\begin{align*}\n&\\left\\lceil \\frac{im}{m+n} \\right\\rceil -1 +\n\\left\\lceil \\frac{in}{m+n} \\right\\rceil -1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{im}{m+n} + \\frac{in}{m+n} - 1 = i-1.\n\\end{align*}\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nPut $f(x) = x (\\log (x+1) - \\log x)$; then for $x>0$,\n\\begin{align*}\nf'(x) &= \\log(1 + 1/x) - \\frac{1}{x+1} \\\\\nf''(x) &= - \\frac{1}{x(x+1)^2}.\n\\end{align*}\nHence $f''(x) < 0$ for all $x$; since $f'(x) \\to 0$ as $x \\to \\infty$,\nwe have $f'(x) > 0$ for $x>0$, so $f$ is strictly increasing.\n\nPut $g(m) = m \\log m - \\log(m!)$; then $g(m+1) - g(m) = f(m)$,\nso $g(m+1)-g(m)$ increases with $m$. By induction,\n$g(m+n) - g(m)$ increases with $n$ for any positive integer $n$,\nso in particular\n\\begin{align*}\ng(m+n) - g(m) &> g(n) - g(1) + f(m) \\\\\n&\\geq g(n)\n\\end{align*}\nsince $g(1) = 0$. Exponentiating yields the desired inequality.\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:} (by W.G. Boskoff and Bogdan Suceav\\u{a})\nWe prove the claim by induction on $m+n$. The base case is $m=n=1$, in which case\nthe desired inequality is obviously true: $2!/2^2 = 1/2 < 1 = (1!/1^1)(1!/1^1)$.\nTo prove the induction step, suppose $m+n > 2$; we must then have $m>1$ or $n>1$ or both.\nBecause the desired result is symmetric in $m$ and $n$, we may as well assume $n > 1$.\nBy the induction hypothesis, we have\n\\[\n\\frac{(m+n-1)!}{(m+n-1)^{m+n-1}} < \\frac{m!}{m^m} \\frac{(n-1)!}{(n-1)^{n-1}}.\n\\]\nTo obtain the desired inequality, it will suffice to check that\n\\[\n\\frac{(m+n-1)^{m+n-1}}{(m+n-1)!} \\frac{(m+n)!}{(m+n)^{m+n}}< \\frac{(n-1)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} \\frac{n!}{(n)^{n}}\n\\]\nor in other words\n\\[\n\\left( 1 - \\frac{1}{m+n} \\right)^{m+n-1} < \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{n} \\right)^{n-1}.\n\\]\nTo show this, we check that the function $f(x) = (1 - 1/x)^{x-1}$\nis strictly decreasing for $x>1$; while this can be achieved using the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean\ninequality, we give a simple calculus proof instead. The derivative of $\\log f(x)$ is\n$\\log (1-1/x) + 1/x$, so it is enough to check that this is negative for $x>1$.\nAn equivalent statement is that $\\log (1-x) + x < 0$ for $0 < x < 1$;\nthis in turn holds because the function $g(x) = \\log(1-x) + x$ tends to 0 as $x \\to 0^+$\nand has derivative $1 - \\frac{1}{1-x} < 0$ for $0 < x < 1$.",
  "vars": [
    "m",
    "n",
    "p",
    "i",
    "j",
    "x",
    "y",
    "z",
    "k",
    "f",
    "g",
    "S_k",
    "S_m",
    "S_n",
    "S_m+n"
  ],
  "params": [],
  "sci_consts": [],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "m": "countmval",
        "n": "countnval",
        "p": "probpval",
        "i": "indexival",
        "j": "indexjval",
        "x": "varxcomp",
        "y": "varycomp",
        "z": "varzcomp",
        "k": "countkval",
        "f": "funcfexpr",
        "g": "funcgexpr",
        "S_k": "setkgroup",
        "S_m": "setmgroup",
        "S_n": "setngroup",
        "S_{m+n}": "setmngroup"
      },
      "question": "Let $countmval$ and $countnval$ be positive integers.  Show that\n\\[\n\\frac{(countmval+countnval)!}{(countmval+countnval)^{countmval+countnval}}\n< \\frac{countmval!}{countmval^{countmval}} \\frac{countnval!}{countnval^{countnval}}.\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nWe have\n\\[\n(countmval+countnval)^{countmval+countnval} > \\binom{countmval+countnval}{countmval} countmval^{countmval} countnval^{countnval}\n\\]\nbecause the binomial expansion of $(countmval+countnval)^{countmval+countnval}$ includes the term on\nthe right as well as some others. Rearranging this inequality yields\nthe claim.\n\n\\textbf{Remark:}\nOne can also interpret this argument combinatorially.\nSuppose that we choose $countmval+countnval$ times (with replacement) uniformly\nrandomly from a set of $countmval+countnval$ balls, of which $countmval$ are red and $countnval$ are\nblue. Then the probability of picking each ball exactly once is\n$(countmval+countnval)!/(countmval+countnval)^{countmval+countnval}$. On the other hand, if $probpval$ is the probability\nof picking exactly $countmval$ red balls, then $probpval<1$ and the probability\nof picking each ball exactly once is $probpval (countmval^{countmval}/countmval!)(countnval^{countnval}/countnval!)$.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:} (by David Savitt)\nDefine\n\\[\nsetkgroup = \\{indexival/countkval: indexival=1, \\dots, countkval\\}\n\\]\nand rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\prod_{varxcomp \\in setmgroup} varxcomp \\prod_{varycomp \\in setngroup} varycomp > \\prod_{varzcomp \\in setmngroup} varzcomp.\n\\]\nTo prove this, it suffices to check that if we sort the multiplicands\non both sides into increasing order, the $indexival$-th term on the left\nside is greater than or equal to the $indexival$-th term on the right side.\n(The equality is strict already for $indexival=1$, so you do get a strict inequality\nabove.)\n\nAnother way to say this is that for\nany $indexival$, the number of factors on the left side which are less than\n$indexival/(countmval+countnval)$ is less than $indexival$. But since $indexjval/countmval < indexival/(countmval+countnval)$ is equivalent to\n$indexjval < indexival\\,countmval/(countmval+countnval)$, that number is\n\\begin{align*}\n&\\left\\lceil \\frac{indexival\\,countmval}{countmval+countnval} \\right\\rceil -1 +\n\\left\\lceil \\frac{indexival\\,countnval}{countmval+countnval} \\right\\rceil -1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{indexival\\,countmval}{countmval+countnval} + \\frac{indexival\\,countnval}{countmval+countnval} - 1 = indexival-1.\n\\end{align*}\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nPut $funcfexpr(varxcomp) = varxcomp (\\log (varxcomp+1) - \\log varxcomp)$; then for $varxcomp>0$,\n\\begin{align*}\nfuncfexpr'(varxcomp) &= \\log(1 + 1/varxcomp) - \\frac{1}{varxcomp+1} \\\\\nfuncfexpr''(varxcomp) &= - \\frac{1}{varxcomp(varxcomp+1)^2}.\n\\end{align*}\nHence $funcfexpr''(varxcomp) < 0$ for all $varxcomp$; since $funcfexpr'(varxcomp) \\to 0$ as $varxcomp \\to \\infty$,\nwe have $funcfexpr'(varxcomp) > 0$ for $varxcomp>0$, so $funcfexpr$ is strictly increasing.\n\nPut $funcgexpr(countmval) = countmval \\log countmval - \\log(countmval!)$; then $funcgexpr(countmval+1) - funcgexpr(countmval) = funcfexpr(countmval)$,\nso $funcgexpr(countmval+1)-funcgexpr(countmval)$ increases with $countmval$. By induction,\n$funcgexpr(countmval+countnval) - funcgexpr(countmval)$ increases with $countnval$ for any positive integer $countnval$,\nso in particular\n\\begin{align*}\nfuncgexpr(countmval+countnval) - funcgexpr(countmval) &> funcgexpr(countnval) - funcgexpr(1) + funcfexpr(countmval) \\\\\n&\\geq funcgexpr(countnval)\n\\end{align*}\nsince $funcgexpr(1) = 0$. Exponentiating yields the desired inequality.\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:} (by W.G. Boskoff and Bogdan Suceav\\u{a})\nWe prove the claim by induction on $countmval+countnval$. The base case is $countmval=countnval=1$, in which case\nthe desired inequality is obviously true: $2!/2^2 = 1/2 < 1 = (1!/1^1)(1!/1^1)$.\nTo prove the induction step, suppose $countmval+countnval > 2$; we must then have $countmval>1$ or $countnval>1$ or both.\nBecause the desired result is symmetric in $countmval$ and $countnval$, we may as well assume $countnval > 1$.\nBy the induction hypothesis, we have\n\\[\n\\frac{(countmval+countnval-1)!}{(countmval+countnval-1)^{countmval+countnval-1}} < \\frac{countmval!}{countmval^{countmval}} \\frac{(countnval-1)!}{(countnval-1)^{countnval-1}}.\n\\]\nTo obtain the desired inequality, it will suffice to check that\n\\[\n\\frac{(countmval+countnval-1)^{countmval+countnval-1}}{(countmval+countnval-1)!} \\frac{(countmval+countnval)!}{(countmval+countnval)^{countmval+countnval}}< \\frac{(countnval-1)^{countnval-1}}{(countnval-1)!} \\frac{countnval!}{(countnval)^{countnval}}\n\\]\nor in other words\n\\[\n\\left( 1 - \\frac{1}{countmval+countnval} \\right)^{countmval+countnval-1} < \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{countnval} \\right)^{countnval-1}.\n\\]\nTo show this, we check that the function $funcfexpr(varxcomp) = (1 - 1/varxcomp)^{varxcomp-1}$\nis strictly decreasing for $varxcomp>1$; while this can be achieved using the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean\ninequality, we give a simple calculus proof instead. The derivative of $\\log funcfexpr(varxcomp)$ is\n$\\log (1-1/varxcomp) + 1/varxcomp$, so it is enough to check that this is negative for $varxcomp>1$.\nAn equivalent statement is that $\\log (1-varxcomp) + varxcomp < 0$ for $0 < varxcomp < 1$;\nthis in turn holds because the function $funcgexpr(varxcomp) = \\log(1-varxcomp) + varxcomp$ tends to 0 as $varxcomp \\to 0^+$\nand has derivative $1 - \\frac{1}{1-varxcomp} < 0$ for $0 < varxcomp < 1$."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "m": "stonewall",
        "n": "riverbank",
        "p": "cloudburst",
        "i": "meadowlark",
        "j": "thundercliff",
        "x": "amberglow",
        "y": "frostfern",
        "z": "cedarcrest",
        "k": "moonshadow",
        "f": "lanternshade",
        "g": "willowbrook",
        "S_k": "heronlake",
        "S_m": "emberfield",
        "S_n": "stormhaven",
        "S_m+n": "dawnridge"
      },
      "question": "Let $stonewall$ and $riverbank$ be positive integers.  Show that\n\\[\n\\frac{(stonewall+riverbank)!}{(stonewall+riverbank)^{stonewall+riverbank}}\n< \\frac{stonewall!}{stonewall^{stonewall}} \\frac{riverbank!}{riverbank^{riverbank}}.\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nWe have\n\\[\n(stonewall+riverbank)^{stonewall+riverbank} > \\binom{stonewall+riverbank}{stonewall} \\, stonewall^{stonewall} riverbank^{riverbank}\n\\]\nbecause the binomial expansion of $(stonewall+riverbank)^{stonewall+riverbank}$ includes the term on\nthe right as well as some others. Rearranging this inequality yields\nthe claim.\n\n\\textbf{Remark:}\nOne can also interpret this argument combinatorially.\nSuppose that we choose $stonewall+riverbank$ times (with replacement) uniformly\nrandomly from a set of $stonewall+riverbank$ balls, of which $stonewall$ are red and $riverbank$ are\nblue. Then the probability of picking each ball exactly once is\n$(stonewall+riverbank)!/(stonewall+riverbank)^{stonewall+riverbank}$. On the other hand, if $cloudburst$ is the probability\nof picking exactly $stonewall$ red balls, then $cloudburst<1$ and the probability\nof picking each ball exactly once is $cloudburst\\,(stonewall^{stonewall}/stonewall!)(riverbank^{riverbank}/riverbank!)$.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:} (by David Savitt)\nDefine\n\\[\nheronlake=\\{\\,meadowlark/moonshadow: \\; meadowlark=1,\\dots,moonshadow\\,\\}\n\\]\nand rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\prod_{amberglow \\in emberfield} amberglow\\;\\prod_{frostfern \\in stormhaven} frostfern > \\prod_{cedarcrest \\in dawnridge} cedarcrest.\n\\]\nTo prove this, it suffices to check that if we sort the multiplicands\non both sides into increasing order, the $meadowlark$-th term on the left\nside is greater than or equal to the $meadowlark$-th term on the right side.\n(The equality is strict already for $meadowlark=1$, so you do get a strict inequality\nabove.)\n\nAnother way to say this is that for\nany $meadowlark$, the number of factors on the left side which are less than\n$meadowlark/(stonewall+riverbank)$ is less than $meadowlark$. But since $thundercliff/stonewall < meadowlark/(stonewall+riverbank)$ is equivalent to\n$thundercliff < meadowlark\\, stonewall/(stonewall+riverbank)$, that number is\n\\begin{align*}\n&\\left\\lceil \\frac{meadowlark\\, stonewall}{stonewall+riverbank} \\right\\rceil -1 \n+ \\left\\lceil \\frac{meadowlark\\, riverbank}{stonewall+riverbank} \\right\\rceil -1 \\\\\n&\\le \\frac{meadowlark\\, stonewall}{stonewall+riverbank} + \\frac{meadowlark\\, riverbank}{stonewall+riverbank} - 1 \n= meadowlark-1.\n\\end{align*}\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nPut $lanternshade(amberglow)=amberglow\\,(\\log (amberglow+1)-\\log amberglow)$; then for $amberglow>0$,\n\\begin{align*}\nlanternshade'(amberglow) &= \\log(1+1/amberglow) - \\frac{1}{amberglow+1},\\\\\nlanternshade''(amberglow) &= -\\frac{1}{amberglow(amberglow+1)^2}.\n\\end{align*}\nHence $lanternshade''(amberglow)<0$ for all $amberglow$; since $lanternshade'(amberglow)\\to0$ as $amberglow\\to\\infty$,\nwe have $lanternshade'(amberglow)>0$ for $amberglow>0$, so $lanternshade$ is strictly increasing.\n\nPut $willowbrook(stonewall)=stonewall\\,\\log stonewall-\\log(stonewall!)$; then $willowbrook(stonewall+1)-willowbrook(stonewall)=lanternshade(stonewall)$,\nso $willowbrook(stonewall+1)-willowbrook(stonewall)$ increases with $stonewall$. By induction,\n$willowbrook(stonewall+riverbank)-willowbrook(stonewall)$ increases with $riverbank$ for any positive integer $riverbank$, so in particular\n\\begin{align*}\nwillowbrook(stonewall+riverbank)-willowbrook(stonewall) &> willowbrook(riverbank)-willowbrook(1)+lanternshade(stonewall)\\\\\n&\\ge willowbrook(riverbank)\n\\end{align*}\nsince $willowbrook(1)=0$. Exponentiating yields the desired inequality.\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:} (by W.G. Boskoff and Bogdan Suceav\\u{a})\nWe prove the claim by induction on $stonewall+riverbank$. The base case is $stonewall=riverbank=1$, in which case the desired inequality is obviously true: $2!/2^2=1/2<1=(1!/1^1)(1!/1^1)$.\nTo prove the induction step, suppose $stonewall+riverbank>2$; we must then have $stonewall>1$ or $riverbank>1$ or both.\nBecause the desired result is symmetric in $stonewall$ and $riverbank$, we may as well assume $riverbank>1$.\nBy the induction hypothesis, we have\n\\[\n\\frac{(stonewall+riverbank-1)!}{(stonewall+riverbank-1)^{stonewall+riverbank-1}}\n< \\frac{stonewall!}{stonewall^{stonewall}}\\;\\frac{(riverbank-1)!}{(riverbank-1)^{riverbank-1}}.\n\\]\nTo obtain the desired inequality it suffices to check that\n\\[\n\\frac{(stonewall+riverbank-1)^{stonewall+riverbank-1}}{(stonewall+riverbank-1)!}\n\\;\\frac{(stonewall+riverbank)!}{(stonewall+riverbank)^{stonewall+riverbank}}\n< \\frac{(riverbank-1)^{riverbank-1}}{(riverbank-1)!}\\;\\frac{riverbank!}{riverbank^{riverbank}},\n\\]\nor in other words\n\\[\n\\left(1-\\frac{1}{stonewall+riverbank}\\right)^{stonewall+riverbank-1}\n< \\left(1-\\frac{1}{riverbank}\\right)^{riverbank-1}.\n\\]\nTo show this, we check that the function $lanternshade(amberglow)=(1-1/amberglow)^{amberglow-1}$ is strictly decreasing for $amberglow>1$; while this can be achieved using the weighted arithmetic–geometric mean inequality, we give a simple calculus proof instead. The derivative of $\\log lanternshade(amberglow)$ is $\\log(1-1/amberglow)+1/amberglow$, so it is enough to check that this is negative for $amberglow>1$. An equivalent statement is that $\\log(1-amberglow)+amberglow<0$ for $0<amberglow<1$; this in turn holds because the function $willowbrook(amberglow)=\\log(1-amberglow)+amberglow$ tends to $0$ as $amberglow\\to0^+$ and has derivative $1-\\frac{1}{1-amberglow}<0$ for $0<amberglow<1$.  "
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "m": "negativity",
        "n": "nonpositive",
        "p": "impossibility",
        "i": "outsider",
        "j": "spectator",
        "x": "constant",
        "y": "stability",
        "z": "fixedpoint",
        "k": "wholeness",
        "f": "stillness",
        "g": "movement",
        "S_k": "emptiness",
        "S_m": "voidness",
        "S_n": "vacuumset",
        "S_m+n": "blankness"
      },
      "question": "Let $negativity$ and $nonpositive$ be positive integers.  Show that\n\\[\n\\frac{(negativity+nonpositive)!}{(negativity+nonpositive)^{negativity+nonpositive}}\n< \\frac{negativity!}{negativity^{negativity}} \\frac{nonpositive!}{nonpositive^{nonpositive}}.\n\\]\n",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nWe have\n\\[\n(negativity+nonpositive)^{negativity+nonpositive} > \\binom{negativity+nonpositive}{negativity} negativity^{negativity} nonpositive^{nonpositive}\n\\]\nbecause the binomial expansion of $(negativity+nonpositive)^{negativity+nonpositive}$ includes the term on\nthe right as well as some others. Rearranging this inequality yields\nthe claim.\n\n\\textbf{Remark:}\nOne can also interpret this argument combinatorially.\nSuppose that we choose negativity+nonpositive times (with replacement) uniformly\nrandomly from a set of negativity+nonpositive balls, of which negativity are red and nonpositive are\nblue. Then the probability of picking each ball exactly once is\n$(negativity+nonpositive)!/(negativity+nonpositive)^{negativity+nonpositive}$. On the other hand, if impossibility is the probability\nof picking exactly negativity red balls, then impossibility<1 and the probability\nof picking each ball exactly once is $impossibility (negativity^{negativity}/negativity!)(nonpositive^{nonpositive}/nonpositive!)$.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:} (by David Savitt)\nDefine\n\\[\nemptiness = \\{\\, outsider/wholeness : outsider=1, \\dots, wholeness\\,\\}\n\\]\nand rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\prod_{constant \\in voidness} constant \\prod_{stability \\in vacuumset} stability > \\prod_{fixedpoint \\in blankness} fixedpoint.\n\\]\nTo prove this, it suffices to check that if we sort the multiplicands\non both sides into increasing order, the $outsider$-th term on the left\nside is greater than or equal to the $outsider$-th term on the right side.\n(The equality is strict already for $outsider=1$, so you do get a strict inequality\nabove.)\n\nAnother way to say this is that for\nany $outsider$, the number of factors on the left side which are less than\n$outsider/(negativity+nonpositive)$ is less than $outsider$. But since $spectator/negativity < outsider/(negativity+nonpositive)$ is equivalent to\n$spectator < outsider\\,negativity/(negativity+nonpositive)$, that number is\n\\begin{align*}\n&\\left\\lceil \\frac{outsider\\,negativity}{negativity+nonpositive} \\right\\rceil -1 +\n\\left\\lceil \\frac{outsider\\,nonpositive}{negativity+nonpositive} \\right\\rceil -1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{outsider\\,negativity}{negativity+nonpositive} + \\frac{outsider\\,nonpositive}{negativity+nonpositive} - 1 = outsider-1.\n\\end{align*}\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nPut $stillness(constant) = constant (\\log (constant+1) - \\log constant)$; then for $constant>0$,\n\\begin{align*}\nstillness'(constant) &= \\log(1 + 1/constant) - \\frac{1}{constant+1} \\\\\nstillness''(constant) &= - \\frac{1}{constant(constant+1)^2}.\n\\end{align*}\nHence $stillness''(constant) < 0$ for all $constant$; since $stillness'(constant) \\to 0$ as $constant \\to \\infty$,\nwe have $stillness'(constant) > 0$ for $constant>0$, so $stillness$ is strictly increasing.\n\nPut $movement(negativity) = negativity \\log negativity - \\log(negativity!)$; then $movement(negativity+1) - movement(negativity) = stillness(negativity)$,\nso $movement(negativity+1)-movement(negativity)$ increases with $negativity$. By induction,\n$movement(negativity+nonpositive) - movement(negativity)$ increases with $nonpositive$ for any positive integer $nonpositive$,\nso in particular\n\\begin{align*}\nmovement(negativity+nonpositive) - movement(negativity) &> movement(nonpositive) - movement(1) + stillness(negativity) \\\\\n&\\geq movement(nonpositive)\n\\end{align*}\nsince $movement(1) = 0$. Exponentiating yields the desired inequality.\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:} (by W.G. Boskoff and Bogdan Suceav\\u{a})\nWe prove the claim by induction on $negativity+nonpositive$. The base case is $negativity=nonpositive=1$, in which case\nthe desired inequality is obviously true: $2!/2^2 = 1/2 < 1 = (1!/1^1)(1!/1^1)$.\nTo prove the induction step, suppose $negativity+nonpositive > 2$; we must then have $negativity>1$ or $nonpositive>1$ or both.\nBecause the desired result is symmetric in $negativity$ and $nonpositive$, we may as well assume $nonpositive > 1$.\nBy the induction hypothesis, we have\n\\[\n\\frac{(negativity+nonpositive-1)!}{(negativity+nonpositive-1)^{negativity+nonpositive-1}} < \\frac{negativity!}{negativity^{negativity}} \\frac{(nonpositive-1)!}{(nonpositive-1)^{nonpositive-1}}.\n\\]\nTo obtain the desired inequality, it will suffice to check that\n\\[\n\\frac{(negativity+nonpositive-1)^{negativity+nonpositive-1}}{(negativity+nonpositive-1)!} \\frac{(negativity+nonpositive)!}{(negativity+nonpositive)^{negativity+nonpositive}}< \\frac{(nonpositive-1)^{nonpositive-1}}{(nonpositive-1)!} \\frac{nonpositive!}{(nonpositive)^{nonpositive}}\n\\]\nor in other words\n\\[\n\\left( 1 - \\frac{1}{negativity+nonpositive} \\right)^{negativity+nonpositive-1} < \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{nonpositive} \\right)^{nonpositive-1}.\n\\]\nTo show this, we check that the function $stillness(constant) = (1 - 1/constant)^{constant-1}$\nis strictly decreasing for $constant>1$; while this can be achieved using the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean\ninequality, we give a simple calculus proof instead. The derivative of $\\log stillness(constant)$ is\n$\\log (1-1/constant) + 1/constant$, so it is enough to check that this is negative for $constant>1$.\nAn equivalent statement is that $\\log (1-constant) + constant < 0$ for $0 < constant < 1$;\nthis in turn holds because the function $movement(constant) = \\log(1-constant) + constant$ tends to 0 as $constant \\to 0^+$\nand has derivative $1 - \\frac{1}{1-constant} < 0$ for $0 < constant < 1$. \n"
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "m": "qzxwvtnp",
        "n": "hjgrksla",
        "p": "uicvbeof",
        "i": "lwamqrst",
        "j": "oezkypdt",
        "x": "rvalsnqo",
        "y": "tkdmpwze",
        "z": "bnhqsrui",
        "k": "pfvcldxa",
        "f": "srmjkwye",
        "g": "vyczabto",
        "S_k": "uvcxalrm",
        "S_m": "gpqsvlye",
        "S_n": "dztmhbqa",
        "S_m+n": "xfkmsrto"
      },
      "question": "Let $qzxwvtnp$ and $hjgrksla$ be positive integers.  Show that\n\\[\n\\frac{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)!}{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}}\n< \\frac{qzxwvtnp!}{qzxwvtnp^{qzxwvtnp}} \\frac{hjgrksla!}{hjgrksla^{hjgrksla}}.\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\textbf{First solution:}\nWe have\n\\[\n(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla} > \\binom{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}{qzxwvtnp} qzxwvtnp^{qzxwvtnp} hjgrksla^{hjgrksla}\n\\]\nbecause the binomial expansion of $(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}$ includes the term on\nthe right as well as some others. Rearranging this inequality yields\nthe claim.\n\n\\textbf{Remark:}\nOne can also interpret this argument combinatorially.\nSuppose that we choose $qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla$ times (with replacement) uniformly\nrandomly from a set of $qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla$ balls, of which $qzxwvtnp$ are red and $hjgrksla$ are\nblue. Then the probability of picking each ball exactly once is\n$(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)!/(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}$. On the other hand, if $uicvbeof$ is the probability\nof picking exactly $qzxwvtnp$ red balls, then $uicvbeof<1$ and the probability\nof picking each ball exactly once is $uicvbeof\\,(qzxwvtnp^{qzxwvtnp}/qzxwvtnp!)(hjgrksla^{hjgrksla}/hjgrksla!)$.\n\n\\textbf{Second solution:} (by David Savitt)\nDefine\n\\[\nuvcxalrm = \\{lwamqrst/pfvcldxa: lwamqrst=1, \\dots, pfvcldxa\\}\n\\]\nand rewrite the desired inequality as\n\\[\n\\prod_{rvalsnqo \\in gpqsvlye} rvalsnqo \\prod_{tkdmpwze \\in dztmhbqa} tkdmpwze > \\prod_{bnhqsrui \\in xfkmsrto} bnhqsrui.\n\\]\nTo prove this, it suffices to check that if we sort the multiplicands\non both sides into increasing order, the $lwamqrst$-th term on the left\nside is greater than or equal to the $lwamqrst$-th term on the right side.\n(The equality is strict already for $lwamqrst=1$, so you do get a strict inequality\nabove.)\n\nAnother way to say this is that for\nany $lwamqrst$, the number of factors on the left side which are less than\n$lwamqrst/(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)$ is less than $lwamqrst$. But since $oezkypdt/qzxwvtnp < lwamqrst/(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)$ is equivalent to\n$oezkypdt < lwamqrst qzxwvtnp/(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)$, that number is\n\\begin{align*}\n&\\left\\lceil \\frac{lwamqrst qzxwvtnp}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla} \\right\\rceil -1 +\n\\left\\lceil \\frac{lwamqrst hjgrksla}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla} \\right\\rceil -1 \\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{lwamqrst qzxwvtnp}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla} + \\frac{lwamqrst hjgrksla}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla} - 1 = lwamqrst-1.\n\\end{align*}\n\n\\textbf{Third solution:}\nPut\n\\[\nsrmjkwye(rvalsnqo) = rvalsnqo (\\log (rvalsnqo+1) - \\log rvalsnqo);\n\\]\nthen for $rvalsnqo>0$,\n\\begin{align*}\nsrmjkwye'(rvalsnqo) &= \\log(1 + 1/rvalsnqo) - \\frac{1}{rvalsnqo+1} \\\\\nsrmjkwye''(rvalsnqo) &= - \\frac{1}{rvalsnqo(rvalsnqo+1)^2}.\n\\end{align*}\nHence $srmjkwye''(rvalsnqo) < 0$ for all $rvalsnqo$; since $srmjkwye'(rvalsnqo) \\to 0$ as $rvalsnqo \\to \\infty$,\nwe have $srmjkwye'(rvalsnqo) > 0$ for $rvalsnqo>0$, so $srmjkwye$ is strictly increasing.\n\nPut $vyczabto(qzxwvtnp) = qzxwvtnp \\log qzxwvtnp - \\log(qzxwvtnp!)$; then $vyczabto(qzxwvtnp+1) - vyczabto(qzxwvtnp) = srmjkwye(qzxwvtnp)$,\nso $vyczabto(qzxwvtnp+1)-vyczabto(qzxwvtnp)$ increases with $qzxwvtnp$. By induction,\n$vyczabto(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla) - vyczabto(qzxwvtnp)$ increases with $hjgrksla$ for any positive integer $hjgrksla$,\nso in particular\n\\begin{align*}\nvyczabto(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla) - vyczabto(qzxwvtnp) &> vyczabto(hjgrksla) - vyczabto(1) + srmjkwye(qzxwvtnp) \\\\\n&\\geq vyczabto(hjgrksla)\n\\end{align*}\nsince $vyczabto(1) = 0$. Exponentiating yields the desired inequality.\n\n\\textbf{Fourth solution:} (by W.G. Boskoff and Bogdan Suceav\\u{a})\nWe prove the claim by induction on $qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla$. The base case is $qzxwvtnp=hjgrksla=1$, in which case\nthe desired inequality is obviously true: $2!/2^2 = 1/2 < 1 = (1!/1^1)(1!/1^1)$.\nTo prove the induction step, suppose $qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla > 2$; we must then have $qzxwvtnp>1$ or $hjgrksla>1$ or both.\nBecause the desired result is symmetric in $qzxwvtnp$ and $hjgrksla$, we may as well assume $hjgrksla > 1$.\nBy the induction hypothesis, we have\n\\[\n\\frac{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1)!}{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1}} < \\frac{qzxwvtnp!}{qzxwvtnp^{qzxwvtnp}} \\frac{(hjgrksla-1)!}{(hjgrksla-1)^{hjgrksla-1}}.\n\\]\nTo obtain the desired inequality, it will suffice to check that\n\\[\n\\frac{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1}}{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1)!} \\frac{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)!}{(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}}< \\frac{(hjgrksla-1)^{hjgrksla-1}}{(hjgrksla-1)!} \\frac{hjgrksla!}{(hjgrksla)^{hjgrksla}}\n\\]\nor in other words\n\\[\n\\left( 1 - \\frac{1}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla} \\right)^{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla-1} < \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{hjgrksla} \\right)^{hjgrksla-1}.\n\\]\nTo show this, we check that the function $srmjkwye(rvalsnqo) = (1 - 1/rvalsnqo)^{rvalsnqo-1}$\nis strictly decreasing for $rvalsnqo>1$; while this can be achieved using the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean\ninequality, we give a simple calculus proof instead. The derivative of $\\log srmjkwye(rvalsnqo)$ is\n$\\log (1-1/rvalsnqo) + 1/rvalsnqo$, so it is enough to check that this is negative for $rvalsnqo>1$.\nAn equivalent statement is that $\\log (1-rvalsnqo) + rvalsnqo < 0$ for $0 < rvalsnqo < 1$;\nthis in turn holds because the function $g(rvalsnqo) = \\log(1-rvalsnqo) + rvalsnqo$ tends to 0 as $rvalsnqo \\to 0^+$\nand has derivative $1 - \\frac{1}{1-rvalsnqo} < 0$ for $0 < rvalsnqo < 1$.",
      "params": []
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $k\\ge 2$ be a fixed integer and put \n\\[\nx_1,\\dots ,x_k\\ge 1 ,\\qquad S:=x_1+\\dots +x_k .\n\\]\n\nThroughout, $\\log$ denotes the natural logarithm and $\\Gamma$ Euler’s gamma–function.\n\n1.  (A basic auxiliary function.)  For $x>0$ set \n\\[\nH(x):=\\log \\Gamma(x+1)-x\\log x+\\tfrac12\\log x .\n\\]\nBecause $\\displaystyle\\lim_{x\\to 1^{+}}H(x)=0$ we put $H(1):=0$, so that $H$ is continuous on $[1,\\infty)$.\n\n2.  (A key symmetric expression.)  For $x=(x_1,\\dots ,x_k)\\in[1,\\infty)^k$ define \n\\[\nF(x):=H(S)-\\sum_{i=1}^{k}H(x_i). \\tag{0}\n\\]\n\nTasks  \n\nA.  Analytic properties of $H$ and the global sign of $F$  \n    i)  Prove that $H$ is of class $C^{2}$ on $(1,\\infty)$, is strictly decreasing  \n        and strictly concave on $[1,\\infty)$.  \n    ii) Prove  \n        \\[\n        F(x)<0\\qquad\\text{for every admissible }x ,  \\tag{$\\star$}\n        \\]\n        and show that  \n        \\[\n        \\sup_{x\\in[1,\\infty)^k}F(x)<0. \\tag{$\\spadesuit$}\n        \\]\n\nB.  Schur–convexity  \n    Show that $F$ is strictly Schur–convex on $(1,\\infty)^k$.\n\nC.  A uniform explicit upper bound obtained from Stirling’s expansion  \n\n    (i)  For $x\\ge 1$ write  \n        \\[\n           H(x)= -x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi)+\\log x+\\tfrac1{12x}+R(x),\\qquad  \n           R(x):=\\sum_{m=2}^{\\infty}\\frac{B_{2m}}{2m(2m-1)\\,x^{2m-1}},\n        \\]\n        where $B_{2m}$ are the Bernoulli numbers.  \n        Show that  \n        \\[\n           \\lvert R(x)\\rvert\\le \\frac{1}{360x^{3}}\\qquad (x\\ge 1). \\tag{1}\n        \\]\n\n    (ii)  Prove the estimate  \n        \\[\n           F(x_1,\\dots ,x_k) \\le \n           \\log\\!\\Bigl(\\tfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\Bigr)\n           -\\frac{k^{2}-1}{12S}+\\frac{k}{360}\n           +\\frac{1-k}{2}\\log(2\\pi). \\tag{$\\heartsuit$}\n        \\]\n\n    (iii)  Using $\\dfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\le k$ deduce the \\emph{uniform} bound  \n        \\[\n           F(x_1,\\dots ,x_k)\\le \n           \\log k-\\frac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\frac{k}{360}<0\n           \\qquad(k\\ge 2). \\tag{$\\clubsuit$}\n        \\]\n\nD.  A discrete consequence.  \n    Let $(a_1,\\dots ,a_k)\\in\\mathbb N^{k}$ be positive integers with $\\sum a_i=S$.  \n    Prove  \n    \\[\n       S!\\,S^{-S}\n       <\n       \\exp\\!\\Bigl[\\log k-\\tfrac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\tfrac{k}{360}\\Bigr]\\,\n       \\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\displaystyle\\prod_{i=1}^{k}a_i}}\\,\n       \\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}. \\tag{$\\sharp$}\n    \\]\n(The constant in front of the product is \\emph{explicit} and depends only on $k$.)\n\nThis furnishes a multivariable strengthening of the classical factorial inequality, and for $k=2$ recovers  \n\\[\n\\frac{(m+n)!}{(m+n)^{m+n}}\n<\n\\frac{m!}{m^{m}}\\,\n\\frac{n!}{n^{n}} .\n\\]\n\n%-----------------------------------------------------------",
      "solution": "We retain all notation from the statement and always use the smallest constants compatible with the required accuracy.\n\n\\textbf{Step 1 – Regularity, monotonicity and concavity of $H$ (Part A-i).}  \n\n\\emph{1.1  An integral representation.}  \nBinet’s second formula (valid for every $x>0$) reads \n\\[\n\\log\\Gamma(x+1)\n=\\Bigl(x+\\tfrac12\\Bigr)\\log x-x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi)\n      +\\!\\int_{0}^{\\infty}\\!\\Bigl(\\tfrac{1}{e^{t}-1}-\\tfrac{1}{t}\n      +\\tfrac12 e^{-t}\\Bigr)\\frac{e^{-xt}}{t}\\,dt .\n\\]\nSubtracting $x\\log x-\\tfrac12\\log x$ we obtain \n\\[\nH(x)=-x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi)\n      +\\int_{0}^{\\infty}\\phi(t)\\,e^{-xt}\\,dt ,\n\\qquad\n\\phi(t):=\\frac{t}{e^{t}-1}-1-\\frac{t}{2}.\n\\tag{2}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{1.2  Differentiation under the integral sign} gives, for $x>1$,  \n\\[\nH'(x)=-1+\\int_{0}^{\\infty}\\!\\bigl[-t\\,\\phi(t)\\bigr]e^{-xt}\\,dt ,\n\\qquad\nH''(x)=\\int_{0}^{\\infty} t^{2}\\phi(t)\\,e^{-xt}\\,dt . \\tag{3}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{1.3  Sign of the kernel.}  \nSince $e^{t}-1>t$ for $t>0$, \n\\[\n\\phi(t)=\\frac{t}{e^{t}-1}-1-\\frac{t}{2}<-\\frac{t}{2}<0\n\\qquad(t>0).\n\\]\nTherefore $t^{2}\\phi(t)<0$ and $-t\\phi(t)>0$ for every $t>0$.\n\n\\emph{1.4  Consequences.}  \nFrom (3) we have $H''(x)<0$ for all $x>1$, so $H$ is strictly concave on $(1,\\infty)$.  \nThe continuity up to $x=1$ is obvious from (2), and $C^{2}$-smoothness on $(1,\\infty)$ follows from dominated differentiation.  \nBecause $H''<0$, $H'$ is strictly decreasing.  Moreover  \n\\[\nH'(1)=\\psi(2)-1+\\tfrac12\n      \\approx 0.422784-1+0.5=-0.077216<0 ,\n\\]\nand $\\displaystyle\\lim_{x\\to\\infty}H'(x)=-1$,\nhence $H'(x)<0$ for every $x\\ge 1$; $H$ is therefore strictly decreasing.\n\n\\textbf{Step 2 – Schur–convexity of $F$ (Part B).}  \n\nDifferentiating (0) gives  \n\\[\n\\partial_{x_i}F=H'(S)-H'(x_i),\\qquad i=1,\\dots ,k.\n\\]\nSince $H'$ is strictly \\emph{decreasing},\n\\[\n(x_i-x_j)\\bigl(\\partial_{x_i}F-\\partial_{x_j}F\\bigr)\\ge 0,\n\\]\nwith equality iff $x_i=x_j$.  \nBy the Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya criterion, $F$ is therefore strictly\nSchur–convex on $(1,\\infty)^k$.\n\n\\textbf{Step 3 – Global negativity of $F$ (Part A-ii).}  \n\nFix $S$ and take $x^{\\ast}:=(S-k+1,1,\\dots ,1)$,\nthe most “spread” $k$-tuple having this sum.  \nConcavity of $H$ implies $\\sum_{i}H(x_i)\\ge H(S-k+1)$, hence\n\\[\nF(x)\\le H(S)-H(S-k+1)=:g(S).\n\\]\nBecause $H'$ is strictly decreasing,\n\\[\ng'(S)=H'(S)-H'(S-k+1)<0,\n\\]\nso $g$ is strictly decreasing in $S$.  Since $S\\ge k$, the maximum of\n$g$ is $g(k)=H(k)$, which is negative.  Consequently\n\\[\nF(x)\\le g(S)<0,\\qquad\n\\sup_{x}F(x)=H(k)<0,\n\\]\nestablishing $(\\star)$ and $(\\spadesuit)$.\n\n\\textbf{Step 4 – A precise expansion of $H$ and the bounds $(\\heartsuit)$ and $(\\clubsuit)$ (Part C).}\n\n\\emph{4.1  Stirling with error control.}  \nThe Euler–Maclaurin summation applied to $\\log\\Gamma$ yields      \n\\[\n\\log\\Gamma(x+1)=x\\log x-x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi x)\n               +\\tfrac1{12x}-\\tfrac1{360x^{3}}\n               +\\tfrac1{1260x^{5}}-\\dots\\quad(x\\ge 1).\n\\]\nConsequently\n\\[\nH(x)=-x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi)+\\log x+\\tfrac1{12x}+R(x),\n\\]\nwith the remainder $R$ as in the question.\n\nBecause the Bernoulli numbers $B_{2m}$ alternate in sign for $m\\ge 1$\nand the sequence of terms\n\\[\n\\frac{|B_{2m}|}{2m(2m-1)\\,x^{2m-1}},\\qquad m\\ge 2,\n\\]\nis decreasing for every $x\\ge 1$, the Leibniz criterion yields  \n\\[\n\\lvert R(x)\\rvert\\le\\frac{1}{360x^{3}}\\qquad(x\\ge 1),\n\\]\nwhich is (1).\n\n\\emph{4.2  Decomposition of $F$.}  \nInsert the expansion in $F$:\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nF &=\n\\underbrace{\\bigl[\\log S-\\sum_{i}\\log x_i\\bigr]}_{=:L}\n+\\frac{1}{12}\\Bigl(\\frac1S-\\sum_{i}\\frac1{x_i}\\Bigr)\\\\\n&\\quad +R(S)-\\sum_{i}R(x_i)\n+\\frac{1-k}{2}\\log(2\\pi). \\tag{4}\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{4.3  The logarithmic part $L$.}  \nSince $\\log$ is concave, $\\sum_{i}\\log x_i$ is minimal at\n$(S-k+1,1,\\dots ,1)$, so\n\\[\nL\\le\\log S-\\log(S-k+1)=\\log\\!\\Bigl(\\tfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\Bigr). \\tag{5}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{4.4  The harmonic part.}  \nBy AM–HM, $\\sum_{i}1/x_i\\ge k^{2}/S$, hence\n\\[\n\\frac1S-\\sum_{i}\\frac1{x_i}\\le-\\frac{k^{2}-1}{S}. \\tag{6}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{4.5  The remainder.}  \nFrom (1) we know $-1/(360x^{3})\\le R(x)\\le 0$ for every $x\\ge 1$.\nTherefore\n\\[\n   R(S)-\\sum_{i}R(x_i)\\le -\\sum_{i}R(x_i)\\le\\frac{k}{360}. \\tag{7}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{4.6  Combination.}  \nPutting (5)–(7) into (4) gives $(\\heartsuit)$, and inserting\n$\\dfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\le k$ yields $(\\clubsuit)$.\n\n\\textbf{Step 5 – The factorial inequality (Part D).}  \n\nPut $\\Pi:=\\prod_{i=1}^{k}a_i$.  Since $\\Gamma(n+1)=n!$,  \n\\[\nF(a)\n=\\log\\!\\bigl(S!\\,S^{-S}\\bigr)-\\sum_{i=1}^{k}\\log\\!\\bigl(a_i!\\,a_i^{-a_i}\\bigr)\n   +\\tfrac12\\!\\left(\\log S-\\sum_{i=1}^{k}\\log a_i\\right) .\n\\]\nExponentiating gives the \\emph{identity}\n\\[\n\\exp\\bigl(F(a)\\bigr)=\nS!\\,S^{-S}\\,\n\\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\Pi}}\\,\n\\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}. \\tag{8}\n\\]\n\nBecause of the uniform negativity $(\\clubsuit)$ we have\n\\[\nF(a)\\le B:=\\log k-\\tfrac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\tfrac{k}{360}<0,\n\\qquad\\Longrightarrow\\qquad\n\\exp\\bigl(F(a)\\bigr)<\\exp(B). \\tag{9}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{5.1  A lower bound for the auxiliary factor.}  \nSet\n\\[\nD:=\\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\Pi}}\\,\n\\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}\\quad (>0).\n\\]\nWe claim $D\\ge 1$.  Indeed, for each $n\\ge 1$\n\\[\nn!\\le n^{n}\\quad\\Longrightarrow\\quad\n\\frac{n^{n}}{n!}\\ge 1\n\\quad\\Longrightarrow\\quad\n\\frac{n^{n}}{n!}\\ge\\sqrt{n},\n\\]\nbecause $n^{n}/n!\\ge n\\ge\\sqrt{n}$.  Hence\n\\[\n\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}\\ge\\sqrt{a_i}\\qquad(i=1,\\dots ,k),\n\\]\nso that\n\\[\nD\\ge\\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\Pi}}\\cdot\\sqrt{\\Pi}=\\sqrt{S}\\ge 1. \\tag{10}\n\\]\n\n\\emph{5.2  Completion of the proof.}  \nMultiplying (9) by $D$ and using $D\\ge 1$ gives\n\\[\nS!\\,S^{-S}=D^{-1}\\exp\\bigl(F(a)\\bigr)\n          <D^{-1}\\exp(B)\\,D^{2}=\\exp(B)\\,D,\n\\]\nthat is\n\\[\nS!\\,S^{-S}\n<\n\\exp\\!\\Bigl[\\log k-\\tfrac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\tfrac{k}{360}\\Bigr]\\,\n\\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\Pi}}\\,\n\\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!},\n\\]\nwhich is precisely $(\\sharp)$.\n\n\\textbf{Remark 1.}  For $k=2$ one has \n$D=\\sqrt{\\dfrac{mn}{m+n}}\\le\\dfrac{\\sqrt{mn}}{1}$, so $(\\sharp)$\nstrictly improves the classical two–variable inequality as the\nconstant in front of the product is $<1$.\n\n\\textbf{Remark 2.}  Equality never occurs because $F(a)<0$ for every\nintegral $k$-tuple, in accordance with the strict concavity and\nSchur–convexity properties established above.\n\n\\hfill$\\square$\n\n%-----------------------------------------------------------",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.789119",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "•  Higher dimensional and continuous:  The problem now involves an arbitrary number k of variables which are allowed to be positive real numbers; the Gamma–function replaces the factorial, so purely combinatorial proofs no longer suffice.\n\n•  Additional structural demands:  Parts (A)–(C) require establishing concavity of an analytic function involving ψ and ψ′, the digamma and trigamma functions; controlling these demands knowledge of special–function theory and inequalities for the harmonic series.\n\n•  Schur-convexity:  Part (B) introduces majorisation and Karamata’s inequality, concepts absent from the original statement.\n\n•  Quantitative refinement:  Part (C) asks not only for an inequality but for an explicit exponential gap obtained from Stirling’s expansion with remainder.  This forces delicate error-estimates beyond first–order asymptotics.\n\n•  Multi-layered reasoning:  The complete solution knits together special-function calculus, convex analysis, majorisation theory and asymptotic expansions—several distinct advanced techniques—where the original required at most a single elementary idea.\n\nHence the enhanced variant is significantly more difficult both technically and conceptually than the original and the three-variable kernel problem."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $k\\ge 2$ be a fixed integer and put  \n\\[\nx_1,\\dots ,x_k\\ge 1 ,\\qquad S:=x_1+\\dots +x_k .\n\\]\n\nThroughout, $\\log$ is the natural logarithm and $\\Gamma$ Euler’s gamma–function.\n\n1.  A basic auxiliary function.  For $x>0$ set  \n\\[\nH(x):=\\log \\Gamma(x+1)-x\\log x+\\tfrac12\\log x .\n\\]\nBecause $\\displaystyle\\lim_{x\\to 1^{+}}\\!H(x)=0$ we put $H(1):=0$, so that $H$ is continuous on $[1,\\infty)$.\n\n2.  A key symmetric expression.  For $x=(x_1,\\dots ,x_k)\\!\\in[1,\\infty)^k$ define  \n\\[\nF(x):=H(S)-\\sum_{i=1}^{k}H(x_i). \\tag{0}\n\\]\n\nTasks  \n\nA.  Analytic properties of $H$ and the global sign of $F$  \n    i)  Prove that $H$ is $C^{2}$ on $(1,\\infty)$, is strictly decreasing  \n        and strictly concave on $[1,\\infty)$.  \n    ii) Prove  \n        \\[\n        F(x)<0\\qquad\\text{for every admissible }x,  \\tag{$\\star$}\n        \\]\n        and show that  \n        \\[\n        \\sup_{x\\in[1,\\infty)^k}F(x)<0. \\tag{$\\spadesuit$}\n        \\]\n\nB.  Schur–convexity  \n    Show that $F$ is strictly Schur–convex on $(1,\\infty)^k$.\n\nC.  A uniform explicit upper bound obtained from Stirling’s expansion  \n\n    (i)  For $x\\ge 1$ write  \n        \\[\n           H(x)= -x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi)+\\log x+\\tfrac1{12x}+R(x),\\qquad  \n           R(x):=\\sum_{m=2}^{\\infty}\\frac{B_{2m}}{2m(2m-1)\\,x^{2m-1}},\n        \\]\n        where $B_{2m}$ are the Bernoulli numbers.  \n        Show that  \n        \\[\n           \\lvert R(x)\\rvert\\le \\frac{1}{360x^{3}}\\qquad (x\\ge 1). \\tag{1}\n        \\]\n\n    (ii)  Prove the estimate  \n        \\[\n           F(x_1,\\dots ,x_k) \\le \n           \\log\\!\\Bigl(\\tfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\Bigr)\n           -\\frac{k^{2}-1}{12S}+\\frac{k}{360}\n           +\\frac{1-k}{2}\\log(2\\pi). \\tag{$\\heartsuit$}\n        \\]\n\n    (iii)  Using $\\dfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\le k$ deduce the \\emph{uniform} bound  \n        \\[\n           F(x_1,\\dots ,x_k)\\le \n           \\log k-\\frac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\frac{k}{360}<0\n           \\qquad(k\\ge 2). \\tag{$\\clubsuit$}\n        \\]\n\nD.  A discrete consequence.  \n    Let $(a_1,\\dots ,a_k)\\in\\mathbb N^{k}$ be positive integers with $\\sum a_i=S$.  \n    Prove  \n    \\[\n       S!\\,S^{-S}\n       <\n       \\exp\\!\\Bigl[\\log k-\\tfrac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\tfrac{k}{360}\\Bigr]\\,\n       \\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\displaystyle\\prod_{i=1}^{k}a_i}}\\,\n       \\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}. \\tag{$\\sharp$}\n    \\]\n(The constant in front of the product is \\emph{explicit} and depends only on $k$.)\n\nThis furnishes a multivariable strengthening of the classical factorial inequality, and for $k=2$ recovers  \n\\[\n\\frac{(m+n)!}{(m+n)^{m+n}}\n<\n\\frac{m!}{m^{m}}\\,\n\\frac{n!}{n^{n}} .\n\\]\n\n%-----------------------------------------------------------",
      "solution": "We retain all notation from the statement and always use the smallest constants compatible with the required accuracy.\n\nStep 1 – Regularity, monotonicity and concavity of $H$ (Part A-i).  \nExactly as before,\n\\[\nH'(x)=\\psi(x+1)-\\log x-1+\\tfrac1{2x},\n\\qquad  \nH''(x)=\\psi'(x+1)-\\frac1x-\\frac1{2x^{2}},\n\\]\nwhere $\\psi$ and $\\psi'$ are the digamma and trigamma functions.\nSince $\\psi'(x)>0$ and $\\psi'(x)<1/x$ for $x\\ge 1$, we have $H''(x)<0$ on $(1,\\infty)$, so $H$ is strictly concave.\nBecause $H'(1)=\\psi(2)-1<0$, $H$ is strictly decreasing.\nFinally $H\\in C^{2}(1,\\infty)$ and extends continuously to $[1,\\infty)$.\n\nStep 2 – Schur–convexity of $F$ (Part B).  \n\nDifferentiating (0) gives  \n\\[\n\\partial_{x_i}F=H'(S)-H'(x_i),\\qquad i=1,\\dots ,k.\n\\]\nSince $H'$ is strictly \\emph{decreasing},\n\\[\n(x_i-x_j)\\bigl(\\partial_{x_i}F-\\partial_{x_j}F\\bigr)\\ge 0,\n\\]\nwith equality iff $x_i=x_j$.  \nBy the Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya criterion, $F$ is therefore strictly\nSchur–convex on $(1,\\infty)^k$.\n\nStep 3 – Global negativity of $F$ (Part A-ii).  \n\nFix $S$ and take $x^{\\ast}:=(S-k+1,1,\\dots ,1)$, the most “spread” $k$–tuple having this sum.  \nConcavity of $H$ implies $\\sum_{i}H(x_i)\\ge H(S-k+1)$, hence\n\\[\nF(x)\\le H(S)-H(S-k+1)<0 .\n\\]\nTaking the supremum over $S\\ge k$ yields\n$\\sup_{x}F(x)=H(k)<0$, which is $(\\star)$ and $(\\spadesuit)$.\n\nStep 4 – Accurate expansion of $H$ and the bound $(\\heartsuit)$ (Part C).\n\n4.1  Stirling with error control.  \nFor $x\\ge 1$, the Binet–de Moivre series gives\n\\[\n\\log\\Gamma(x+1)=x\\log x-x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi x)+\n\\tfrac1{12x}-\\tfrac1{360x^{3}}+\\tfrac1{1260x^{5}}-\\dots .\n\\]\nConsequently\n\\[\nH(x)=-x+\\tfrac12\\log(2\\pi)+\\log x+\\tfrac1{12x}+R(x),\n\\]\nwith\n\\[\nR(x)=\\sum_{m=2}^{\\infty}\\frac{B_{2m}}{2m(2m-1)\\,x^{2m-1}},\\qquad\n\\lvert R(x)\\rvert\\le\\frac{1}{360x^{3}} \\quad (x\\ge 1).\n\\]\n\n4.2  Decomposition of $F$.  \nInsert the expansion in $F$:\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nF &=\n\\underbrace{\\left[\\log S-\\sum_{i}\\log x_i\\right]}_{=:L}\n+\\frac{1}{12}\\Bigl(\\frac1S-\\sum_{i}\\frac1{x_i}\\Bigr)\\\\\n&\\quad +R(S)-\\sum_{i}R(x_i)\n+\\frac{1-k}{2}\\log(2\\pi). \\tag{2}\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\n4.3  The logarithmic part $L$.  \nSince $\\log$ is concave, $\\sum_{i}\\log x_i$ is minimal at\n$(S-k+1,1,\\dots ,1)$, so\n\\[\nL\\le\\log S-\\log(S-k+1)=\\log\\!\\Bigl(\\tfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\Bigr).\\tag{3}\n\\]\n\n4.4  The harmonic part.  By AM–HM, $\\sum_{i}1/x_i\\ge k^{2}/S$, hence\n\\[\n\\frac1S-\\sum_{i}\\frac1{x_i}\\le-\\frac{k^{2}-1}{S}. \\tag{4}\n\\]\n\n4.5  The remainder.  \nBecause $B_{4}=-1/30<0$ and the Bernoulli numbers alternate in sign,\n$R(x)<0$ for every $x\\ge 1$; moreover $R$ is strictly increasing and\n$\\lim_{x\\to\\infty}R(x)=0$, so $-R(x)$ decreases from $1/360$ to $0$.\nTherefore\n\\[\n   R(S)-\\sum_{i}R(x_i)\\le-\\sum_{i}R(x_i)\\le\\frac{k}{360}. \\tag{5}\n\\]\n\n4.6  Combining (3)–(5) with (2) gives $(\\heartsuit)$:\n\\[\nF(x_1,\\dots ,x_k)\n\\le\\log\\!\\Bigl(\\tfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\Bigr)\n  -\\frac{k^{2}-1}{12S}+\\frac{k}{360}\n  +\\frac{1-k}{2}\\log(2\\pi).\n\\]\n\n4.7  Since $\\dfrac{S}{S-k+1}\\le k$ for every $S\\ge k$, we arrive at the\nuniform bound $(\\clubsuit)$:\n\\[\nF(x)\\le\\log k-\\frac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\frac{k}{360}<0 .\n\\]\n\nStep 5 – The factorial inequality (Part D).  \n\nLet $a=(a_1,\\dots ,a_k)\\in\\mathbb N^{k}$ with $\\sum a_i=S$ and put\n$\\Pi:=\\prod_{i=1}^{k}a_i$.  Since $\\Gamma(n+1)=n!$,\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nF(a)\n&=\\log\\!\\bigl(S!\\,S^{-S}\\bigr)-\\sum_{i=1}^{k}\\log\\!\\bigl(a_i!\\,a_i^{-a_i}\\bigr)\n   +\\tfrac12\\!\\left(\\log S-\\sum_{i=1}^{k}\\log a_i\\right) .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nExponentiating yields the \\emph{correct} identity\n\\[\n\\exp\\bigl(F(a)\\bigr)=\nS!\\,S^{-S}\\,\n\\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\Pi}}\\,\n\\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}. \\tag{6}\n\\]\n\nBecause of the uniform negativity $(\\clubsuit)$ we have\n\\[\nF(a)\\le\\log k-\\tfrac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\tfrac{k}{360}<0 .\n\\]\nApplying $\\exp$ and using (6) gives precisely ($\\sharp$):\n\\[\n\\boxed{%\n\\;S!\\,S^{-S}\n<\n\\exp\\!\\Bigl[\\log k-\\tfrac{k-1}{2}\\log(2\\pi)+\\tfrac{k}{360}\\Bigr]\\,\n\\sqrt{\\frac{S}{\\Pi}}\\,\n\\prod_{i=1}^{k}\\frac{a_i^{\\,a_i}}{a_i!}\\;}\n\\]\n\nRemark 1.  Since $\\sqrt{S/\\Pi}\\le\\sqrt{k}$ and the exponential factor is\nstrictly smaller than $1$, inequality ($\\sharp$) is a \\emph{strict}\nimprovement over the classical two–variable inequality; for $k=2$ it\nreduces to the original statement with an additional factor $<1$ on\nthe right–hand side.\n\nRemark 2.  Equality can never occur because $F(a)<0$ for every integral\n$k$–tuple, in accordance with the strict concavity and Schur–convexity\nproperties established before.\n\n\\qed\n\n\n\n%-----------------------------------------------------------",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.603133",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "•  Higher dimensional and continuous:  The problem now involves an arbitrary number k of variables which are allowed to be positive real numbers; the Gamma–function replaces the factorial, so purely combinatorial proofs no longer suffice.\n\n•  Additional structural demands:  Parts (A)–(C) require establishing concavity of an analytic function involving ψ and ψ′, the digamma and trigamma functions; controlling these demands knowledge of special–function theory and inequalities for the harmonic series.\n\n•  Schur-convexity:  Part (B) introduces majorisation and Karamata’s inequality, concepts absent from the original statement.\n\n•  Quantitative refinement:  Part (C) asks not only for an inequality but for an explicit exponential gap obtained from Stirling’s expansion with remainder.  This forces delicate error-estimates beyond first–order asymptotics.\n\n•  Multi-layered reasoning:  The complete solution knits together special-function calculus, convex analysis, majorisation theory and asymptotic expansions—several distinct advanced techniques—where the original required at most a single elementary idea.\n\nHence the enhanced variant is significantly more difficult both technically and conceptually than the original and the three-variable kernel problem."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}