1

Article
Majorization and Karamata Inequality
MathLinks - www.mathlinks.ro
Pham Kim Hung, Stanford University, US
2
Note
This is an excerpt from the second volume of Secrets In Inequalities, by Pham
Kim Hung. The author thanks sincerely Darij Grinberg for some of his materials
about Symmetric Majorization Theorem, posted on Mathlinks Forum. Please dont
use this excerpt for any commercial purpose.
The Author always appriciates every Contribution to this content- Majorization and
Karamata Inequality.
Best Regard,
Pham Kim Hung
Chapter 1
Theory of Majorization
The theory of majorization and convex functions is an important and dicult part
of inequalities, with many nice and powerful applications. will discuss in this article
is Karamata inequality; however, its necessary to review rst some basic properties
of majorization.
Denition 1. Given two sequences (a) = (a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
) and (b) = (b
1
, b
2
, ..., b
n
)
(where a
i
, b
i
R i {1, 2, ..., n}). We say that the sequence (a) majorizes the
sequence (b), and write (a) (b), if the following conditions are fullled
a
1
a
2
... a
n
;
b
1
b
2
... b
n
;
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
= b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
n
;
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
k
b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
k
k {1, 2, ...n1} .
Denition 2. For an arbitrary sequence (a) = (a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
), we denote (a

),
a permutation of elements of (a) which are arranged in increasing order: (a

) =
(a
i1
, a
i2
, ..., a
in
) with a
i1
a
i2
... a
in
and {i
1
, i
2
, ..., i
n
} = {1, 2, ..., n}.
Here are some basic properties of sequences.
Proposition 1. Let a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be real numbers and a =
1
n
(a
1
+a
2
+... +a
n
), then
(a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
)

(a, a, ..., a).

Proposition 2. Suppose that a
1
a
2
... a
n
and = (
1
,
2
, ...
n
) is an
arbitrary permutation of (1, 2, ..., n), then we have
(a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
) (a
(1)
, a
(2)
, ..., a
(n)
).
3
4
Proposition 3. Let (a) = (a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
) and (b) = (b
1
, b
2
, ..., b
n
) be two sequences of
real numbers. We have that (a

) majorizes (b) if the following conditions are fullled

b
1
b
2
... b
n
;
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
= b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
n
;
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
k
b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
k
k {1, 2, ..., n1} ;
These properties are quite obvious: they can be proved directly from the denition
of Majorization. The followingresults, especially the Symmetric Mjorization Criterion,
will be most important in what follows.
Proposition 4. If x
1
x
2
... x
n
and y
1
y
2
... y
n
are positive real
numbers such that x
1
+ x
2
+ ... + x
n
= y
1
+ y
2
+ ... + y
n
and
x
i
x
j

y
i
y
j
i < j, then
(x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
) (y
1
, y
2
, ..., y
n
).
Proof. To prove this assertion, we will use induction. Because
x
i
x
1

y
i
y
1
for all
i {1, 2, ..., n}, we get that
x
1
+ x
2
+ ... + x
n
x
1

y
1
+ y
2
+ ... + y
n
y
1
x
1
y
1
.
Consider two sequences (x
1
+ x
2
, x
3
, ..., x
n
) and (y
1
+ y
2
, y
3
, ..., y
n
). By the inductive
hypothesis, we get
(x
1
+ x
2
, x
3
, ..., x
n
) (y
1
+ y
2
, y
3
, ..., y
n
).
Combining this with the result that x
1
y
1
, we have the conclusion immediately.

Theorem 1 (Symmetric Majorization Criterion). Suppose that (a) =

(a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
) and (b) = (b
1
, b
2
, ..., b
n
) are two sequences of real numbers; then
(a

) (b

) if and only if for all real numbers x we have

|a
1
x| +|a
2
x| + ... + |a
n
x| |b
1
x| + |b
2
x| + ... + |b
n
x|.
Proof. To prove this theorem, we need to prove the following.
(i). Necessary condition. Suppose that (a

) (b

), then we need to prove that

for all real numbers x
|a
1
x| + |a
2
x| + ... +|a
n
x| |b
1
x| +|b
2
x| + ... +|b
n
x| ()
Notice that () is just a direct application of Karamata inequality to the convex
function f(x) = |x a|; however, we will prove algebraically.
5
WLOG, assume that a
1
a
2
... a
n
and b
1
b
2
... b
n
, then (a) (b) by
hypothesis. Obviously, () is true if x b
1
or x b
n
, because in these cases, we have
RHS = |b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
n
nx| = |a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
nx| LHS.
Consider the case when there exists an integer k {1, 2, ..., n1} for which b
k
x
b
k+1
. In this case, we can remove the absolute value signs of the right-hand expression
of ()
|b
1
x| +|b
2
x| + ... +|b
k
x| = b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
k
kx ;
|b
k+1
x| +|b
k+2
x| + ... +|b
n
x| = (n k)x b
k+1
b
k+2
... b
n
;
Moreover, we also have that
k

i=1
|a
i
x| kx +
k

i=1
a
i
,
and similarly,
n

i=k+1
|a
i
x| =
n

i=k+1
|x a
i
| (n k)x
n

i=k+1
a
i
.
Combining the two results and noticing that
k

i=1
a
i

k

i=1
b
i
and
n

i=1
a
i
=
n

i=1
b
i
, we get
n

i=1
|a
i
x| (n 2k)x +
k

i=1
a
i

i=k+1
a
i
= 2
k

i=1
a
i

i=1
a
i
+ (n 2k)x 2
k

i=1
b
i

i=1
b
i
+ (n 2k)x =
n

i=1
|b
i
x|.
This last inequality asserts our desired result.
(ii). Sucient condition. Suppose that the inequality
|a
1
x| +|a
2
x| + ... + |a
n
x| |b
1
x| + |b
2
x| + ... + |b
n
x| ()
has been already true for every real number x. We have to prove that (a

) (b

).
Without loss of generality, we may assume that a
1
a
2
... a
n
and b
1
b
2

... b
n
. Because () is true for all x R, if we choose x max{a
i
, b
i
}
n
i=1
then
n

i=1
|a
i
x| = nx
n

i=1
a
i
;
n

i=1
|b
i
x| = nx
n

i=1
b
i
;
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
n
.
6
Similarly, if we choose x min{a
i
, b
i
}
n
i=1
, then
n

i=1
|a
i
x| = nx +
n

i=1
a
i
;
n

i=1
|b
i
x| = nx +
n

i=1
b
i
;
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
n
.
From these results, we get that a
1
+a
2
+...+a
n
= b
1
+b
2
+...+b
n
. Now suppose that x is
a real number in [a
k
, a
k+1
], then we need to prove that a
1
+a
2
+...+a
k
b
1
+b
2
+...+b
k
.
Indeed, we can eliminate the absolute value signs on the left-hand expression of ()
as follows
|a
1
x| +|a
2
x| + ... +|a
k
x| = a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
k
kx ;
|a
k+1
x| +|a
k+2
x| + ... +|a
n
x| = (n k)x a
k+1
a
k+2
... a
n
;

i=1
|a
i
x| = (n 2k)x + 2
k

i=1
a
i

i=1
a
i
.
Considering the right-hand side expression of (), we have
n

i=1
|b
i
x| =
k

i=1
|b
i
x| +
n

i=k+1
|x b
i
|
kx +
k

i=1
b
i
+ (n k)x
n

i=k+1
|b
i
| = (n 2k)x + 2
k

i=1
|b
i
|
n

i=1
|b
i
|.
From these relations and (), we conclude that
(n 2k)x + 2
k

i=1
a
i

i=1
a
i
(n 2k)x + 2
k

i=1
|b
i
|
n

i=1
|b
i
|
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
k
b
1
+ b
2
+ ... + b
k
,
which is exactly the desired result. The proof is completed.

The Symmetric Majorization Criterion asserts that when we examine the ma-
jorization of two sequences, its enough to examine only one conditional inequality
which includes a real variable x. This is important because if we use the normal
method, there may too many cases to check.
The essential importance of majorization lies in the Karamata inequality, which
will be discussed right now.
Chapter 2
Karamata Inequality
Karamata inequality is a strong application of convex functions to inequalities. As we
have already known, the function f is called convex on I if and only if af(x)+bf(y)
f(ax + by) for all x, y I and for all a, b [0, 1]. Moreover, we also have that f is
convex if f

(x) 0 x I. In the following proof of Karamata inequality, we only

consider a convex function f when f

(x) 0 because this case mainly appears in

Mathematical Contests. This proof is also a nice application of Abel formula.
Theorem 2 (Karamata inequality). If (a) and (b) two numbers sequences for
which (a

) (b

) and f is a convex function twice dierentiable on I then

f(a
1
) + f(a
2
) + ... + f(a
n
) f(b
1
) + f(b
2
) + ... + f(b
n
).
Proof. WLOG, assume that a
1
a
2
... a
n
and b
1
b
2
... b
n
. The inductive
hypothesis yields (a) = (a

) (b

) = (b). Notice that f is a twice dierentiable

function on I (that means f

(x) 0), so by Mean Value theorem, we claim that

f(x) f(y) (x y)f

(y) x, y I.
From this result, we also have f(a
i
)f(b
i
) (a
i
b
i
)f

(b
i
) i {1, 2, ..., n}. Therefore
n

i=1
f(a
i
)
n

i=1
f(b
i
) =
n

i=1
(f (a
i
) f (b
i
))
n

i=1
(a
i
b
i
)f

(b
i
)
= (a
1
b
1
)(f

(b
1
) f

(b
2
)) + (a
1
+ a
2
b
1
b
2
)(f

(b
2
) f

(b
3
)) + ...+
+
_
n1

i=1
a
i

n1

i=1
b
i
_
(f

(b
n1
) f

(b
n
)) +
_
n

i=1
a
i

i=1
b
i
_
f

(b
n
) 0
because for all k {1, 2, ..., n} we have f

(b
k
) f

(b
k+1
) and
k

i=1
a
i

k

i=1
b
i
.
7
8
Comment. 1. If f is a non-decreasing function, it is certain that the last condition
n

i=1
a
i
=
n

i=1
b
i
can be replaced by the stronger one
n

i=1
a
i

n

i=1
b
i
.
2. A similar result for concave functions is that
If (a) (b) are number arrays and f is a concave function twice dierentiable
then
f(a
1
) + f(a
2
) + ... + f(a
n
) f(b
1
) + f(b
2
) + ... + f(b
n
).
3. If f is convex (that means f(a) + f(b) f(a + b) , 0, + = 1)
but not twice dierentiable (f

(x) does not exist), Karamata inequality is still true.

A detailed proof can be seen in the book Inequalities written by G.H Hardy, J.E
Littewood and G.Polya.

The following examples should give you a sense of how this inequality can be used.
Example 2.1. If f is a convex function then
f(a) + f(b) + f(c) + f
_
a + b + c
3
_

4
3
_
f
_
a + b
2
_
+ f
_
b + c
2
_
+ f
_
c + a
2
__
.
(Popoviciu-Titu Andreescu inequality)
Solution. WLOG, suppose that a b c. Consider the following number sequences
(x) = (a, a, a, b, t, t, t, b, b, c, c, c) ; (y) = (, , , , , , , , , , , ) ;
where
t =
a + b + c
3
, =
a + b
2
, =
a + c
2
, =
b + c
2
.
Clearly, we have that (y) is a monotonic sequence. Moreover
a , 3a + b 4, 3a + b + t 4+ , 3a + b + 3t 4 + 3,
3a + 2b + 3t 4 + 4, 3a + 3b + 3t 4 + 4 + ,
3a + 3b + 3t + c 4+ 4 + 2, 3a + 3b + 3t + 3c 4 + 4 + 4.
Thus (x

) (y) and therefore (x

) (y

). By Karamata inequality, we conclude

3 (f(x) + f(y) + f(z) + f(t)) 4 (f() + f() + f()) ,
which is exactly the desired result. We are done.

Example 2.2 (Jensen Inequality). If f is a convex function then

f(a
1
) + f(a
2
) + ... + f(a
n
) nf
_
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
n
_
.
9
Solution. We use property 1 of majorization. Suppose that a
1
a
2
... a
n
, then
we have (a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
) (a, a, ..., a) with a =
1
n
(a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
). Our problem is
directly deduced from Karamata inequality for these two sequences.

Example 2.3. Let a, b, c, x, y, z be six real numbers in I satisfying

a + b + c = x + y + z, max(a, b, c) max(x, y, z), min(a, b, c) min(x, y, z),
then for every convex function f on I, we have
f(a) + f(b) + f(c) f(x) + f(y) + f(z).
Solution. Assume that x y z. The assumption implies (a, b, c)

(x, y, z) and
the conclusion follows from Karamata inequality.

Example 2.4. Let a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be positive real numbers. Prove that
(1 + a
1
)(1 + a
2
)...(1 + a
n
)
_
1 +
a
2
1
a
2
__
1 +
a
2
2
a
3
_
...
_
1 +
a
2
n
a
1
_
.
Solution. Our inequality is equivalent to
ln(1+a
1
)+ln(1+a
2
)+...+ln(1+a
n
) ln
_
1 +
a
2
1
a
2
_
+ln
_
1 +
a
2
2
a
3
_
+...+ln
_
1 +
a
2
n
a
1
_
.
Suppose that the number sequence (b) = (b
1
, b
2
, ..., b
n
) is a permutation of
(ln a
1
, lna
2
, ..., lna
n
) which was rearranged in decreasing order. We may assume that
b
i
= ln a
ki
, where (k
1
, k
2
, ..., k
n
) is a permutation of (1, 2, .., n). Therefore the number
sequence (c) = (2 lna
1
ln a
2
, 2 lna
2
ln a
3
, ..., 2 lna
n
lna
1
) can be rearranged into
a new one as
(c

) = (2 lna
k1
lna
k1+1
, 2 lna
k2
ln a
k2+1
, ..., 2 lna
kn
ln a
kn+1
).
Because the number sequence (b) = (ln a
k1
, lna
k2
, ..., lna
kn
) is decreasing, we must
have (c

(b). By Karamata inequality, we conclude that for all convex function

x then
f(c
1
) + f(c
2
) + ... + f(c
n
) f(b
1
) + f(b
2
) + ... + f(b
n
),
where c
i
= 2 lna
ki
ln a
ki+1
and b
i
= ln a
ki
for all i {1, 2, ..., n}. Choosing f(x) =
ln(1 + e
x
), we have the desired result.
Comment. 1. A dierent choice of f(x) can make a dierent problem. For example,
with the convex function f(x) =

1 + e
x
, we get

1 + a
1
+

1 + a
2
+ ... +

1 + a
n

1 +
a
2
1
a
2
+

1 +
a
2
2
a
3
+ ... +

1 +
a
2
n
a
1
.
10
2. By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we can solve this problem according to the fol-
lowing estimation
_
1 +
a
2
1
a
2
_
(1 + a
2
) (1 + a
1
)
2
.

Example 2.5. Let a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be positive real numbers. Prove that
a
2
1
a
2
2
+ ... + a
2
n
+ ... +
a
2
n
a
2
1
+ ... + a
2
n1

a
1
a
2
+ ... + a
n
+ ... +
a
n
a
1
+ ... + a
n1
.
Solution. For each i {1, 2, ..., n}, we denote
y
i
=
a
i
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
, x
i
=
a
2
i
a
2
1
+ a
2
2
+ ... + a
2
n
then x
1
+ x
2
+ ... + x
n
= y
1
+ y
2
+ ... + y
n
= 1. We need to prove that
n

i=1
x
i
1 x
i

i=1
y
i
1 y
i
.
WLOG, assume that a
1
a
2
... a
n
, then certainly x
1
x
2
... x
n
and
y
1
y
2
... y
n
. Moreover, for all i j, we also have
x
i
x
j
=
a
2
i
a
2
j

a
i
a
j
=
y
i
y
j
.
By property 4, we deduce that (x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
) (y
1
, y
2
, ..., y
n
). Furthermore,
f(x) =
x
1 x
is a convex function, so by Karamata inequality, the nal result follows immediately.

Example 2.6. Suppose that (a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
2n
) is a permutation of (b
1
, b
2
, ..., b
2n
) which
satises b
1
b
2
... b
2n
0. Prove that
(1 + a
1
a
2
)(1 + a
3
a
4
)...(1 + a
2n1
a
2n
)
(1 + b
1
b
2
)(1 + b
3
b
4
)...(1 + b
2n1
b
2n
).
Solution. Denote f(x) = ln(1 +e
x
) and x
i
= ln a
i
, y
i
= ln b
i
. We need to prove that
f(x
1
+ x
2
) + f(x
3
+ x
4
) + ... + f(x
2n1
+ x
2n
)
f(y
1
+ y
2
) + f(y
3
+ y
4
) + ... + f(y
2n1
+ y
2n
).
11
Consider the number sequences (x) = (x
1
+ x
2
, x
3
+ x
4
, ..., x
2n1
+ x
2n
) and (y) =
(y
1
+ y
2
, y
3
+y
4
, ..., y
2n1
+y
2n
). Because y
1
y
2
... y
n
, if (x

) = (x

1
, x

2
, ..., x

n
)
is a permutation of elements of (x) which are rearranged in the decreasing order, then
y
1
+ y
2
+ ... + y
2k
x

1
+ x

2
+ ... + x

2k
,
and therefore (y) (x

). The conclusion follows from Karamata inequality with

the convex function f(x) and two numbers sequences (y) (x

).

If these examples are just the beginners applications of Karamata inequality,

you will see much more clearly how eective this theorem is in combination with the
Symmetric Majorization Criterion. Famous Turkevicis inequality is such an instance.
Example 2.7. Let a, b, c, d be non-negative real numbers. Prove that
a
4
+ b
4
+ c
4
+ d
4
+ 2abcd a
2
b
2
+ b
2
c
2
+ c
2
d
2
+ d
2
a
2
+ a
2
c
2
+ b
2
d
2
.
(Turkevicis inequality)
Solution. To prove this problem, we use the following lemma
For all real numbers x, y, z, t then
2(|x| +|y| +|z| +|t|) +|x+y+z +t| |x+y| +|y+z| +|z +t| +|t +x| +|x+z| +|y+t|.
We will not give a detailed proof of this lemma now (because the next problem shows
a nice generalization of this one, with a meticulous solution). At this time, we will
clarify that this lemma, in combination with Karamata inequality, can directly give
Turkevicis inequality. Indeed, let a = e
a1
, b = e
b1
, c = e
c1
and d = e
d1
, our problem
is

cyc
e
4a1
+ 2e
a1+b1+c1+d1

sym
e
2a1+2b1
.
Because f(x) = e
x
is convex, it suces to prove that (a

) majorizes (b

) with
(a) = (4a
1
, 4b
1
, 4c
1
, 4d
1
, a
1
+ b
1
+ c
1
+ d
1
, a
1
+ b
1
+ c
1
+ d
1
) ;
(b) = (2a
1
+ 2b
1
, 2b
1
+ 2c
1
, 2c
1
+ 2d
1
, 2d
1
+ 2a
1
, 2a
1
+ 2c
1
, 2b
1
+ 2d
1
) ;
By the symmetric majorization criterion, we need to prove that for all x
1
R then
2|a
1
+ b
1
+ c
1
+ d
1
4x
1
| +

cyc
|4a
1
4x
1
|

sym
|2a
1
+ 2b
1
4x
1
|.
Letting now x = a
1
x
1
, y = b
1
x
1
, z = c
1
x
1
, t = d
1
x
1
, we obtain an equivalent
form as
2

cyc
|x| + |

cyc
x|

sym
|x + y|,
12
which is exactly the lemma shown above. We are done.

Example 2.8. Let a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be non-negative real numbers. Prove that
(n 1)(a
2
1
+ a
2
2
+ ... + a
2
n
) + n
n
_
a
2
1
a
2
2
...a
2
n
(a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
)
2
.
Solution. We realize that Turkevicis inequality is a particular case of this general
problem (for n = 4, it becomes Turkevicis). By using the same reasoning as in the
preceding problem, we only need to prove that for all real numbers x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
then
(a

) (b

) with
(a) = (2x
1
, 2x
1
, ..., 2x
1
. .
n1
, 2x
2
, 2x
2
, ..., 2x
2
. .
n1
, ..., 2x
n
, 2x
n
, ..., 2x
n
. .
n1
, 2x, 2x, ..., 2x
. .
n
) ;
(b) = (x
1
+ x
1
, x
1
+ x
2
, x
1
+x
3
, ..., x
1
+x
n
, x
2
+x
1
, x
2
+x
2
, ..., x
2
+x
n
, ..., x
n
+x
n
) ;
and x =
1
n
(x
1
+ x
2
+ ... + x
n
). By the Symmetric Majorization Criterion, it suces
to prove that
(n 2)
n

i=1
|x
i
| +|
n

i=1
x
i
|
n

i=j
|x
i
+ x
j
|.
Denote A = {i

x
i
0}, B = {i

x
i
< 0} and suppose that |A| = m, |B| = k = nm.
We will prove an equivalent form as follows: if x
i
0 i {1, 2, ..., n} then
(n 2)

iA,B
x
i
+ |

iA
x
i

jB
x
j
|

(i,j)A,B
(x
i
+ x
j
) +

iA,jB
|x
i
x
j
|.
Because k + m = n, we can rewrite the inequality above into
(k 1)

iA
x
i
+ (m1)

jB
x
j
+|

iA
x
i

jB
x
j
|

iA,jB
|x
i
x
j
| ()
Without loss of generality, we may assume that

iA
x
i

jB
x
j
. For each i A, let
|A
i
| = {j B|x
i
x
j
} and r
i
= |A
i
|. For each j B, let |B
j
| = {i A|x
j
x
i
} and
s
j
= |B
j
|. Thus the left-hand side expression in () can be rewritten as

iA
(k 2r
i
)x
i
+

jB
(m2s
j
)x
j
.
Therefore () becomes

iA
(2r
i
1)x
i
+

jB
(2s
j
1)x
j
+ |

iA
x
i

jB
x
j
| 0

iA
r
i
x
i
+

jB
(s
j
1)x
j
0.
13
Notice that if s
j
1 for all j {1, 2, ..., n} then we have the desired result immedi-
ately. Otherwise, assume that there exists a number s
l
= 0, then
max
iAB
x
i
B r
i
1 i {1, 2, ..., m}.
Thus

iA
r
i
x
i
+

jB
(s
j
1)x
j

iA
x
i

jB
x
j
0.
This problem is completely solved. The equality holds for a
1
= a
2
= ... = a
n
and
a
1
= a
2
= ... = a
n1
, a
n
= 0 up to permutation.

Example 2.9. Let a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be positive real numbers with product 1. Prove that
a
1
+ a
2
+ ... + a
n
+ n(n 2) (n 1)
_
1
n1

a
1
+
1
n1

a
2
+ ... +
1
n1

a
n
_
.
Solution. The inequality can be rewritten in the form
n

i=1
a
i
+ n(n 2)
n

_
n

i=1
a
i
(n 1)
n

i=1
n1

j=i
a
j
.
First we will prove the following result (that helps us prove the previous inequality
immediately): if x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
are real numbers then (

) (

) with
() = (x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
, x, x, ..., x) ;
() = (y
1
, y
1
, ..., y
1
, y
2
, y
2
, ..., y
2
, ..., y
n
, y
n
, ..., y
n
) ;
where x =
1
n
(x
1
+x
2
+... +x
n
), () includes n(n 2) numbers x, () includes n 1
numbers y
k
(k {1, 2, ..., n}), and each number b
k
is determined from b
k
=
nx x
i
n 1
.
Indeed, by the symmetric majorization criterion, we only need to prove that
|x
1
| + |x
2
| + ... +|x
n
| + (n 2)|S| |S x
1
| +|S x
2
| + ... +|S x
n
| ()
where S = x
1
+ x
2
+ ... + x
n
= nx. In case n = 3, this becomes a well-known result
|x| +|y| + |z| + |x + y + z| |x + y| +|y + z| + |z + x|.
In the general case, assume that x
1
x
2
... x
n
. If x
i
S i {1, 2, ..., n} then
RHS =
n

i=1
(x
i
S) = (n 1)S (n 1)|S|
n

i=1
|x
i
| + (n 2)|S| = LHS.
14
and the conclusion follows. Case x
i
S i {1, 2, ..., n} is proved similarly. We
consider the nal case. There exists an integer k (1 k n 1) such that x
k
S
x
k+1
. In this case, we can prove () simply as follows
RHS =
k

i=1
(x
i
S) +
n

i=k+1
(S x
i
) =
k

i=1
x
i

i=k+1
x
k+1
+ (n 2k)S,

i=1
|x
i
| + (n 2k)|S|
n

i=1
|x
i
| + (n 2)|S| = LHS,
which is also the desired result. The problem is completely solved.

Example 2.10. Let a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be non-negative real numbers. Prove that
(n1) (a
n
1
+ a
n
2
+ ... + a
n
n
)+na
1
a
2
...a
n
(a
1
+a
2
+...+a
n
)
_
a
n1
1
+ a
n1
2
+ ... + a
n1
n
_
.
(Suranjis inequality)
Solution. We will prove rst the following result for all real numbers x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
n(n 1)
n

i=1
|x
i
| + n|S|
n

i,j=1
|x
i
+ (n 1)x
j
| (1)
in which S = x
1
+x
2
+... +x
n
. Indeed, let z
i
= |x
i
| i {1, 2, ..., n} and A = {i

1
i n, i N, x
i
0}, B = {i

1 i n, i N, x
i
< 0}. WLOG, we may assume that
A = {1, 2, ..., k} and B = {k + 1, k + 2, ..., n}, then |A| = k, |B| = n k = m and
z
i
0 for all i A B. The inequality above becomes
n(n 1)
_
_

iA
z
i
+

jB
z
j
_
_
+ n

iA
z
i

jB
z
j

i,i

A
|z
i
+(n1)z
i
|+

j,j

B
|(n1)z
j
+z
j
|+

iA,jB
_
|z
i
(n1)z
j
|+|(n1)z
i
z
j
|
_
Because n = k + m, the previous inequality is equivalent to
n(m1)

iA
z
i
+ n(k 1)

jB
z
j
+ n

iA
z
i

jB
z
j

iA,jB
|z
i
(n 1)z
j
| +

iA,jB
|(n 1)z
i
z
j
| ()
For each i A we denote
B
i
= { j B

(n 1)z
i
z
j
} ; B

i
= {j B

z
i
(n 1)z
j
} ;
15
For each j B we denote
A
j
= { i A

(n 1)z
j
z
i
} ; A

j
= {i A

z
j
(n 1)z
i
} ;
We have of course B

i
B
i
B and A

i
A
i
A. After giving up the absolute value
signs, the right-hand side expression of () is indeed equal to

iA
(mn 2|B

i
| 2(n 1)|B
i
|) z
i
+

jB
_
kn 2|A

j
| 2(n 1)|A
j
|
_
z
j
.
WLOG, we may assume that

iA
z
i


jB
z
j
. The inequality above becomes

iA
(|B

i
| + (n 1)|B
i
|) z
i
+

jB
_
|A

j
| + (n 1)|A
j
| n
_
z
j
0.
Notice that if for all j B, we have |A

j
| 1, then the conclusion follows immediately
(because A

j
A
j
, then |A
j
| 1 and |A

j
| + (n 1)|A
j
| n 0 j B). If not,
we may assume that there exists a certain number r B for which |A

r
| = 0, and
therefore |A
r
| = 0. Because |A
r
| = 0, it follows that (n 1)z
r
z
i
for all i A. This
implies that |B
i
| |B

i
| 1 for all i A, therefore |B

i
| + (n 1)|B
i
| n and we
conclude that

iA
(|B

i
| + (n 1)|B
i
|) z
i
+

jB
_
|A

j
| + (n 1)|A
j
| n
_
z
j
n

iA
z
i
n

jB
z
j
0.
Therefore (1) has been successfully proved and therefore Suranjis inequality follows
immediately from Karamata inequality and the Symmetric Majorization Criterion.

Example 2.11. Let a

1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
be positive real numbers such that a
1
a
2
...
a
n
. Prove the following inequality
a
1
+ a
2
2

a
2
+ a
3
2

a
n
+ a
1
2

a
1
+ a
2
+ a
3
3

a
2
+ a
3
+ a
4
3

a
n
+ a
1
+ a
2
3
.
(V. Adya Asuren)
Solution. By using Karamata inequality for the concave function f(x) = ln x, we
only need to prove that the number sequence (x

) majorizes the number sequence

(y

) in which (x) = (x
1
, x
2
, ..., x
n
), (y) = (y
1
, y
2
, ..., y
n
) and for each i {1, 2, ..., n}
x
i
=
a
i
+ a
i+1
2
, y
i
=
a
i
+ a
i+1
+ a
i+2
3
(with the common notation a
n+1
= a
1
and a
n+2
= a
2
). According to the Symmetric
Majorization Criterion, it suces to prove the following inequality
3
_
n

i=1
|z
i
+ z
i+1
|
_
2
_
n

i=1
|z
i
+ z
i+1
+ z
i+2
|
_
()
16
for all real numbers z
1
z
2
... z
n
and z
n+1
, z
n+2
stand for z
1
, z
2
respectively.
Notice that () is obviously true if z
i
0 for all i = 1, 2, ..., n. Otherwise, assume
that z
1
z
2
... z
k
0 > z
k+1
... z
n
. We realize rst that its enough to
consider () for 8 numbers (instead of n numbers). Now consider it for 8 numbers
z
1
, z
2
, ..., z
8
. For each number i {1, 2, ..., 8}, we denote c
i
= |z
i
|, then c
i
0. To
prove this problem, we will prove rst the most dicult case z
1
z
2
z
3
z
4
0
z
5
z
6
z
7
z
8
. Giving up the absolute value signs, the problem becomes
3(c
1
+ 2c
2
+ 2c
3
+ c
4
+ c
5
+ 2c
6
+ 2c
7
+ c
8
+ |c
4
c
5
| +|c
8
c
1
|)
2(c
1
+2c
2
+2c
3
+c
4
+|c
3
+c
4
c
5
|+|c
4
c
5
c
6
|+c
5
+2c
6
+2c
7
+c
8
+|c
7
+c
8
c
1
|+|c
8
c
1
c
2
|)
c
1
+ 2c
2
+ 2c
3
+ c
4
+ c
5
+ 2c
6
+ 2c
7
+ c
8
+ 3|c
4
c
5
| + 3|c
8
c
1
|
2|c
3
+ c
4
c
5
| + 2|c
4
c
5
c
6
| + 2|c
7
+ c
8
c
1
| + 2|c
8
c
1
c
2
|
Clearly, this inequality is obtained by adding the following results
2|c
4
c
5
| + 2c
3
2|c
3
+ c
4
+ c
5
|
2|c
8
c
1
| + 2c
7
2|c
7
+ c
8
c
1
|
|c
4
c
5
| + c
4
+ c
5
+ 2c
6
2|c
4
c
5
c
6
|
|c
8
c
1
| + c
8
+ c
1
+ 2c
2
2|c
8
c
1
c
2
|
For other cases when there exist exactly three (or ve); two (or six); only one (or seven)
non-negative numbers in {z
1
, z
2
, ..., z
8
}, the problem is proved completely similarly
(indeed, notice that, for example, if z
1
z
2
z
3
0 z
4
z
5
z
6
z
7
z
8
then
we only need to consider the similar but simpler inequality of seven numbers after
eliminating z
6
). Therefore () is proved and the conclusion follows immediately.

Using Karamata inequality together with the theory of majorization like we have
just done it is an original method for algebraic inequalities. By this method, a purely
algebraic problem can be transformed to a linear inequality with absolute signs, which
is essentially an arithmetic problem, and which can have many original solutions.