Re:Seven Puzzles You Think You Must Not Have Heard Correctly
by cousin_it on Tuesday September 22, 2009 @04:27AM
(#836552)
The second problem is really good. I just thought up a solution that, though more complex, seems to me much less mysterious, and the 2D case does shed guidance on 3D.
Notice the pattern already? If one N-dimensional box lies inside the other, the inequality holds for all elementary symmetric polynomials of box dimensions.
To prove it, we need only notice that the symmetric polynomial of degree M is proportional to the average volume of the M-dimensional "shadow" of the N-dimensional box, averaged over all projection directions uniformly. (To convince yourself of that, work through the two-dimensional case.) On the other hand, if a box lies inside another box, each "shadow" of the smaller box lies within the corresponding "shadow" of the bigger box. Done!
One-dimensional case:
Two-dimensional case: Three-dimensional case: Notice the pattern already? If one N-dimensional box lies inside the other, the inequality holds for all elementary symmetric polynomials of box dimensions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_symmetric_polynomial
To prove it, we need only notice that the symmetric polynomial of degree M is proportional to the average volume of the M-dimensional "shadow" of the N-dimensional box, averaged over all projection directions uniformly. (To convince yourself of that, work through the two-dimensional case.) On the other hand, if a box lies inside another box, each "shadow" of the smaller box lies within the corresponding "shadow" of the bigger box. Done!