Hi Ruddy370,Good news first: your value of
-2 is exactly right. But your reasoning got you there partly by luck, and that's the gap worth closing.
The problem with pure substitution: plugging in one set of values (here x = y = z =
1) tells you
a value the expression can take - it does
not prove that value is the smallest possible. To claim a minimum, you have to show that
no other choice of x, y, z can push it lower. Trying one triple can't do that on its own.
You happened to land on the true minimum because at x = y = z =
1 something special quietly happens. Look at the factorization the others posted:
x^4 + z^2 - 4yz + 4y^2 - 4x^2y + 2x^2z - 2 = (x^2 - 2y + z)^2 - 2
A square is
always >= 0, so the whole thing is smallest exactly when that square equals
0, leaving
-2. Now check your triple: at x = y = z =
1, the inside is
1 -
2 +
1 =
0. That's why you got
-2 - you accidentally picked values that zero out the square. Pick almost any other triple and the square is positive, so the expression is
bigger than
-2, never smaller.
So your instinct "negatives just add positive terms" isn't a reliable rule - the real reason
-2 is the floor is the perfect square.
Quick check to feel the difference:- What's the minimum of (x -
3)^2 -
2?
- If you'd plugged in x =
1, you'd get
2. Plug in x =
3, you get
-2.
Same lesson: substitution only finds the minimum if you happen to hit the value that zeroes the square. The square form
guarantees it.
Answer: ARuddy370
I just assumed 1 as the value for all x y z, since taking any negative would lead to a + sign in a few terms. Am I missing something?