I am dealing with a question in Stewart Calculus Book which states the following:
Using Lagrange multiplier, find the maximum of the function $$f(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)=(x_1x_2...x_n)^{1/n}$$subject to the constraint$$\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i=c$$,where $x_i$'s are all positive, and use this to prove the AM-GM inequality. Actually in AM-GM inequality, it holds for all nonnegative numbers, but I think the author wants to get rid of the case where $x_i$'s are all zero, where Lagrange multiplier can no longer be applied.
And the result I obtained is: $f$ will have its maximum/minimum (the arithmetic mean), or even saddle point at $(\frac{c}{n},\frac{c}{n},...,\frac{c}{n})$, since Lagrange method gives no definiteness on the behaviour of the critical points found (whether max, min, or saddle).
And my question is: In this case, how do we show that the point I found gives the maximum value of the function? My teacher gave me an argument that said "the minimum value would be some place very near to $0$, so the arithmetic mean will not be the minimum value". But I think the argument is not persuasive enough to explain why the arithmetic mean is the maximum value. So, I hope that there will someone who are willing to give their opinions on this. Thanks.