Solution:
Answer: 3. To solve this problem, two parts are required. Part A shows that L=3 works. Part B shows that no L′<3 works.
Part A
We show that for all quadruples (a,b,c,d) (with 1<a<b<c<d) we have
a1+ba+cb+dc⩽3.
We do this by considering the two cases b=a+1 and b≥a+2 separately.
If b≥a+2 then we can get
a1+ba+cb+dc⩽a1+a+2a+cb+dc
<a1+a+2a+1+1
=a(a+2)2−a+3⩽3
The numerator (2−a) is non-positive because 1<a and a is an integer.
If b=a+1 then we can get
a1+ba+cb+dc=a1+a+1a+ca+1+dc
<a1+a+1a+ca+1+1
⩽a1+a+1a+a+2a+1+1
=a(a+1)(a+2)2−a2+3<3.
The numerator (2−a2) is negative because 1<a and a is an integer.
In either case we get a1+ba+cb+dc⩽3 for all quadruples (a,b,c,d).
Part B
For the sake of contradiction, suppose there existed some L′<3 which worked. We will show that there exists a quadruple (a,b,c,d) such that
a1+ba+cb+dc>L′.
We will do this explicitly by choosing a,b,c,d to be large consecutive integers. If L′=3−ϵ then we have ϵ>0, and so there exists some integer n such that n>ϵ3. This ensures n+11, n+21 and n+31 are each smaller than 3ϵ.
Now consider (a,b,c,d)=(n,n+1,n+2,n+3).
a1+ba+cb+dc>ba+cb+dc
=n+1n+n+2n+1+n+3n+2
=3−(n+11+n+21+n+31)
>3−(3ϵ+3ϵ+3ϵ)
=L′
Contradiction.