Lemma 3 in Haimovich and Rinnooy Kan (1985) (Math of OR 10(4):527–542) says:
If $X$ [the set of nodes] is contained in a rectangle with sides $a$ and $b$, then $$ T^*(X) \le \sqrt{2(n-1)ab} + 2(a+b).$$
Here, $T^*(X)$ is the length of the optimal TSP tour through $X$, and $n=|X|$. The proof uses a clever construction that divides the rectangle into $h$ horizontal strips, builds two snaking paths along the strips, inserts every node onto both paths, and converts the paths into cycles, which are then upper bounds on $T^*(X)$. The proof winds up at the following inequality:
$$T^*(X) \le \frac32a + 2b + \frac12ah + \frac{(n-2)b}{h}.$$
I can follow the proof up to this point and I agree with it. Then they say:
The right-hand side of [the inequality above] is minimized by taking $h=\sqrt{2(n-2)b/a}$.
The proof ends there. I've confirmed that this $h$ minimizes the right-hand side of the inequality. But if we plug the optimal $h$ into the right-hand side of the inequality and we get: $$\begin{align*} T^*(X) & \le \frac{3}{2}a + 2b + \frac{a\sqrt{\frac{2(n-2)b}{a}}}{2} + \frac{(n-2)b}{\sqrt{\frac{2(n-2)b}{a}}} \\ & = \frac{3}{2}a + 2b + \sqrt{2(n-2)ab}. \end{align*}$$ I agree that this is $\le \sqrt{2(n-1)ab} + 2(a+b)$, as in the lemma—but why not state the lemma using this tighter bound? I feel like I'm missing something here.