1972 IMO Problems/Problem 3: Difference between revisions
Math-shinai (talk | contribs) |
Math-shinai (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
On the other hand, <math>\lfloor{a}\rfloor+\lfloor{b}\rfloor+\lfloor{a+b}\rfloor=a_1+b_1+(a_1+b_1)+\lfloor\{2(a+b)\}\rfloor</math> | On the other hand, <math>\lfloor{a}\rfloor+\lfloor{b}\rfloor+\lfloor{a+b}\rfloor=a_1+b_1+(a_1+b_1)+\lfloor\{2(a+b)\}\rfloor</math> | ||
It is trivial that <math>\lfloor2\{a\}\rfloor+\lfloor2\{b\}\rfloor\ge\lfloor\{(a+b)\}\rfloor</math> (Traingle Inequality) | It is trivial that <math>\lfloor2\{a\}\rfloor+\lfloor2\{b\}\rfloor\ge\lfloor\{2(a+b)\}\rfloor</math> (Traingle Inequality) | ||
Apply Lemma 2.1 to the problem: and we are pretty much done. | Apply Lemma 2.1 to the problem: and we are pretty much done. | ||
Note: I am lazy, so this is only the most important part. I hope you can come up with the rest of the solution. This is my work, but perhaps someone have come up with this method before I did. | Note: I am lazy, so this is only the most important part. I hope you can come up with the rest of the solution. This is my work, but perhaps someone have come up with this method before I did. | ||
Revision as of 10:44, 14 November 2019
Let
and
be arbitrary non-negative integers. Prove that
is an integer. (
.)
Solution 1
Let
. We intend to show that
is integral for all
. To start, we would like to find a recurrence relation for
.
First, let's look at
:
Second, let's look at
:
Combining,
.
Therefore, we have found the recurrence relation
.
We can see that
is integral because the RHS is just
, which we know to be integral for all
.
So,
must be integral, and then
must be integral, etc.
By induction,
is integral for all
.
Borrowed from http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~asdas/imo/imo/isoln/isoln723.html
Solution 2
Let p be a prime, and n be an integer. Let
be the largest positive integer
such that
WTS: For all primes
,
We know
Lemma 2.1: Let
be real numbers. Then
Proof of Lemma 2.1: Let
and
On the other hand,
It is trivial that
(Traingle Inequality)
Apply Lemma 2.1 to the problem: and we are pretty much done.
Note: I am lazy, so this is only the most important part. I hope you can come up with the rest of the solution. This is my work, but perhaps someone have come up with this method before I did.