Solutions for July-August, 2002 problems
-
157.
-
Prove that if the quadratic equation
has nonzero integer solutions, then
is a composite
integer.
Solution. Suppose that the integer roots are
and
.
Then
and
, whence
Since each factor exceeds 1,
is composite.
Comment. You should make sure that you are familiar with the
relationship between the coeffients and roots of polynomials; a
poor way to solve this problem is to use the quadratic formula.
Note that, if, say,
, then
can be prime; for
example, you get the value 5 when
.
-
158.
-
Let
be a polynomial with real coefficients for
which the equation
has no real solution. Prove that the
equation
has no real solution either.
Solution 1. Let
. Then,
is a polynomial
that never vanishes. We argue that it must always have the same sign.
Suppose if possible that
for some reals
and
. Since
, being a polynomial, is continuous, the Intermediate
Value Theorem applies and there must be a number
between
and
for which
, yielding a contradition.
Thus, either
for all
or else
for all
. Then
for all real
. Since
never changes sign, both
and
have the same sign (either positive or negative) and
so their sum cannot vanish. Hence
for any real
.
Solution 2. Suppose, if possible, that
.
Let
. Then
. By hypothesis,
.
Wolog, suppose that
. Then
and
. Since
is a polynomial, it is
continuous and so the Intermediate Value Theorem applies on
the closed interval
. As it has opposite signs at the
endpoints of
, it must vanish somewhere in the interior
of the interval. But then this contradicts the hypothesis.
Hence
can have no real solutions.
Comment. It is important to highlight that
is
a continuous function, as this is key to the result. (Can you
construct a counterexample where it is not assumed that
is a polynomial or continuous?) Several of you tried to
give a geometric argument for this, and apart from mangling
the terminology (e.g., not distinguishing between
a function and its graph, points and values), operated at too
intuitive a level. Notice that the statement
``
or
for all
''
lacks a certain precision, as it
could be interpreted to mean that at any individual point
,
one of the two alternatives occurs (the function does not vanish),
but that different alternative might occur at different points.
-
159.
-
Let
. Prove that the area of the
bounded region enclosed by the curves with equations
and
cannot exceed
.
Solution. In the situation that
,
the two curves intersect in the points
and
, and the bounded region is the triangle with these
two vertices and the vertex
. This triangle is
contained in the triangle with vertices
,
and
with area
. Hence, when
,
the area of the bounded region cannot exceed
.
Let
. In this case, the bounded region is a
quadrilateral with the four vertices
,
,
and
. Noting that
this quadrilateral is the result of removing two smaller
triangles from a larger one (draw a diagram!), we find that
its area is
whence we find that the area does not exceed
and is equal to
exactly when
.
The case
is the symmetric image of the case
and we find that the area of the bounded region
cannot exceed
.
Comment. This is not a difficult problem, but it does require
a lot of care in keeping the situation straight and the computations
sound. Always keep in mind completion of the square when it is a
matter of optimizing a quadratic. Use of calculus is more cumbersome
in such situations, and begs the question as to whether the optimum
is a maximum or a minimum. (You can lose points for not explicitly
resolving this issue.) R. Barrington Leigh solved the problem
by looking at the area between the graph of
and the
axis. The equation of this curve with the absolute value signs
is equal to
for
, to
when
and
when
, with suitable modification when
. Because
at each value of
, the difference in the ordinates remains the
same as in the original problem, the area here is the same as
the area between the two graphs of the problem. You might want
to try the problem in this way.
-
160.
-
Let
be the incentre of the triangle
and
be the point of contact of the inscribed circle with the side
. Suppose that
is produced outside of the triangle
to
so that the length
is equal to the semi-perimeter
of
. Prove that the quadrilateral
is concyclic if and only if angle
is equal to
.
Note. In the solutions that follow, we use the standard
notation that
,
,
are the respective lengths of the
sides
,
,
,
is the inradius of the triangle and
is its semi-perimeter (so that
). We note that
the area of the triangle is
, that the distances from
the vertices
,
,
to the tangent points of the incircle
are respectively
,
,
, and that
.
If you are not familiar with these relationships, then regard them
as exercises.
Solution 1. The quadrilateral
is concyclic if and
only if
, or equivalently,
The area of the triangle is
and
, where
.
Then the concylic condition is equivalent to
or
. This is equivalent to
, and the
result follows.
Solution 2. The concyclic condition is equivalent to
We have, for any triangle, that
(four times the
area) and
. Hence the concyclic
condition is equivalent to
If
, then, by squaring,
so that
. On the other hand, if
, then
. The result follows.
Comment. We can end the solution, keeping the equivalences to
the end, by noting that
Solution 3. [A. Feizmohammadi]
Also,
Suppose that
is right. Then
and
so that
Since angles
and
are supplementary,
is concyclic.
On the other hand, suppose that
is concyclic. Then
so that
is right.
-
161.
-
Let
be positive real numbers for which
. Prove that
Solution. Observe that, by the arithmetic-geometric means
inequality
, so that
with a similar inequality for the other two terms on the left side.
Adding these inequalities and using
yields the desired
result.
Comment. R. Furmaniak noted that
which again yields the result by concluding as in the
solution.
-
162.
-
Let
and
be fixed points in the plane.
Find all positive integers
for which the following assertion
holds:
-
-
among all triangles
with
, the one with the largest area is isosceles.
Solution 1. In the case that
, all triangles
satisfying the condition are isosceles with
, the locus
of
is the right bisector of
and there is no triangle with
largest area (the area can be arbitrarily large). Hence
.
Since, by the triangle inequality,
we must have that
. Therefore,
the only way a triangle satisfying the condition can be isosceles
is for
.
Since
,
cannot
exceed
, so that when
, there is no
isosceles triangle in the set.
Solution 2. As in Solution 1, we need consider only the
case that
, and we can dispose of the case
.
Let
be the foot of the perpendicular from
to
(possibly produced; note that
and
lie on
the same side of
) and let the respective lengths
of
,
and
be
,
and
. We wish to maximize
. The given condition implies that
so that
The maximum value of
is equal to
assumed when
If this maximum value of
is assumed when
, then we have
which leads to
. If the maximum is assumed when
, then
,
which leads to
. As both solutions are extraneous,
there is no positive integer value of
for which the area is
maximized when the triangle is isosceles.
Solution 3. As before, we can deal with the
case.
Let
.
Let the sides of the triangle be
where
is the length
of
; let
be the angle opposite
. Then
whence
.
The area of the triangle is equal to
The derivative of
with respect to
is equal to
, from
which we can read off that area is maximized when
. At this maximum value,
. The triangle maximizing the
area can be isosceles in two ways. The case
occurs when
, and the case
occurs when
. Neither of these is an integer.
Alternatively, the case
corresponds to
,
and equating
and
leads to
.
The case
corresponds to
, and this
leads to
. We conclude as before.
Solution 4. Dispose of the
case as before. Let
. Let
be fixed, and let the
other two sides have length
and
. Sixteen times the
square of the area of the triangle is, by Heron's rule,
The maximum area occurs when
.
This occurs when
exactly when
,
so
, and occurs when
exactly when
, so
. We conclude as before.
Comments. Several students committed the fallacy of setting,
for example,
, noting that the locus of
in this case
was a circle with diameter containing
, claiming that the
area was maximized when
and so
was equal to
. They deduced that
and
were the only values of
that allowed the
area to be maximized by an isosceles triangle. However, this
puts things the wrong way around. The value
is fixed, and
then we look at all appropriate triangles. All the solvers did
was to maximize the area over all isosceles triangles for which
; as
traces out the set of points satisfying these
conditions, of course, the ratio of the lengths of
and
vary. Those solvers who made this mistake are invited to
investigate the case
in more detail, and this will
help them understand where they went wrong.
If we coordinatize the situation with
and
, we see that the locus of
is given by
This is the equation of a circle (of Apollonius) with centre
at
and with radius
.
Thus, the area is maximized when
is located at the point
. Checking when this
yields an isosceles triangle leads to the two values of
that we have already seen:
and
-
163.
-
Let
and
re the respective circumradius and
inradius of triangle
(
). Prove that, if
and
, then the two
triangles are similar.
Solution. Let
be the circumcircle of
.
Scale
so that
,
and
and
lie on the same side of
. Then
is
the circumcircle of
, so that
and
.
Using the conventional notation, we have that
whence, as
and
,
. Therefore
. Since
, the two
triangles have the same area, so that
and thus
. Since the
pairs
and
have the same sum and
product, they are roots of the same quadratic equation, and so
we must have that
or
. In either case, the triangles are congruent, so that
triangle
is a scaled version of the original
triangle
. The result follows.
Comment. There were many variations using various
trigonometric identities.
-
164.
-
Let
be a positive integer and
a set with
distinct elements. Suppose that there are
distinct subsets
of
for which the union of any four contains no more that
elements. Prove that
.
Solution 1. [R. Furmaniak] We may assume that
.
We give a proof by contradiction. Suppose the
is a family of
subsets of
, where
. Let
where the first element is
selected so that
belongs to some member of
but not to
all. (Why can you do this?) For each
,
,
let
be the class of all subsets of
which are contained in some subset of
, and
be the class
of all subsets of
which are contained
in some subset of
.
Note that
, since
each set of
is the union of a set in
and a set in
.
(
refers to the number of elements.) Therefore,
either
or
.
In the former case,
must contain a complementary pair of
subsets (use the pigeonhole principle on complementary pairs of sets)
of
; the the latter,
must contain
a complementary pair of sets of
.
By our choice of
, we see that
,
so that
. Therefore there are values of the
index
for which
. If it turns out
that
, then
contains
two sets whose union is
and so
contains two sets whose union has at least
elements.
In this case,
fails to satisfy the hypotheses of the problem.
Suppose that
. Then select the
smallest index
for which
.
Then
and
while
. Therefore,
contains
two sets whose union is
and
contains two sets whose union is
. We conclude that
must contain four sets whose
union contains the
elements of
apart from
,
and so
again fails to satisfy the hypothesis of the problem.
We conclude that any family of more than
sets fails
so satisfy the hypothesis of the problem, and so that every family
that does satisfy the hypothesis must have at more
elements.
Solution 2. Let
be a class of
subsets for which the
union of no four contains more than
elements. Suppose that
and
are two members for which the cardinality
of the union of a pair is maximum. Since
, we can construct a set
,
where
; thus
.
Let
. No two subsets in
are
complementary (i.e. have union equal to
), so that
. Let
and
. Then
. We prove that
has no two sets
that are complementary, i.e., whose union is
.
For, otherwise, suppose that
, for two sets
and
in
.
Then
, so that
, whence we see that
, contrary to hypothesis. Hence
.
Since each set in
is uniquely determined by its intersections
with
and
, we have that
as desired.
Comment. Several solvers pointed out that if you took all
the subsets of
of the elements of
, then we got an
``extreme'' case of a family of sets that satisfied the hypothesis
and the conclusion, and essentially said that if we tried to stuff
in any more sets, we would contradict the hypothesis. However, this
begs the question as to whether you could drop some of these sets
and replace than by a larger number of sets while still keeping the
hypothesis.
-
165.
-
Let
be a positive integer. Determine all
tples
of positive integers for which
and there is no subset of them
whose sum is equal to
.
Solution 1. Let
for
, By hypothesis, all of these are incongruent
modulo
. Now let
,
for
.
Again, the hypothesis forces all to be incongruent. Hence the
sets
and
both consitute a complete set
of residues, modulo
, so it must happen that
(mod
).
A similar argument can be marshalled when the pair
is replaced by any other pair of elements. Hence, each of the
terms in the set
is congruent to some number
(mod
), where
. Now
from which either
,
is odd, and the
-tple
is
or else
and the
-tple is
.
Solution 2. [J.Y. Jin] Wolog, suppose that
. Note that
cannot exceed 2. If
,
then each
is equal to 2 and
is odd. Suppose that
. Then
. Let
for
. Then
.
By the hypothesis, we see that the set of the
with
contains
at most one member from each of the
sets:
so it must contain exactly one from each set.
In particular, the values
and
are assumed, so that
for some
,
and
. Thus
,
and
. But this means that
, so that
and
.
Comment. Some of the solvers tried an induction argument.
However, the process was faulty, since they generally started with
an
-tple and then tried to build from that an
-tple.
However, for an induction argument to work, you need to start with
a general
-tple that satisfies the condition, and then
indicate how to reduce it to the result for a smaller set.
-
166.
-
Suppose that
is a real-valued function defined on
the reals for which
for all real
and
. Prove that
for all real
.
Solution. Suppose
; let
. Then
, so that
For each real
, the equation
is
equivalent to
. This quadratic equation
(in
) has a discriminant
which is positive and therefore
it is solvable for all real
. (Note that in no case is
a
solution.) Hence
for all real
.
Comment. O. Bormashenko noted that when
and
,
then
and
.
-
167.
-
Let
and
. Prove
that, for each positive integer
,
.
Solution. Observe that, if
, then
, so that
.
Applying this to
and
in place of
, we obtain that
and
Since the expresseions in square brackets are negative, we must have
that
, from which the result follows.
Comment. Some students observed that
and
and this immediately leads to the result.
-
168.
-
Determine the value of
Preliminary work. Before getting into the solution, we
will discuss how to obtain the trigonometric ratios of certain
angles related to
. It is useful for you to know some
of these techniques, as these angles tend to come up in problems,
and to be on the safe side in a contest, you should try to include
a justification for assertions that you make about these angles.
Here is one way to evaluate
. Observe that
from which we see that
Since
is equal to neither 1 nor
, we must have
that
. Solving this equation will give you an
actual numerical value (can you justify your choice of root?).
A very useful relation is
.
This can be checked geometrically. Let
be a triangle for
which
and
.
Let
be a point on the side
for which
and
. Then
,
and
; let
be the common length of
,
,
and
let
be the common length of
and
. Then
and
and the desired result follows.
An algebraic derivation of this result can also be given.
We can make use of complex numbers. Let
so that
is a nonreal root of
Hence
; using
de Moivre's theorem, and taking the real part of this
equation, we find that
(Note that taking the imaginary part yields a triviality.)
Another way to look at this result is to note that the vectors
represented by the five roots of unity sum bound a closed regular
pentagon and so sum to zero.
Solution 1. Let
. Then
Alternatively, this is seen to be equal to
Solution 2. [C. Huang]
Comment. There were other solutions with similar manipulations.
A quick solution can also be realized using complex numbers. The
given expression is equal to the real part of
where
is an imaginary fifth root of unity and
is
the angle whose degree measure is
.
-
169.
-
Prove that, for each positive integer
exceeding 1,
Solution 1. For positive integer
and
,
,
we have that
(use induction). Hence, for
,
(The latter inequality is left as an an easy induction exercise.)
Hence
and the result follows.
Solution 2. [R. Furmaniak] By the arithmetic-geometric means
inequality, we have that
Now,
, so that
and
. The result follows.
Solution 3. [S. Wong] By the arithmetic-geometric means
inequality
When
,
, while if
,
The desired inequality follows.
-
170.
-
Solve, for real
,
Solution 1. If
, the left side is negative and so there
is no negative value of
which satisfies the equation. If
,
then the left side is undefined. Suppose that
. Then by the arithmetic-geometric means inequality, we have that
since
. Since the outside members of this
inequality are equal, we must have equality everywhere, and this
occurs if and only if
. Hence,
is the sole solution
of the equation.
Solution 2. As before, we see that
must be positive.
The equation is equivalent to
Since the first member of the right side is nonnegative, we must
have that
, which is equivalent to
or
. But the last can
occur if and only if
. Indeed,
satisfies the
equation.