完整版真题免费下载
+答案解析请参考文末
A permutation of the set of positive integers is a sequence
such that each element of
appears precisely one time as a term of the sequence. For example,
is a permutation of
. Let
be the number of permutations of
for which
is a perfect square for all
. Find with proof the smallest
such that
is a multiple of
.
Let be an integer. Find, with proof, all sequences
of positive integers with the following three properties:
;
for all
;
given any two indices and
(not necessarily distinct) for which
, there is an index
such that
.
Let be a convex pentagon inscribed in a semicircle of diameter
. Denote by
the feet of the perpendiculars from
onto lines
, respectively. Prove that the acute angle formed by lines
and
is half the size of
, where
is the midpoint of segment
.
A triangle is called a parabolic triangle if its vertices lie on a parabola . Prove that for every nonnegative integer
, there is an odd number
and a parabolic triangle with vertices at three distinct points with integer coordinates with area
.
Two permutations and
of the numbers
are said to intersect if
for some value of
in the range
. Show that there exist
permutations of the numbers
such that any other such permutation is guaranteed to intersect at least one of these
permutations.
Let be a triangle with
. Points
and
lie on sides
and
, respectively, such that
and
. Segments
and
meet at
. Determine whether or not it is possible for segments
to all have integer lengths.
We claim that the smallest is
.
Let be the set of positive perfect squares. We claim that the relation
is an equivalence relation on
.
It is reflexive because for all
.
It is symmetric because .
It is transitive because if and
, then
, since
is closed under multiplication and a non-square times a square is always a non-square.
We are restricted to permutations for which , in other words to permutations that send each element of
into its equivalence class. Suppose there are
equivalence classes:
. Let
be the number of elements of
, then
.
Now . In order that
, we must have
for the class
with the most elements. This means
, since no smaller factorial will have
as a factor. This condition is sufficient, since
will be divisible by
for
, and even more so
.
The smallest element of the equivalence class
is square-free, since if it were divisible by the square of a prime, the quotient would be a smaller element of
. Also, each prime
that divides
divides all the other elements
of
, since
and thus
. Therefore
for all
. The primes that are not in
occur an even number of times in each
.
Thus the equivalence class . With
, we get the largest possible
. This is just the set of squares in
, of which we need at least
, so
. This condition is necessary and sufficient.
This proof can also be rephrased as follows, in a longer way, but with fewer highly technical words such as "equivalence relation":
It is possible to write all positive integers in the form
, where
is the largest perfect square dividing
, so
is not divisible by the square of any prime. Obviously, one working permutation of
is simply
; this is acceptable, as
is always
in this sequence.
Lemma 1. We can permute any numbers that, when each divided by the largest perfect square that divides it, yield equal quantities .
Proof. Let and
be the values of
and
, respectively, for a given
as defined above, such that
is not divisible by the square of any prime. We can obviously permute two numbers which have the same
, since if
where
and
are 2 values of
, then
, which is a perfect square. This proves that we can permute any numbers with the same value of
.
End Lemma
Lemma 2. We will prove the converse of Lemma 1: Let one number have a value of
and another,
.
and
are both perfect squares.
Proof. and
are both perfect squares, so for
to be a perfect square, if
is greater than or equal to
,
must be a perfect square, too. Thus
is
times a square, but
cannot divide any squares besides
, so
;
. Similarly, if
, then
for our rules to keep working.
End Lemma
We can permute numbers with the same
in
ways. We must have at least 67 numbers with a certain
so our product will be divisible by 67. Obviously, then it will also be divisible by 2, 3, and 5, and thus 2010, as well. Toms as
, in general, we need numbers all the way up to
, so obviously,
is the smallest such number such that we can get a
term; here 67
terms are 1. Thus we need the integers
, so
, or
, is the answer.
We have to somehow calculate the number of permutations for a given . How in the world do we do this? Because we want squares, why not call a number
, where
is the largest square that allows
to be non-square?
is the only square
can be, which only happens if
is a perfect square.
For example, , therefore in this case
.
I will call a permutation of the numbers , while the original
I will call
.
Note that essentially we are looking at "pairing up" elements between and
such that the product of
and
is a perfect square. How do we do this? Using the representation above.
Each square has to have an even exponent of every prime represented in its prime factorization. Therefore, we can just take all exponents of the primes and if there are any odd numbers, those are the ones we have to match- in effect, they are the
numbers mentioned at the beginning.
By listing the values, in my search for "dumb" or "obvious" ideas I am pretty confident that only values with identical
s can be matched together. With such a solid idea let me prove it.
If we were to "pair up" numbers with different s, take for example
with an
of
and
with an
of
, note that their product gives a supposed
of
because the
values cancel out. But then, what happens to the extra
left? It doesn't make a square, contradiction. To finish up this easy proof, note that if a "pair" has different
values, and the smaller one is
, in order for the product to leave a square, the larger
value has to have not just
but another square inside it, which is absurd because we stipulated at the beginning that
was square-free except for the trivial multiplication identity, 1.
Now, how many ways are there to do this? If there are numbers with
, there are clearly
ways of sorting them. The same goes for
by this logic. Note that the
as stated by the problem requires a
thrown in there because
, so there has to be a
with 67 elements with the same
. It is evident that the smallest
will occur when
, because if
is bigger we would have to expand
to get the same number of
values. Finally, realize that the only numbers with
are square numbers! So our smallest
, and we are done.
I relied on looking for patterns a lot in this problem. When faced with combo/number theory, it is always good to draw a sketch. Never be scared to try a problem on the USAJMO. It takes about 45 minutes. Well, it's 2010 and a number 1. Cheers!
The sequence is .
We will prove that any sequence , that satisfies the given conditions, is an arithmetic progression with
as both the first term and the increment. Once this is proved, condition (b) implies that
. Therefore
, and the sequence is just the even numbers from
to
. The sequence of successive even numbers clearly satisfies all three conditions, and we are done.
First a degenerate case. If , there is only one element
, and condition (b) gives
or
. Conditions (a) and (c) are vacuously true.
Otherwise, for , we will prove by induction on
that the difference
for all
, which makes all the differences
, i.e. the sequence is an arithmetic progression with
as the first term and increment as promised.
So first the case. With
,
exists and is less than
by condition (a). Now since by condition (b)
, we conclude that
, and therefore by condition (c)
for some
. Now, since
,
and can only be
. So
.
Now for the induction step on all values of . Suppose we have shown that for all
,
. If
we are done, otherwise
, and by condition (c)
for some
. This
is larger than
, but smaller than
by the inductive hypothesis. It then follows that
, the only element of the sequence between
and
. This establishes the result for
.
So, by induction for all
, which completes the proof.
The claim is that in this sequence, if there are elements
where
, such that
, then the sequence contains every number less than
.
Proof: Let and
be the numbers less than
such that
. We take this sequence modulo
. This means that if
is an element in this sequence then
is as well.
are all elements in the sequence. Clearly, one of
and
is less than
, which means that
are in this sequence modulo
. Now we want to show every number is achievable. We have already established that
and
are relatively prime, so by euclidean algorithm, if we take the positive difference of
and
every time, we will get that
is in our sequence. Then, we can simply add or subtract
as many times from
as desired to get every single number.
We have proved that there are no two numbers that can be relatively prime in our sequence, implying that no two consecutive numbers can be in this sequence. Because our sequence has terms, our sequence must be one of
or
, the latter obviously fails, so
is our only possible sequence.
Let ,
. Since
is a chord of the circle with diameter
,
. From the chord
, we conclude
.
Triangles
and
are both right-triangles, and share the angle
, therefore they are similar, and so the ratio
. Now by Thales' theorem the angles
are all right-angles. Also,
, being the fourth angle in a quadrilateral with 3 right-angles is again a right-angle. Therefore
and
. Similarly,
, and so
.
Now is perpendicular to
so the direction
is
counterclockwise from the vertical, and since
we see that
is
clockwise from the vertical. (Draw an actual vertical line segment if necessary.)
Similarly, is perpendicular to
so the direction
is
clockwise from the vertical, and since
is
we see that
is
counterclockwise from the vertical.
Therefore the lines and
intersect at an angle
. Now by the central angle theorem
and
, and so
, and we are done.
Note that is a quadrilateral whose angles sum to 360°; can you find a faster approach using this fact?
We can prove a bit more. Namely, the extensions of the segments and
meet at a point on the diameter
that is vertically below the point
.
Since and is inclined
counterclockwise from the vertical, the point
is
horizontally to the right of
.
Now , so
is
vertically above the diameter
. Also, the segment
is inclined
clockwise from the vertical, so if we extend it down from
towards the diameter
it will meet the diameter at a point which is
horizontally to the left of
. This places the intersection point of
and
vertically below
.
Similarly, and by symmetry the intersection point of and
is directly below
on
, so the lines through
and
meet at a point
on the diameter that is vertically below
.
The Footnote's claim is more easily proved as follows.
Note that because and
are both complementary to
, they must be equal. Now, let
intersect diameter
at
. Then
is cyclic and so
. Hence
is cyclic as well, and so we deduce that
Hence
are collinear and so
. This proves the Footnote.
The Footnote's claim can be proved even more easily as follows.
Drop an altitude from to
at point
. Notice that
are collinear because they form the Simson line of
from
. Also notice that
are collinear because they form the Simson line of
from
. Since
is at the diameter
, lines
and
must intersect at the diameter.
There is another, more simpler solution using Simson lines. Can you find it?
Of course, as with any geometry problem, DRAW A HUGE DIAGRAM spanning at least one page. And label all your right angles, noting and
. It looks like there are a couple of key angles we need to diagram. Let's take
. From there
.
Move on to the part about the intersection of and
. Call the intersection
. Note that by Simson Lines from point
to
and
,
is perpendicular to
and
lies on
. Immediately note that we are trying to show that
.
It suffices to show that referencing quadrilateral , where
represents the intersection of
, we have reflex
. Note that the reflex angle is
, therefore it suffices to show that
. To make this proof more accessible, note that via (cyclic) rectangles
and
, it suffices to prove
.
Note . Note
, which completes the proof.
For reference/feasibility records: took expiLnCalc ~56 minutes (consecutively). During the problem expiLnCalc realized that the inclusion of was necessary when trying to show that
. Don't be afraid to attempt several different strategies, and always be humble!
Let be the projection of
onto
. Notice that
lies on the Simson Line
from
to
, and the Simson Line
from
to
. Hence,
, so it suffices to show that
.
Since and
are cyclic quadrilaterals,
as required.
Let the vertices of the triangle be . The area of the triangle is the absolute value of
in the equation:
If we choose
,
and gives the actual area. Furthermore, we clearly see that the area does not change when we subtract the same constant value from each of
,
and
. Thus, all possible areas can be obtained with
, in which case
.
If a particular choice of and
gives an area
, with
a positive integer and
a positive odd integer, then setting
,
gives an area
.
Therefore, if we can find solutions for ,
and
, all other solutions can be generated by repeated multiplication of
and
by a factor of
.
Setting and
, we get
, which yields the
case.
Setting and
, we get
, which yields the
case.
Setting and
, we get
. Multiplying these values of
and
by
, we get
,
,
, which yields the
case. This completes the construction.
We proceed via induction on n. Notice that we prove instead a stronger result: there exists a parabolic triangle with area with two of the vertices sharing the same ordinate (y-coordinate).
Base case: If n = 0, consider the parabolic triangle ABC with A(0, 0), B(1, 1), C(-1, 1) that has area 1/2 * 1 * 2 = 1, so that n = 0 and m = 1. If n = 1, let ABC = A(5, 25), B(4, 16), C(-4, 16). Because ABC has area 1/2 * 8 * 9 = 36, we set n = 1 and m = 3. If n = 2, consider the triangle formed by A(21, 441), B(3, 9), C(-3, 9). It is parabolic and has area 1/2 * 6 * 432 = 1296 = , so n = 2 and m = 9.
Inductive step: If n = k produces parabolic triangle ABC with A(a, ), B(b,
), and C(-b,
), consider A'B'C' with vertices A(4a,
), B(4b,
), and C(-4b,
). If ABC has area
, then A'B'C' has area
, which is easily verified using the 1/2 * base * height formula for triangle area. This completes the inductive step for k -> k+3.
Hence, for every nonnegative integer n, there exists an odd m and a parabolic triangle with area with two vertices sharing the same ordinate. The problem statement is a direct result of this result.
First, consider triangle with vertices ,
,
. This has area
so
case is satisfied.
Then, consider triangle with vertices , and set
and
. The area of this triangle is
. We have that
We desire
, or
, and
is clearly always odd for positive
, completing the proof.
Let be a positive integer. Let
be the smallest positive integer with
. Since
,
. Let
be the set of positive integers from
to
. Let
, be
.
Let be the set of of permutations of
.
Let be the set of cyclic permutations of
, there are
cyclic permutations in all, and
acts transitively on
, i.e. for every pair of elements
, there is an element of
that maps
to
.
Let be the permutations in
that leave
fixed, and restricted to
yield one of the permutations in
. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between
and
.
We claim that the permutations
intersect every permutation in
.
Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists a permutation that does not intersect any permutation in
. Since
acts transitively on
the permutation
cannot send any element of
to any other element of
, therefore it must send all the elements of
to
, but since
has
elements and
, this is impossible by the pigeonhole principle. Therefore such a permutation cannot exist, and the permutations in
intersect every permutation in
.
For we get
, which is the required special case of the general result above.
We know that angle , as the other two angles in triangle
add to
. Assume that only
, and
are integers. Using the Law of Cosines on triangle BIC,
. Observing that
is an integer and that
we have
and therefore,
The LHS (
) is irrational, while the RHS is the quotient of the division of two integers and thus is rational. Clearly, there is a contradiction. Therefore, it is impossible for
, and
to all be integers, which invalidates the original claim that all six lengths are integers, and we are done.
The result can be also proved without direct appeal to trigonometry, via just the angle bisector theorem and the structure of Pythagorean triples. (This is a lot more work).
A triangle in which all the required lengths are integers exists if and only if there exists a triangle in which and
are relatively-prime integers and the lengths of the segments
are all rational (we divide all the lengths by the
or conversely multiply all the lengths by the least common multiple of the denominators of the rational lengths).
Suppose there exists a triangle in which the lengths and
are relatively-prime integers and the lengths
are all rational.
Since is the bisector of
, by the angle bisector theorem, the ratio
, and since
is the bisector of
,
. Therefore,
. Now
is by assumption rational, so
is rational, but
and
are assumed integers so
must also be rational. Since
is the hypotenuse of a right-triangle, its length is the square root of an integer, and thus either an integer or irrational, so
must be an integer.
With and
relatively-prime, we conclude that the side lengths of
must be a Pythagorean triple:
, with
relatively-prime positive integers and
odd.
Without loss of generality, . By the angle bisector theorem,
Since
is a right-triangle, we have:
and so
is rational if and only if
is a perfect square.
Also by the angle bisector theorem,
and therefore, since
is a right-triangle, we have:
and so
is rational if and only if
is a perfect square.
Combining the conditions on and
, we see that
and
must both be perfect squares. If it were so, their ratio, which is
, would be the square of a rational number, but
is irrational, and so the assumed triangle cannot exist.
Raybet比分 课程体验,退费流程快速投诉邮箱: yuxi@linstitute.net 沪ICP备2023009024号-1