In this problem, will always
be a function defined by where , , , and are integers. These integers will vary
throughout the parts of the problem.
Given such a function and a
rational number , we can
generate a sequence by taking for each . That is, , , , and so on. Unless there is
some point in the sequence where is undefined, a sequence of
this form can be made arbitrarily long.
These sequences behave in different ways depending on the function
and the starting value . This problem explores some those
behaviours.
Suppose .
With ,
compute , , and .
Find a rational number
with the property that is
defined, but is not
defined.
Suppose .
With ,
compute , , , and .
Determine all rational values of with the property that there is some
integer for which is undefined. For all other values
of , find simplified formulas
for and in terms of .
Suppose .
With , compute through . Write down decimal approximations of
through (after computing them
exactly).
Suppose is a positive
rational number. Prove that
Suppose is a positive
rational number. Prove that for each . Use this result to convince
yourself that as gets large,
gets close to , regardless of the choice of the
positive value . Can you modify
slightly so that the sequence
always approaches ?
Explore the behaviour of the sequences generated by various
values of for each of the
functions below. Detailed solutions will not be provided, but a brief
discussion will.
Hint
is undefined only when
. For what value of is ?
The sequence in part (i) is periodic. Can you show that the
sequence is periodic for other values of ?
No hint given.
After substituting the expression for , multiply the numerator and
denominator by . Try to find a
common factor in the numerator and denominator.
Use (ii) and the fact that when is positive, . Try to establish the given inequality for a few
small values of and observe how
knowing the inequality for can
help you to deduce it for .
Three of these sequences are periodic, one of them is constant
(after the first term), and one of them always approaches the fixed
value as
long as there are no undefined values in the sequence.
Solution
Observe that is only
undefined when , so to choose
so that is undefined, we need . Therefore, , which gives rise to the
equation .
Multiplying both sides by
gives , which can
be rearranged to get , so
. Indeed, if , then and is undefined.
We have that , so this means , and using these
facts, .
This will continue to get that when is odd and when is even.
First observe that is
undefined only when , or
. Therefore, if , then is undefined.
Now suppose .
Then ,
which can be rearranged to get the equation . This equation implies , which is nonsense, and so we
conclude that there is no such
that .
The only way that the sequence can fail to be defined somewhere is if
for some . This happens if , but since is never the output of , it is not possible that unless . Therefore, is the only starting
value for which the sequence is undefined somewhere.
Assuming , we
will now compute a general expression for . Since and regardless of , there will be no issues with the
expression being undefined. and so we have that for all . We can use this
equation to get . Next, we can
compute . Continuing,
we see that for all odd
. Similarly, , and we can
continue with this reasoning to get that for
all even .
To answer the given question, since is odd, and since is even, .
The values along with their decimal approximations are in the
table below.
Term
Value
Decimal Approximation
We will work with the quantity and
worry about the absolute value later. The result now follows by taking
the absolute value of both sides.
Observe that if is
positive, then is also positive
since and are both positive. It follows that if
is positive, then is positive for all . Since for all , for all , and taking reciprocals, we get for all . Since is positive, ,
so we actually get that for
all .
We will now show that (you may
already believe this to be true, but the proof presented does not assume
that we have a known approximation of ). To see this, observe that
, and so which is the same
as . Dividing both
sides by , we get . Subtracting
from both
sides gives . Now observe that , so or . Therefore, .
We have shown that , which implies that . Combining
this with , we
get so .
Since for all
, we can apply part (ii) to
get
where the final inequality comes from applying what we showed above.
This implies that for all we have
Now let’s return to the inequality in the question, which is .
When , this inequality is
, which is exactly when . We have already shown that is true for all , so this means the desired inequality
is true for .
When , we can apply to get ,
but we have just shown that .
Therefore, which shows that the desired
inequality holds for .
By similar reasoning, we can use the fact that the inequality holds
for to prove that it holds for
, then we can use that it holds
for to prove that it holds for
, and so on to show that the
inequality holds for all positive integers . We can formalize this using
mathematical induction.
Assume that is an
integer for which the inequality is true. Using with , we have the following and now using the inductive
hypothesis, that ,
we get but , so we have shown that the
inequality holds for the integer .
To summarize, we have shown that the inequality holds for , and we have shown that if the
inequality holds for an integer, then it holds for the next integer.
This shows that the inequality holds for all integers .
Finally, since is
a fixed quantity, the quantity must get
closer and closer to as gets larger and larger. We also have
that for all , which means the quantity , which is positive, is
also getting closer and closer to
as gets larger and larger. It
follows that is very
close to zero for very large ,
which means is very close to
for very large . Keep in mind that this is true for
any positive starting value .
Here is a brief summary of the behaviours of the sequences.
When , the
sequence will repeat with period
as long as at least three terms in the sequence are defined. The only
values of for which the
sequence has an undefined term are and .
When ,
the sequence will repeat with period as long as at least four terms are
defined. The only values of for
which the sequence has an undefined term are , , and .
When ,
the sequence will repeat with period as long as at least six terms are
defined. The only values of for
which the sequence has an undefined term are , , , , and .
When ,
the sequence is undefined after
if . Otherwise, the sequence
has for all , regardless of the value of .
Note: These examples, together with the one in part
(b), show that the sequences can be periodic with period , , , , or . Do you think that any other periods
are possible?
When , the
sequence converges to unless the
sequence has an undefined term. To get an idea of why, try solving the
equation for
(this can be rearranged to a
quadratic equation in ). There are
infinitely many values of for
which is undefined. The first
few of them are Can you determine how these values are
calculated? You might be interested in computing decimal approximations
of these values and looking for a pattern.
As a final remark, we note that not all sequences are "well-behaved"
(either periodic or approaching some value). For an example of a more
chaotic sequence, try exploring the example in part (a) a little
further. Can you see any pattern at all?
Problem 1: October
2023
Problem
Given a positive integer , the
digit sum of is the sum
of the base digits of . We will denote the digit sum of by . For example, .
Suppose that is a positive
integer. We will call a list of consecutive positive integers an -list if none of , , , and so on up to is a multiple of . For example, the list is a
-list because the digit sums of
the integers in the list are ,
, , , , and , respectively, none of which is a
multiple of .
This problem explores the maximum length of an -list for a few values of .
Show that the maximum length of a -list is . To do this, you must show that there
is a -list of length and you must also show that no list of
three or more consecutive positive integers can be a -list.
Show that the maximum length of a -list is .
Determine the maximum length of a -list.
Determine the maximum length of an -list.
Hint
For an integer , think about
how and compare to each other. The
relationship is most interesting when is a multiple of .
Our solution will make use of some basic properties of remainders.
For positive integers and , the remainder when dividing by can be found by first determining , the greatest multiple of with , then computing the remainder as . The integer can be found by computing and rounding down. For
example, the remainder when dividing by is because is the greatest multiple of that does not exceed (in this case, ), and so the remainder is . We assume this idea is familiar,
but here are a couple of things to think about and keep in mind.
For integers and with , the remainder, , when dividing by satisfies .
For a fixed positive integer , the remainders when dividing the
positive integers
cycle through the integers repeatedly in that order. Importantly, if we think of
as coming "after" , the remainders for consecutive
integers are consecutive.
The remainder when dividing by is exactly when is a multiple of .
If you have seen modular arithmetic before, it could be useful in
writing a solution. Our solution will not use modular arithmetic, but we
suggest reading about it anyway since it is quite useful.
Below are some specific hints for the given questions.
Show that if and are both odd, then is a multiple of .
First, try to find the maximum length of a -list that does not contain a multiple
of . For an integer , how do the remainders when and are divided by relate to each other?
By a rather famous divisibility rule, a positive integer is a
multiple of if and only if the
sum of its digits is a multiple of .
First show that an -list
that starts with a multiple of
has length at most . Think about
the remainders when and are divided by .
Solution
Before presenting solutions to the various parts of this question, we
present a few general facts that will be used throughout the solutions.
As well, we will often denote a list of integers enclosed in brackets.
For example, we might write instead of . This is to emphasize when we
want to think of a list is a single object to which we can refer.
Fact 1: If is
a positive integer with units digit different from , then .
Proof. Suppose that
is a -digit positive integer with
digits , when read from left to right. That is, is . Then . Since ,
no "carry" occurs when adding to
. In other words, is a -digit positive integer with digits
when read from left to right. Therefore, . ◻
Fact 2: Suppose that is a list of
consecutive non-negative integers. If none of is a multiple of , then the integers are
consecutive.
Proof. None of has a units digit of
. This is because the alternative
would imply that one of has a units digit of
and so is a multiple of . Therefore, we can repeatedly apply
Fact 1 to get that is one
more than , is one more than , and so on up to is one more than . ◻
Fact 3: Suppose is an integer with and that is a list of
consecutive integers with the
property that no integer in the list is a multiple of . Then the remainder after is divided by is and the remainder after is divided by is .
Proof. In the hint, it was stated that the remainders after
dividing the positive integers by are
That is, the remainders cycle through the values in that order.
Consider the list . Since none of
the integers in this list are
multiples of , none of the
remainders after dividing by can
be , so the remainders must be
in that order.
In particular, the remainder after dividing by is and the remainder after dividing by is . ◻
For a positive integer with
units digit , we say that has trailing s if the rightmost digits of are but the rightmost digits are not equal to . For example, the integer has one trailing , has three trailing s, and has two trailing s.
By Fact 1, it is "usually" easy to predict from since if the units digit of is not , then . However, if the units
digit of is , then adding causes a carry to happen, so the digit
sum can go down. For example, the digit sum of is , but the digit sum of
is . Fact 4 establishes a
relationship between and when has a units digit of .
Fact 4: Suppose is a positive integer with trailing s. Then .
Proof. Suppose has
trailing s, which means we can assume that takes the form
where the are the first digits and . Since is a digit that is not , it must be less than . Therefore, when we add to , the first digits do not change, the th digit increases by , and all of the trailing s become trailing s. In symbols, is the integer .
Computing digit sums, and . Subtracting, we get
cancellation of through and are left with . ◻
Remark: We will repeatedly use the observation that
if is an
-list for some , then every sublist of is also an -list. One important consequence of this
fact is that if we can show that there does not exist an -list of length , then we can conclude that there is no
-list that is longer than . Thus, in general, if we want to prove
that is the maximum length of an
-list, it suffices to do the
following:
Produce an example of an -list of length .
Show that there does not exist an -list of length .
The list has and , both of which are odd.
Therefore, is a -list of length . We will now show that a list of three
consecutive positive integers cannot be a -list.
Suppose is a positive integer
with the property that and
are both odd. Since is odd, is even. We are assuming that
is odd, and since is even, we conclude that .
By Fact 1, the units digit of
must be (otherwise ), so the units digit of
is . Again by Fact 1, , and since is odd, is even.
Now consider the list . If and are both odd, we have shown that
is even. This means it is
impossible for , , and to all be odd, so we conclude that
a -list of length cannot exist.
The arguments presented in this part and in part (d) rely on
examining the location of multiples of in lists of consecutive integers. For
this part, because of Fact 2, seven consecutive integers will have seven
consecutive digit sums unless a multiple of causes a carry. To build a -list of length more than six, there
needs to be a multiple of
somewhere in the middle to avoid ever having seven consecutive digit
sums. You might be able to guess from this that the maximum length
should be around .
Suppose
is an arbitrary list of
consecutive non-negative integers. We will show that cannot be a -list and this will show that a -list cannot have length .
Since contains consecutive integers, it must contain
at least one multiple of . Thus,
there must be some with such that is a multiple of .
Case 1: .
Since , . The list contains the integers through , so we conclude that the seven
integers are
all in . Moreover, the smallest
multiple of after is , so none of is a multiple of
since they are all strictly
between two consecutive multiples of .
By Fact 2, the integers are
consecutive. Any list of seven consecutive integers must contain a
multiple of , so we conclude that
is not a -list.
Case 2: .
Since , which can be rearranged to
get . By similar
reasoning to the beginning of Case 1, the seven integers are all in . As well, they are strictly between
and , which are consecutive multiples of
. Therefore, none of is a multiple of
.
By Fact 2, are
consecutive, so one of them must be a multiple of . Therefore, is not a -list.
Cases 1 and 2 address all possibilities for the location of a
multiple of in . In both cases, is not a -list. We conclude that a list of consecutive non-negative integers
cannot be a -list.
To help find a -list of length
, we can modify the reasoning
above slightly. To that end, suppose is a -list. In the previous paragraphs, we
essentially used the fact that if seven consecutive non-negative
integers do not include a multiple of , then one of their digit sums must be
a multiple of . Therefore, for
to be a -list, every sublist of
seven-consecutive integers must contain a multiple of . We leave it to the reader to verify
that this forces to be a
multiple of .
Since is a multiple of , the closest multiples of to are and . Therefore, the list does not contain a
multiple of , and the only
multiple of in the list is . By Fact 2, and are lists of six consecutive integers.
We are assuming is a -list, so no integer in either of these
lists is a multiple of . By
Fact 3, the remainder after dividing by is . Also by Fact 3, the remainder
after dividing by is .
To summarize, if is a -list, then the following must be
true.
is a multiple of .
The remainder after dividing by is .
The remainder after dividing by is .
The first condition implies that has a units digit of , so suppose that has trailing s. By Fact 4, . The second two
conditions imply that there are integers and such that and . Substituting into , we obtain which can be
rearranged to get .
We know that is a positive
integer, and this shows that
must be a multiple of . The
smallest positive integer with
the property that is a
multiple of is since , which is a multiple of .
We are looking for an integer
such that ends in three s and has the property that is six more than a multiple of
. Thus, will have the form where is some string of digits. In fact,
has a remainder of
when divided by , so we set or . Indeed, if we set the digit sums of the integers in are , none of which is a multiple of . Therefore, is a -list of length .
This is actually the earliest -list of length . Others can be found by prepending
digits to 994 in such a way that the number of trailing s of does not change, and the remainder
after dividing the digit sum by
does not change. This can be done by prepending any digits that have a
sum that is a multiple of ,
provided the rightmost new digit is not a .
For example, we could take to
be , , , , and so on.
Following the reasoning from (b), one might think that we can
find a -list of length . Specifically, we might expect
that we can find a list of the form where is
a multiple of so that there are
never nine consecutive integers without a multiple of . In fact, the maximum length of a
-list is eight, so the approach in
part (b) cannot be applied here. You might like to try to follow the
reasoning from part (b) through to see exactly what goes wrong. The
proof given here uses the well-known fact that a positive integer is a multiple of if and only if is a multiple of .
A list of nine consecutive integers must contain a multiple of , so it must contain an integer whose
digit sum is a multiple of .
Therefore, a list of consecutive
integers cannot be a -list.
Any list of eight consecutive integers, none of which is a multiple
of , must be a -list since none of the digit sums are
multiples of . An example of a
-list of length is .
It might come as a surprise, but the maximum length of an -list is .
To get an idea of how one might guess this, we will first determine
the maximum length of an -list
that starts with a multiple of .
Suppose
is an -list of length with the property that is a multiple of . By Fact 2, and are
lists of ten consecutive integers. Since we are assuming that is an -list, no integer in either of these
lists is a multiple of .
Therefore, by Fact 3, the remainder after is divided by is and the remainder after is divided by is . This implies the existence of integers
and such that and .
Since is a multiple of , the units digit of is . Suppose has trailing s. By Fact 4, . Substituting and into this equation, we get
which
can be rearranged to get . This means
is a positive integer with the property that is ten more than a multiple of . It can be checked that is the smallest positive integer with
this property.
We have shown the following: if is an -list of length with the property that is a multiple of , then has at least six trailing s. We can use this fact to prove the
following:
An -list that starts with
a multiple of cannot have length
.
An -list cannot have
length .
To prove (i), assume that is an -list of length and that is a multiple of . We will show that this implies
something that is plainly false, which will allow us to conclude that
such an -list cannot exist.
The fact that is an -list implies that the lists and are both -lists. Moreover, is a multiple of , so is a multiple of . Thus, and are both -lists of length that start with a multiple of . By what was established earlier, both
and have at least six trailing
s.
The difference between two integers with at least six trailing s must have at least six trailing s. However, has only one trailing
. We have shown that if an -list starts with a multiple of and has length , then has at least six trailing s. Since has only one trailing , we conclude that it must be
impossible for an -list to have
length and start with a multiple
of . Note: The
technique just used is known as a proof by contradiction.
To prove (ii), we can apply (i). Suppose is a list of
consecutive positive integers.
Among the first ten integers in ,
there must be a multiple of .
Suppose is an integer with such that is a multiple of . Observe that , which means the
list is
completely contained in . The list
has length and starts with a multiple of , so it cannot be an -list by (i). Since contains a sub-list that is not an
-list, it cannot be an -list. Therefore, an -list cannot have length .
We can now use what we have done to find an -list of length . Suppose that is an -list. There must be an integer with such that is a
multiple of . If , then , so is entirely
contained in . This would imply
the existence of an -list of
length that starts with a
multiple of , which is impossible
by (i). Since is
impossible, we conclude that .
We assumed that was an -list and deduced that is a multiple of . The list is completely
contained in , has length , and starts with a multiple of . Therefore, from the argument at the
beginning of the solution to this part, has at least six trailing
s. As well, Since is a multiple of , we can apply Fact 2 to to get that is a list
of consecutive integers. Since
is an -list, none of them is a multiple of
. By Fact 3, the remainder after
is divided by is .
Therefore, we will look for an integer with the property that has trailing s and is more than a multiple of . The integer has which is more than a multiple of , so we guess that , or . It can be checked that the list
is
an -list of length . It also follows from our reasoning
that this is the first such -list.
Problem 2: November
2023
Problem
This month’s problem is based on the following general question: If
you draw a "loop" in the Cartesian plane, is it always possible to find
four points on that loop that are the vertices of a square? For example,
the diagram below has a loop (the solid line) and a square drawn (the
dashed line) with its four vertices on the loop.
Although it is a bit informal, it should be sufficient to think of a
"loop" as a curve that you could draw by starting your pencil somewhere
on a page and moving the pencil around the page eventually ending up
where it started. Such a loop could be "smooth" (like a circle),
"jagged" (like a polygon), or some combination of the two.
In each of parts (i) through (v), find four points on the loop
that are the vertices of a square.
the circle with equation
the ellipse with equation
where and are fixed positive real
numbers
the polygon with vertices , , , ,
, and
the boundary of the region enclosed by the parabola with equation
and the line with equation
the boundary of the region enclosed by the parabolas with
equations and
Show that for every acute triangle there are exactly three
squares whose vertices all lie on the perimeter of the
triangle.
Hint
Because of the rotational symmetry of circles, there are lots of
squares with their vertices lying on the circle with equation . In fact, given any point on
the circle, there is a square with that point as one of its vertices and
the other three vertices somewhere else on the circle. It might be
useful for part (v) to spend some time thinking about this.
Try looking for a square with the property that all four of its
sides are parallel to either the -axis or the -axis. What are the coordinates of a
square centred at the origin with its sides parallel to the
axes?
It will be helpful to have an accurate sketch of the hexagon.
Similar to part (ii), there is a square with its sides parallel to the
axes.
After sketching the region, it shouldn’t be hard to believe that
there is a square with one of its sides on the line with equation . The opposite side will lie on a line
with the same slope.
The figure has
rotational symmetry about the origin, so try looking for a square that
is centred at the origin. If such a square exists, it should also have
rotational symmetry
about the origin. Observations from part (i) might be useful when
thinking about such squares.
In our solution, we found it useful to coordinatize and assume
that one the sides of the the triangle is on the -axis in such a way that one of the
vertices is at the origin.
Solution
Because a circle has so much symmetry, there are many squares
whose four vertices all lie on the circle. For example, the points , , , and are the vertices of a square and
all lie on the circle with equation . As well, the four points ,
,
,
and
are the vertices of a square and all lie on the circle.
Note: In general, if we start with a point and rotate repeatedly by counterclockwise about the
origin, the four points obtained are always the vertices of a square.
Starting with the point with coordinates , the coordinates of the point
obtained by a rotation of
counterclockwise about the origin are . If we rotate counterclockwise two more
times, we get the points with coordinates and . Thus, for any real numbers and , the points with coordinates , , , and are the vertices of a square. This
will be useful in later parts. In addition, if is a point on the circle with
equation , then . Then since , the four
points , , , and , which are the vertices of a
square, all lie on the circle.
Observe that the four points , , , and are on the ellipse with equation
, as shown in the illustration below.
Because and , if is a point on the ellipse, then
and are both on the ellipse.
Therefore, the ellipse has reflective symmetry in the -axis and the -axis, which is also evident from the
diagram. It is reasonable to expect there to be a square inscribed in
the ellipse that also has reflective symmetry in the two axes. The
vertices of such a square should be of the form , , , and for some real number .
Notice that the point is
on the line with equation , so
assuming such a square exists, we should be able to find one of its
vertices by solving the system of equations
Substituting the first equation into the second and finding a common
denominator gives which rearranges to give
Since and are positive, , and so we get that
. We
therefore expect that the four points are all on the ellipse and are the vertices of a
square. As discussed in the solution to part (i), these points are of
the form , , , and , so they are the vertices of a
square. It is an exercise to verify that they are all on the
ellipse.
Below is a picture of the ellipse with a square inscribed.
Follow up question: If , then the ellipse is a circle and there are infinitely many
inscribed squares. If , is
the square in the solution above the only square inscribed in the
ellipse?
In this case, the loop is the regular hexagon pictured below.
Similar to the situation in part (ii), the loop has reflective
symmetry in both the and axes. Thus, we might again guess that
there is an inscribed square with reflective symmetry in both axes. If
such a square exists, then one of the vertices will have the form . Thus, we are looking for the
points (there are two of them) where the line with equation intersects the hexagon.
The line with equation must
intersect the part of the hexagon that is in the first quadrant. Notice
that
is above the line with equation , so the horizontal line segment in
the first quadrant will not intersect the line with equation . Therefore, the intersection point we
seek is on the line segment joining to , which
has equation . To find the point of intersection, we set
and solve to
get .
Recall that we hope the square has vertices at , , , and . You can check that with , these
four points lie on the given hexagon. Below is a picture of the hexagon
with the inscribed square.
Follow up question: There are two other squares
inscribed in the hexagon. They arise from rotating the square in the
solution by clockwise or
counterclockwise about
the origin. Are these the only possible squares?
The graphs of the relations and are pictured on the same axes below.
The loop, which is the boundary of the region enclosed by the two
graphs, is bold.
One approach is to try to find a square with two adjacent vertices on
the line with equation and the
other two vertices on the parabola. Why should we expect such a square
even exists? Imagine drawing a line that is parallel to the line with
equation , lies above the line
with equation , and intersects
the parabola twice. By drawing lines with slope through these two points of
intersection, we get a rectangle with two vertices on the parabola and
two vertices on the line. The diagrams below show such configurations
with the rectangle shaded in each case.
If the points of intersection of with the parabola are far apart, as in
the left diagram, then the two sides of the rectangle that are parallel
to the line are longer than the
other two sides. If the points of intersection are close together, as in
the right diagram, then the two sides of the rectangle that are parallel
to the line are shorter than
the other two sides. It seems reasonable to guess that somewhere in
between those two extremes is a happy medium where the rectangle is a
square. Formally, this kind of argument is an application of something
called the Intermediate Value Theorem.
Let’s use this thinking to find the coordinates of such a square. Let
be the line with equation where is the positive real number that will
cause the rectangle to be a square. The vertices of the square we hope
for are the points of intersection of with the parabola. To find these
points, we set equal to
and rearrange to get. where the last line is
obtained by multiplying the second-last line by .
We can now use the quadratic formula to get
Note: Since we are assuming that the line has two points of intersection with
the parabola, this quadratic equation must have two distinct real
solutions. This means we must have and so . Revisiting the diagrams, it should be clear
that there is an upper bound on the values of that can result in the line
intersecting the parabola. The diagrams also indicate that .
Therefore, the -coordinates of
the points of intersection are and .
The difference between the -coordinates of these points is and since the points
are on a line of slope , the
distance between the -coordinates
is also . Therefore,
the distance between the two points is
We will leave it as an exercise to show that the perpendicular
distance between and the line
with equation is equal to . This means our
square has sides of length and . A square has four
equal sides, so this implies the equation .
Squaring both sides, we have which can be rearranged to get . Factoring gives , so the possible values of
are and .
Since we need to be positive,
we conclude that , so the line
has equation . The -coordinates of the points of
intersection of with the parabola
were computed earlier. Substituting into these expressions, we get -coordinates of
and . These points lie on the line with equation , so the coordinates of two of the
vertices of the square are and
.
To find the other two vertices, we can find the equations of the
lines of slope through each of
these points, then find their intersection points with the line with
equation . We will not include
the calculations here, but the resulting points are
and .
Indeed, it is not difficult to check that the points are the vertices of a
square. Below is a plot of the loop along with the square with these
four points as its vertices.
The two parabolas are pictured below. The loop is bold.
By the discussion at the end of the solution to part (i), the four
points
are the vertices of a square. Furthermore, you can check that these four
points all lie on the loop.
For the rest of the solution to this part, we will show how one might
find these four points. The task is a bit trickier here because, unlike
in earlier parts, it is not easy to guess what the slope of the sides of
the square should be. However, there is still some symmetry that we can
use. Specifically, the loop has rotational symmetry about the
origin because the two parabolas are each the result of rotating the
other about the origin.
This is not difficult to believe from the diagram, but it can also be
verified algebraically.
This symmetry suggests two things. The first is that we should look
for a square that has
rotational symmetry about the origin. The second is that each of the two
parabolas should contain two vertices of the square.
A square that has
rotational symmetry about the origin must also have rotational symmetry about the
origin (you might want to take some time to convince yourself of this).
Again by the discussion from part (i), the vertices of the square should
be at the points with coordinates , , , and where and are some real numbers.
The parabola with equation should
contain two vertices of the square with the property that one of these
vertices is the result of rotating the other vertex about the origin. Thus, for
some and , this parabola should contain the
points and . This implies the following two
equations in and :
The second equation gives an expression for in terms of , so we can substitute this expression
into the first equation and simplify as follows: In general, we
should not expect to easily find a closed expression for the root of a
quartic polynomial. However, this question was designed to work out
nicely. After some checking, you might notice that is a root of this equation. Indeed,
. We
could factor to get but is the value we seek, so the other
roots of the quartic are not of any use in this solution (though you
might want to think about whether they have any "geometric" meaning).
With , the equation implies , so one of the points is
.
This is the first of the four points listed at the start of the solution
to this part. Rotating the point by , , and about the origin gives the
other three points. You can check that each of the two parabolas
contains two of these points. Below is a diagram of the loop with the
square included.
Given , there
exists so that is similar to and is horizontal with length 1. So we
proceed by examining such a triangle with vertices , , and where and . Moreover, if is acute, then so is and we must have .
We will show that there is a unique square whose vertices are on the
perimeter of with two
of its vertices on . To find
such a square, we will assume there is such a square, deduce conditions
on the location of the vertices of such a square, and then confirm that
the four points we find actually satisfy the given conditions.
Suppose , , ,
are the vertices of the square, with and on . The diagram below shows what this
picture should look like.
The equations of the lines joining to and to are and respectively.
The coordinates of , , , and must then take the form for some
and with . Since we want these to be the vertices of a
square, we have the following pair of simultaneous equations: The first equation
comes from insisting that the line joining to is horizontal, and the second comes
from insisting that the width of the resulting rectangle is equal to its
height. Rearranging the second equation gives and substituting
this into the first equation gives
Solving for gives and therefore Therefore, if
such a square exists, it must have vertices We leave it as
an exercise to show that these four vertices indeed are the vertices of
a square and that they are all on the perimeter of the triangle. Since
the assumption that they were the vertices of a square led to specific
coordinates of the four points, we can also conclude that there is
exactly one square with vertices on so that two of them are on
.
By the argument above, in , there is always exactly one square with two vertices on
and one vertex on each of and . In , this corresponds to
exactly one square with two vertices on and one on each of and . Since there are three sides in , there are exactly three
squares.
Note that if is
obtuse, then the preceding arguments can be modified to show that there
is exactly one square with vertices on the perimeter of . Two of the vertices will
always be on the longest side. What do you think happens in a
right-angled triangle?
Additional Information
In this month’s problem, you were asked to find four points on
various loops in the plane that formed the corners of a square. In all
the cases in the problem, such a set of four points exists (luckily for
you!). In the beginning of the problem statement, it was mentioned that
the problem was inspired by the following more general question: If you
draw an arbitrary loop in the plane, is it always possible to find four
points on the loop that form the vertices of a square?
This question is sometimes known as the Square Peg Problem,
and the answer is currently not known. The Toeplitz Conjecture
is the guess that the answer should be "yes". To the best of our
knowledge, the question was first posed in 1911 by Otto Toeplitz in [1]
where the conjecture was made.
What is meant by a loop was described informally in the problem
statement. More formally, a loop can be described as follows.
Suppose and are functions with domain equal to
(the set of real numbers
satisfying ). We can define a function
with domain by . This means is a function that takes real
numbers as input but its outputs are points in the plane. The range of
is called a loop if it
satisfies the following conditions:
(the
loop has to start and end at the same place),
If for
any , then (the loop doesn’t intersect itself,
and the loop isn’t just a point),
The functions and are continuous (you can draw the
loop without lifting up your pencil).
For example, if and ,
then the loop is exactly the unit circle.
In mathematics, such a loop is called a Jordan curve. It is
true that every curve you can draw in the informal "don’t lift your
pencil" manner is a Jordan curve. However, there are Jordan curves that
you would not have any hope of drawing. For example, some fractals are
Jordan curves. One example is the so-called Koch Snowflake. You might
like to to an internet search to see roughly what this curve looks like
and to get an idea of why it is impossible to actually draw it.
It has been known since 1944 [2] that every smooth1
Jordan curve contains four points that are the vertices of a square.
Around the late 1970s Herbert Vaughan provided a beautiful topological
argument to prove that every Jordan curve contains the vertices of a
rectangle. An exposition of this proof can be seen in the video at the
following link: https://youtu.be/AmgkSdhK4K8.
Tantalizingly, the proof does not give any control over whether or not
the rectangle is a square!
Joshua Greene and Andrew Lobb proved in 2021 [3] that every smooth
Jordan curve admits four points that are the vertices of a rectangle of
any ratio you like! For example, if you want four points that are the
vertices of a rectangle with one side 42 times the length of another
side, then you can find four such points on any smooth Jordan curve! Try
to prove this if the curve is a circle or an ellipse.
There has been lots of activity around this problem in recent years.
Despite the progress, at the time of writing this the Toeplitz
conjecture itself remains intriguingly out of reach!
References
[1] Otto Toeplitz, Ueber einige Aufgaben der Analysis situs.
Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft (1911),
no. 4, 197.
[2] L. G. Šnirelman. On certain geometrical properties of closed
curves. Uspehi Matem. Nauk 10 (1944), pp. 34-44.
[3] Joshua Evan Greene and Andrew Lobb. The rectangular peg
problem. Ann. of Math. (2) 194.2 (2021), pp. 509-517.
Footnotes
"smooth" has a precise meaning, but it essentially means "no corners".↩︎
The positive integers are written into rows so that Row includes every integer with the following properties:
is a multiple of ,
, and
is not in an earlier
row.
The table below shows the first six rows.
Row 1
1
Row 2
2, 4
Row 3
3, 6, 9
Row 4
8, 12, 16
Row 5
5, 10, 15, 20, 25
Row 6
18, 24, 30, 36
Determine the smallest integer in Row
Show that, for all positive integers , Row includes each of and
Determine the largest positive integer with the property that Row does not include
If you have not already done so, we suggest thinking about the parts
above before proceeding.
For each positive integer ,
determine the largest positive integer with the property that Row does not include . (This generalizes part (c) from
the original problem.)
In the remaining questions,
is defined for each to be
the largest non-negative integer
such that and is not in Row . For example, Row is , so since is not in Row but , , , and are all in Row .
Show that for all
prime numbers . (Looking closely
at the definition of , means that every positive multiple
of from through appears in Row .)
Find an expression for
where and are prime numbers. Justify that the
expression is correct.
Find an expression for where is a prime number and is a positive integer.
Take some time to explore the function further on your own. Are there other
results you can prove about the function beyond what is done in (b), (c)
and (d)? Is there a nice way to compute in general without computing each of
the first rows?
Hint
For positive integers and
with , the integer is not in Row if and only if there are integers and with such that . This fact will likely be useful in
all parts of this problem.
With the above fact in mind, convince yourself that if is not in Row , then there must be positive integers
and such that and . Now solve for and try to determine how to choose
and to maximize this expression for .
If integers , , , and satisfy and is prime, then
at least one of and must be a multiple of .
The general formula is . In this part and the
rest of the parts, you might find the following observation useful: If
and are integers with , then .
Consider the cases when is
even and when is odd
separately.
To formulate a guess at how to find in general, consider some values of
for which you know the value of
and list the positive factors
of in increasing order. If you
are so inclined, you could write some computer code to compute for some moderately sized values of
.
The value of depends on how
factors, so it is probably
unreasonable to expect a general algebraic expression for similar to . Instead, try to find a
simple procedure to compute
assuming that you already know all the positive factors of .
Solution
For solutions to the original problem from the Canadian Intermediate
Mathematics Contest, please refer to the solutions on our website.
We will start by presenting two general facts. It is worth spending
some time digesting them before reading the rest of the solution.
Fact 1: For all positive integers and with , if the integer is
not in Row , then there are
positive integers and such that and .
Proof. Assume that
and are positive integers with
such that is not in Row . Then must be in an earlier row since . Thus, is in Row for some integer . The integers in Row are multiples of that are no larger than , which means that for some positive integer with . Rearranging , we
get .
Since , , and so which implies . Therefore, there are positive
integers and such that and . ◻
Fact 2: For all positive integers and with , if there are positive integers and such that and , then the integer is not in Row .
Proof. Assume that
and are positive integers with
and that there are positive
integers and with and . We are assuming and that and are positive, so , which implies since we are assuming . Therefore, is a positive multiple of that does not exceed , so cannot appear any later than Row . Since , is not in Row . ◻
Suppose is a positive
integer. If is a positive integer
with , then , and so is not in Row . Therefore, we might as well assume
that as we look for the
largest such that is not in Row .
Assume now that is
not in Row . By Fact 1 with , there must be integers and such that and .
Because and are integers strictly between and , there must exist integers and with such that and . We are assuming that , so we can substitute to get
.
This can be simplified and rearranged to get . The integers and are both positive, so is positive, which implies that is positive so we can solve for
to get .
Now suppose and
consider the expression , which we can simplify as follows: Carefully
considering the components of the fraction above, we have that is a positive integer with , so the quantity must be negative, and since , the quantities and are both positive. Therefore, the
fraction at the end of the calculation above is negative, so we get that
which implies that .
We have shown that if , then the quantity can be made
larger by decreasing by
. A similar argument shows that if
, then the quantity gets
larger when is decreased by . Since and we seek the largest possible , we conclude that can always be made larger by decreasing
by , provided is larger than . Therefore, the maximum value of
must occur when .
Note: It is possible (and essentially assured) that
is not always an
integer. However, since it is maximized when , which makes the denominator
equal to , the maximum possible
value of given
the constraints on and happens to be an integer. Therefore,
the maximum possible integer value of is the maximum possible
value, which occurs when .
Substituting into , we get . Therefore, the task is to maximize
subject to the conditions and .
Substituting into , we get . Since is fixed, the expression is a quadratic in with a negative coefficient of . Therefore, it has a maximum value
and it occurs when .
We are looking for the maximum among integer values of , so if is an integer, the maximum
occurs exactly when . Since , this implies that as well.
Otherwise, the maximum will occur at the integer nearest . There is a tie between
and .
Notice that the sum of these two possible values of is , so one
of the values must be and the
other must be . Since , we have that and .
Now to summarize what we have so far: if we assume that is not in Row , then is no larger than when is odd and is no larger than when
is even. Note that when , we
get , which
agrees with the answer to part (c) of the original problem.
To finish the argument, we need to verify that
is not in Row when is odd and that is not in Row when is even. We will only include the
verification for when is odd
here. The verification when is
even is similar.
Expanding and simplifying, we have Now set
,
, and . It follows from the
calculation above that . If we
can show that , then we can apply Fact 2 to get that is not in Row . Note that by definition, so is automatically true. Expanding
gives and
, and it is
easily checked that for all . This means we can apply Fact 2 as
long as , which completes the
verification that the maximum value of is exactly when is odd and .
Finally, if , then . By the original contest
problem, is in Row for . Also, is in
Row when , but when , is not in Row . Therefore, when , the maximum value of for which is not in Row is . Notice that evaluates
to when , so the formula works even in this
case.
Suppose is a positive
integer with such that
is not in Row . By Fact 1, there exist positive
integers and such that and . The equation implies that is a multiple of , and since is a prime number, or must be a multiple of . (This is by a fact often known as
Euclid’s Lemma.) We also have that and are positive and both less than , so it is impossible for either of them
to be a multiple of because is prime.
We conclude that there are no positive integers with such that is not in
Row . In other words, is in Row for every positive integer with .
Since is not in any row and
is a multiple of ,
is the largest integer with the
property that and is not in Row . Thus, when is a prime number.
We will show that . To do this, we need to
establish two things:
is not in
Row .
For every integer with
, the
integer is in Row .
We will assume that . If
not, then and the proof is
essentially identical.
To see that the first point is true, set , , , and and apply Fact 2. Note that
so or . We also have , which can be rearranged to get
, and so , which can be factored to
get or . Finally, , so . Putting these
inequalities together, we have . Since , the conditions of
Fact 2 are satisfied and we can conclude that is not in Row .
Now suppose is an integer such
that . We
wish to show that must be in
Row . To do this, we will assume
that it is not in Row and deduce
a contradiction.
To that end, assume that is
not in Row . By Fact 1, there
must be integers and with such that . If is a multiple of , then we would have , but by assumption, so this is
impossible. Therefore, is not a
multiple of . Similarly, is not a multiple of .
Since is a multiple of and and are prime, either is a multiple of and is a multiple of , or is a multiple of and is a multiple of . We will assume that is a multiple of and is a multiple of . The other situation is similar. This
implies the existence of integers
and such that and . Observe that since , we must have , and similarly . Since , , , and are integers, we conclude that and .
Since we are assuming that , we have However, we are also assuming that , so we can deduce that
which is
impossible because it implies . Therefore, our assumption that
is not in Row must be false, and we conclude that
is in Row .
Therefore, as
claimed earlier.
The value of depends
on whether is even or odd. If
for some integer , then . If for some integer , then .
Here we include a proof in the case where is even. The proof when is odd is a slight modification of the
proof given for when is even.
Assume for some positive
integer . As with part (c), we
need to show that
is not in Row ,
and is in Row for every with .
If we set , , and , then we will
have and
, so is not in Row
by Fact 2. This establishes
the first bullet point above.
For the second, suppose
is not in Row for some with .
By Fact 1, there must be integers
and with and .
The product must have at
least factors of the prime
number , meaning the two integers
and have at least a total of factors of between them. Therefore, there are
non-negative integers and such that , is a multiple of , and is a multiple of . By definition, there are positive
integers and such that and .
We are also assuming that , so and , which implies and . Since
, , , and are non-negative integers, we have
and . Multiplying these
inequalities, we obtain . We are also assuming that , so we can substitute to get
Thus, , so , which implies .
We can now conclude that . To finish the argument, we will show that , which would
imply that ,
which is clearly false.
To show that , we will show that if and are non-negative integers with , then the quantity is maximized when .
Suppose and are non-negative integers with and . Consider the quantity . We
can manipulate this difference as follows. We
are assuming that . Since
is even, it must also be true
that is even. Therefore, . As well, is a prime number so , which implies and . The quantity is positive, and so we conclude that
, which implies that . Rearranging this inequality, we get .
What we have shown is that if
and are non-negative integers
with and , we can increase the value of
by decreasing by and increasing by . It follows that is maximized when and are as close together as possible,
which happens when .
In general, can be
computed as follows: find the unique positive integers and with , , and as small as possible. Then .
For example, if is a prime
number, then the only positive factor pair is , so and . Indeed, from part (b), . If is a perfect square, then for some positive integer . Here, we must have because this gives , which is the smallest that the
difference between the factors in a factor pair could possibly be.
Indeed, agrees with
the case from part (d) where . As a final example, consider
. Its positive factor pairs are
, , , , , and . The pair with the smallest
difference between the factors is , so we have and , giving . Indeed, , so is not in Row . As well, you can check that is in Row for each from through , which shows that .
We will now justify that this "formula" always works.
Fix an integer and suppose
, , , and are positive integers with , , and .
If , then since
, we have , so we can conclude
that . Expanding
these expressions and adding to
both sides, we have and since and are both positive, we must have . Essentially the same
argument in reverse shows that if , then .
We have shown that
exactly when . This
implies that if we consider all positive factor pairs of , the one that has the smallest
difference is also the one that has the smallest sum. Therefore, we can
restate our "formula" as follows: Given a positive integer , let and be positive integers with and as small as possible. Then . We will assume that the
integers and satisfy . If not, then they can be
relabelled.
The overall structure of the argument will resemble the arguments for
parts (c) and (d). That is, we will show that is not in Row , but if , then is in Row The solution presented will use,
without proof, a few well-known facts about divisibility and greatest
common divisors.
To see that is not
in Row , take , , and and apply Fact 2. That these
choices of , , , and satisfy the conditions of Fact 2 can be
verified in essentially the same way as they were in the solutions to
parts (c) and (d).
Now suppose is an integer with
such
that is not in Row . By Fact 1, there are integers and such that and . Let and then define and . Observe that the integers
and must satisfy since if they had a common
divisor larger than , then the
greatest common divisor of and
would need to be larger than
.
Dividing both sides of by
, we get , which shows that is a multiple of . We have already noted that and have no common divisors larger than
, so we are forced to conclude
that is a multiple of . That is, there must be some integer
such that .
To summarize, so far we have that , , , and . Consider the integers and and suppose . Multiplying both sides by gives or , but
this contradicts our assumption that , so we cannot have . Therefore, , and since both and are integers, we get . Similarly, if , then or , which contradicts our
assumption, so we conclude that and so .
We are assuming that , so we have the following which implies . Using that
, we cancel to get which can be
expanded to get , and since , this simplifies to . However, is the factorization of into a product of positive integers
that minimizes the sum of the factors. Since , the inequality is a contradiction of this
minimality.
We conclude that our assumption that is not in Row must be false, which means is in Row This completes the proof.
Problem 4: January
2024
Problem
In this problem, we will enclose a list of positive integers in
square brackets. For example, is a list of positive
integers of length five. All lists in this problem will be expressed in
non-decreasing order. To denote the list of consecutive
integers from to inclusive, we will use the notation
. For example, denotes the list .
Given a list, , of positive
integers, we will define to be
the increasing list of distinct positive integers that are expressible
as the sum of some, but not all, of the items in . A sum is allowed to consist of just
one item in , and each item in
can be used at most once in a
particular sum.
For example, if ,
then the sums of at least one but not all of the items in are shown below. Therefore, .
A list, , of positive integers
is called compressible if there exists some list with . In this situation, we say that
is compressed by or that compresses . From the example above, we have that
is
compressible and is compressed by .
Find all lists of length four that compress and explain why no list of length
three or less can compress .
Find a list, , that
compresses and is as short
as possible.
Show that for all positive integers , the list is compressible. For each , determine the smallest possible length
of a list that compresses .
Show that for all positive integers there are only finitely many
compressible lists of consecutive
positive integers. That is, for each positive integer , show that there are only
finitely many positive integers
for which is
compressible.
Find the largest positive integer such that is not compressible. (A full
solution will not be provided for this part.)
Hint
Any list that compresses must contain . Think about the largest possible
number of integers in when
is a list of length .
First, try to find a list that compresses that is as short as possible. It
might help to read about the binary representation of positive
integers.
Work out a few more examples like the one in (b). It is possible
to compress using a list
that consists entirely or almost
entirely of powers of .
For and , if compresses , then must contain and .
The answer is . Do not
worry about trying to compress using as short a list as possible.
As well, inductive thinking could be useful here. Suppose you
can show that there is some with
the property that , , , , and are all compressible. Can you
deduce that is compressible
for all ?
Solution
The positive integer
cannot be expressed as the sum of more than positive integer, so if compresses , then must contain the integer . We want to be a list of positive integers of
length four, and is the smallest
positive integer, so we can assume that where , , and are integers with .
The largest sum in must be
the sum of the three largest items in , which is , and since , we have .
Suppose that and , then implies that , but then , which does not satisfy since, for example, is not in . Therefore, and are not both .
Suppose that and . Then implies , so , but then does not contain so . Therefore, we cannot have and .
Suppose that and . Then , so . It can be verified that
, so this gives
one possible list .
Suppose and . Then as well since , but if where and , then does not contain which means .
So far, we have shown that is the only list of the form
we seek with and .
We will now similarly examine the possibilities when .
If and , then , so . It can be checked that in this case.
If and , then and . It can be checked that in this case.
If and , then implies that , but we are assuming that , so this is impossible.
Therefore, the only possibilities with are and .
If , then has and as well, but this would prevent
from being in , so cannot compress in this case.
Therefore, the only lists of length four that compress are , , and .
To see why no shorter list can compress , we use the general observation
that if is a list of length , then there are at most integers in . This is because for each sum
computed for , each of the
items in is either included in the sum or it is
not. This gives possible ways
of computing a sum of some of the items in . However, this count includes the sum
of none of the items in (all are
excluded from the sum) and the sum of all of the items in . Both of these sums are excluded from
, so there are ways to compute a sum to go in
. We note that there could be
multiple ways to express the same integer in as a sum of items in , which is why we can only say there are
at most integers in
– in practice, there could be
fewer than .
If , then , and so if is a list of length at most three, then
has at most integers. Therefore, , which has nine integers, cannot be
compressed by a list of length less than four.
At the end of the solution to part (a), we argued that if is a list of length , then there are at most integers in . Since and , we need to achieve Therefore, a list that
compresses must have length
at least seven. Now, we will provide a list of minimal length (seven)
that compresses .
Consider .
Note that is in and that the sum of all items in
is . Since has sums of some but not all of the
items in , the integers in are at most . Rather than computing all of the
sums, we will explain why in a way that will give some insight for part (c).
We first consider the sums that are achievable without using the
integer . The other integers in
are , , , , , and . The sums that can be obtained by
adding some or all of these integers are exactly the integers from through . To get an idea of how this
works, read about "binary expansions" or "binary representations" of
integers. As an example, to represent as a sum of powers of , first, find the largest power of that is no larger than , which is . Then compute to get . Now find the largest power of
that is no larger than , which is . Subtract to get or . Now substitute to get . Repeating this process, find
the largest power of that is no
larger than , which is . Subtracting, so , but what remains, , is a power of , so we get .
The integers from through
are all in . To write the integers from through as a sum of integers in , notice that , and so if , then . To write such as a sum of integers from , compute , write as a sum of the integers from other than , then include in the sum. For example, to see that
is in , compute , then use that to get that .
The only thing left to check is that none of the sums described above
require using all seven items in .
To see why this is not a concern, recall that the sum of all items in
is , so if we express an integer that
that is no larger than as a sum
of items from , then it cannot
possibly use every item in .
The result of part (b) generalizes as follows. For every positive
integer , the minimum length of a
list that compresses is . Notice that
when , since is strictly between and , we have , which
agrees with the result from part (b).
We will prove that is the minimum length of a list that
compresses and, in the
process, prove that is always
compressible.
To see that is the minimum length of a list that
compresses in general, we
will show that a list of length less than cannot possibly
compress , and then we will
construct a list of length exactly that does compress .
Suppose has length . Since
and are both
integers, this implies . For every integer , it is true that , so we conclude that .
From , we get
or . As argued earlier, a list
of length has the property that there are at most
distinct integers in . Since , we cannot have when is a list of length since
contains integers.
We have shown that if
compresses , then it must have
length at least . We will now produce a list of length that compresses
. This requires explaining how
to produce the list, then showing that the list has the correct
length.
Suppose is a positive integer.
Define to be the largest
non-negative integer with the property that and define . The list consisting of the powers of from through together with will compress and have length exactly . Notice that it
is possible for to be equal to
one of the powers of from through . In this situation, the list
will include two copies of that
power of .
Before verifying that the list described above does what is required,
we will work through a couple of examples.
When , we observe that
and are the powers of that are no larger than , and so . Thus, and , so the list is . Indeed .
When , we get , so and , so the list is
, which is
exactly the list from part (b).
We will now show that list has
length . The
integer is the largest
non-negative integer with the property that , and contains , , and so on up to , along with the integer . This gives a total of items in . Therefore, it suffices to show that
with chosen as described above,
we have .
The function is
increasing, meaning that if and
are positive real numbers with
, then . Using this fact
along with the fact that , we get that . As well, is the largest non-negative integer
with the property that ,
which means .
Suppose .
Then . From above,
we also have , so
we conclude that . The quantities
and are consecutive integers,
so the integer cannot lie
strictly between them. Therefore, it is impossible for , which means we must
have .
Combining this inequality with , we have , and so we conclude that .
It remains to show that
compresses . As discussed
earlier, since list contains the
items , , and so on up to , as well as at least one other
item, , contains all of the integers from
through . This is because these
integers can be expressed using the sum of some or all of the powers of
from through . These are exactly the integers
that can be expressed without using .
If we do use , then we can
express every integer from
through as a sum of items
in . Since is the sum of all items in , it is excluded from and so we have that contains all of the integers from
to , and nothing larger. By
definition, , so .
We have shown that is the
list consisting of the integers that are in or . To see that is exactly , we need to show that . There might be overlap
corresponding to multiple ways to express some integers in in , but this is allowed.
Suppose . Since these
quantities are integers, we must have . By definition, , and so we get that , which can be
rearranged to get . Therefore, we have , but was chosen to be the largest integer
with , so it is not
possible that .
Therefore, our assumption that must be wrong, so we conclude
that , as
desired.
Fix a positive integer . We will show that for every integer , is not compressible.
To see this, suppose is a list
that compresses . Since
, there are at least three
items in . If has only two items, then has at most two integers since the
allowable sums are just the two "singleton sums". Therefore, also contains at least three items.
Note that since is the smallest
integer in , must also be the smallest integer in
. (If is in , then the "singleton sum" must also be in , so all integers in must be at least . Also, since there is nothing smaller
than in , the only way to produce in is by the "singleton sum" .)
Since , is also in . If is the sum of at least two items in
, then they must all be smaller
than , but the only integer in
that is smaller than is . This would mean must be in , but this is impossible since and is the smallest element in . Therefore, we must also have in , and so both and are in .
Now recall that has at least
three items, so there is at least one element other than and , and so is in . Since , we must then have , which can be rearranged
to get , which is
impossible since .
Therefore, it is not possible to compress when . This means that there are only
finitely many for which is compressible since all such
must be at most .
As mentioned in the hint, the answer is . This means is not compressible, but is compressible for all . We will include a sketch of the
proof here.
One can check that the lists , , , , and compress the lists
, , , , and , respectively.
Now suppose a list compresses
and suppose is the list with a added to it. It can be shown that compresses the list . Since is compressible, this shows that
is compressible. Since is compressible, is compressible. Since we have
five consecutive values of for
which is compressible ( through ), this reasoning can be used to show
that is compressible for all
. Note that the lists to
compress given by this
inductive process will not, in general, be as short as possible.
Now suppose a list compresses
. It can be argued using
reasoning similar to that from earlier parts that must be in ,
is the smallest integer in , and
that the integers , , , and also appear in . Since the smallest integer in is , the largest sum in is less than the sum of all items in . Therefore, the sum of all items in
must be . We already have , , , , and in which have a sum of , and so the remaining items
in have a sum of .
Next, note that using only the five items , , , , and , a sum of is impossible. The list cannot contain the integer itself since we already determined
that the remaining items in have
a sum of . It also cannot include
the integers , , , or since is the smallest integer in . Therefore, the in must come from the sum of two s, which means must include a second .
We now have that contains (at
least) the items , , , , , and , which have a total of . Since the sum of all items in is , there must be an additional item in
that is no larger than . This is impossible, so we
conclude that is not
compressible.
Problem 5: February
2024
Problem
Introduction
This problem explores a counting technique that uses binomial
coefficients. The main problems for this month are in the next section. For anyone who is not already familiar with the
notation of binomial coefficients, this section includes an
introduction with a few standard exercises.
For non-negative integers and
, the expression denotes the number of ways
to choose objects from distinct objects. For this reason, the
quantity is
pronounced " choose ".
For example, consider the four letters , , , and . There are ways to select three of them. They are as follows:
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
Since there are ways to choose of the objects (order does not matter –
it only matters which objects are chosen), we have that .
Try the following exercises. Hints will be provided, but solutions
will not. These exercises are intended as a way to get familiar with the
notation, so they may not be explicitly useful in the main problems.
Show that .
What are and
?
Convince yourself that for .
Convince yourself that
when .
Convince yourself that is equal to the coefficient
of in the expanded form of
. This is why is called a "binomial
coefficient".
It turns out that there is a convenient way to compute binomial
coefficients using factorial notation. If are integers, then . Here,
, pronounced " factorial", is defined so that when and , and for integers . It
is also a useful exercise to think about why this formula for works.
Main Problems
For a positive integer ,
show that is the
answer to each of these three questions. Think about why the answers to
all three questions are the same.
What is ?
How many pairs of
non-negative integers satisfy ?
How many triples of
non-negative integers satisfy ?
Let and be integers. Show that the
following two questions have the same answer and express the common
answer as a single binomial coefficient.
How many ways are there to place indistinguishable balls in distinguishable cups?
How many non-negative integer solutions are there to the equation
?
Let and be integers. By counting -tuples of non-negative integers that satisfy , prove the
identity Clarification: The quantity on
the left in the equation above is the sum of the binomial coefficients
where ranges from to .
Determine the number of non-negative integers with that have a digit sum of .
For a positive integer where
the are the digits of , the alternating sum of is the expression . For
example, the alternating sum of is . Determine the number of
non-negative integers with at most digits that have an alternating sum
equal to .
How many ways are there to choose integers , , and such that and ?
Hint
First, some hints on the exercises.
List the two-element subsets of .
The answers are and . It might take a moment of reflection
to convince yourself that makes sense.
If objects are chosen from
a set of objects, then how many
objects are not chosen?
If you are to choose
integers from the set , then either is chosen or it is not.
The quantity is
equal to the product of copies of
. Try expanding for a few small values of without collecting like terms. As an
example, think about how an
term could arise during the expansion of .
Below are the hints for the main problems.
If you have never seen a proof of (a)(i), try writing the sum
in reverse order
directly under the sum . Now add each column. For
(a)(ii), consider the possible values of . For (a)(iii), consider the equation
for a fixed pair .
Imagine arranging the
identical balls in a row and placing sticks between them. By doing this,
you have partitioned the balls
into smaller groups.
Introduce a new variable, , and consider the equation .
The non-negative integers
with are exactly the
integers that have at most
digits. Consider the equation where .
This question can be analyzed by examining the equation .
Rearrange this equation and use the ideas from (b) and (d).
Let , , and . Find the number of non-negative
integer solutions to
with , , and distinct.
Solution
The binomial coefficient is equal to , and since , we get that
. By
the well-known formula for the sum of the first positive integers, we have ,
and so the answer to (i) is .
For (ii), we will consider the possible values of . Note that since and are non-negative and , we must have that .
If and , then can be any of the integers from through , for a total of possibilities.
If , then can be any of the integers from through , for a total of possibilities.
In general, if for some
with , then can be any integer from through . There are a total of integers from through .
Therefore, the number of pairs is , but this
is just the sum
written in reverse order. By part (i), we conclude that the number of
non-negative integer pairs
with is .
For (iii), observe that if and
are non-negative integers with
, then there is exactly
one non-negative integer for
which . Therefore, the
number of non-negative integer pairs with is exactly the same as the
number of non-negative integer triples with .
Suppose the
distinguishable cups are labelled Cup , Cup , and so on, up to Cup . Suppose the balls are placed in the cups. If we let be equal to the number of balls in
Cup (noting that it is possible
that ), then we will have
since there
are balls in total. On the other
hand, if we have a non-negative integer solution to , then if we place
balls in Cup for each , then we will have distributed exactly
balls among the cups. Finally, observe that every
placement of balls in the cups leads to a distinct solution to
, and every
solution to this equation gives a distinct way to distribute balls in the cups. This shows that the answers to
questions (i) and (ii) are equal.
We will now show that the answer to question (ii) (and hence, the
answer to question (i)), is .
We need to reimagine the distribution of balls into cups as a choice
of some objects. To give an idea of how it works, we will focus on the
special case with and . That is, we want to count the number
of ways to place
indistinguishable balls in
distinguishable cups.
Imagine laying the balls in a
row. We want to place them among
cups, which means we want to break the balls into groups (where some of the groups could
be empty). We can do this by placing three partitions somewhere among
the balls that are now lined up
in a row. For example, the partitions could be placed as shown in the
diagram below. Each ball is represented by a circle and each partition
is represented by a vertical line.
This corresponds to placing
balls in Cup , balls in Cup ,
ball in Cup , and balls in Cup . For a different example, we could
place the partitions as follows.
In this case, two of the partitions are next to each other with no
balls between them. This corresponds to the third cup having no balls in
it.
In fact, any arrangement of
indistinguishable balls and
indistinguishable partitions will corresponds to an ordered list of four
non-negative integers that have a sum of .
Therefore, there are
positions where the balls and partitions are to be placed, and every way
to choose three of the positions to be partitions corresponds to an
ordering of balls and partitions. Therefore, the answer to
the question in this case is .
In general, if there are cups,
then we need to use partitions.
This means there will be balls
and partitions for a total of
objects. There are positions that need to be chosen for
the partitions. Thus, the number of ways to place indistinguishable balls in distinguishable cups is .
First note that non-negative integers satisfy if and only if
for some
integer with . From part (b), the number
of non-negative integer solutions to is . Therefore, the number
of non-negative integer solutions to is
Now suppose are non-negative integers with . Then we must have
. On the
other hand, if , then there is a unique non-negative integer that satisfies . This shows that the
number of non-negative integer solutions to is the same as the
number of non-negative integer solutions to . From part (b),
the number of solutions to is .
We have shown that the number of non-negative integer solutions to
the inequality is equal to
and it is also equal to , so we conclude that This identity is sometime called the
Hockey Stick Identity. If you are interested in knowing why it
has such a strange name, read about Pascal’s Triangle and try to
interpret this result using Pascal’s Triangle.
The integer having the
property that is the
same as the integer having at
most decimal digits. Thus, every
such integer takes the form where are the
digits of , but some of the
leading digits may be equal to .
For example, to represent the integer in this way, we would write it as
so , , , , , and .
Thus, to count the non-negative integers with a digit sum of , we need to find all non-negative
integer solutions to the equation , but we
have an additional restriction that each is a digit, meaning .
Switching notation slightly to match earlier parts, the answer to the
question is equal to the number of solutions to the equation where each is an integer with .
By part (b), the number of non-negative integer solutions to without the
restriction that is . The
total of includes
some solutions that violate for some . We will now
count the solutions that have for at least one so
we can remove these from the count.
First, we claim that for each index , there are solutions that have . For example, consider a
non-negative integer solution to with . If we set then is a non-negative integer and Also, if we consider a non-negative integer solution to
, and set
, then we obtain
a non-negative integer solution to with . By part (b), there are
non-negative integer
solutions to and so,
equivalently, there are non-negative integer
solutions to with .
Similarly, for each from through , there are exactly non-negative integer
solutions to with . Note that these different
sets of solutions have overlap and so the number of solutions with for at least one is not . This is an overcount. For example, the
solution , , , and is
double counted: once as a solution with and once as a solution with
.
Next, we claim that for every pair of indices and , with , there are
non-negative integer solutions to with and. Each of these solutions
will be double counted in the count . Note that there are no
solutions to that have more
than two variables exceeding and
so this will give us the complete picture.
For an example, consider a non-negative integer solution to with and . If we set and then and are non-negative integers satisfying
.
Similarly, a non-negative integer solution to corresponds
to a non-negative integer solution to with . By part (b), there are
non-negative integer
solutions to and so,
equivalently, there are non-negative integer
solutions to with and .
Similarly, for each pair and
, with , there are solutions to with and .
Since there are
ways to choose two indices, there are
non-negative integer solutions that have two variables exceeding . From this, we conclude that the number
of non-negative integer solutions to that have for at least one is given by .
Therefore, the total number of non-negative integer solutions to
with for all can be calculated as follows:
By the same convention as the previous problem, we can recognize
every positive integer less than as an -digit integer by possibly prepending
some s. Thus, we wish to count the
number of solutions to the equation where
the are integers with for each .
We can rearrange this equation to get , so we
want to count non-negative integer solutions to this equation where
for each .
Since , we must
have that and . For each from through , let denote the number of non-negative
integer solutions to with for , , , and . Since all of the variables have the exact same
restrictions, we also have that
is the number of non-negative integer solutions to where each variable is
no larger than . Thus, for each
from through , there are solutions to the equation with each
side equal to . Therefore, the
answer to the question is Now
suppose that and
with for each . Then ,
and observe that since , we have , and since , we have . You should convince yourself that this shows that the
number of solutions to is the same as the
number of solutions to . In other words,
. When , we also have , so the total we seek is equal to
For through , if , then for each since the total is at most . This means the number of solutions to
where for each is equal to the number of non-negative
integer solutions without restriction. By part (b), if , then .
For through , there are still unrestricted solutions,
but here the count includes solutions with for some . Note that since the total is at most
, it is not possible for more
than one variable to exceed .
Similar to the argument in part (d), for each , there are solutions with . Since there are variables, there are solutions with a
variable exceeding . Therefore,
.
We now just need to compute the total.
Let , , and . Then we have and . Thus, we want to count the
number of non-negative integer solutions to where . Suppose is the number of non-negative integer
solutions to where , , and are all distinct and no larger than
. Since there are six different
arrangements of three distinct integers, exactly one of which puts them
in increasing order, the answer to the given question is .
To compute , we note that by
part (b) there are
non-negative integer solutions to where there are no
restrictions on the non-negative integers , , and . We now need to remove those solutions
where at least two of the variables are equal as well as any that have
at least one of , , and greater than .
If one of , , and is greater than , then the condition and the fact that , , and are non-negative integers implies that
one of the variables equals
and the other two equal . Thus,
any solutions with a variable greater than will also have two variables equal
to each other, so we can just count the number of solutions with at
least two variables equal and subtract this total from . Since is not a multiple of , it is impossible that . Therefore, we need to count the
number of solutions where exactly two variables are equal.
To count the number of solutions to with two variables equal, we
will count the number of solutions with and triple the result since there are
three choices of which two variables are equal.
We now want to count non-negative integer solutions to . This equation implies that
is even, or that for some non-negative integer . Thus, we need to count the number of
solutions to or . By part (b), this is , so the number of solutions to the
equation with two variables equal to each other is .
We now have that , and so the
number of solutions is
Problem 6: March
2024
Problem
This month’s problem is an introduction to some of the basic ideas
that come up when studying polynomials. It is presented with many
exercises interspersed among some definitions. Some of the exercises are
computational and some are theoretical.
Complex Numbers: The polynomial does not have any real roots.
Because of this, we "invent" a root, and it is traditionally called
for "imaginary". That is, we
declare that is a number such
that or . From a desire to do arithmetic
with numbers "like" , we declare
that a complex number is a number of the form where and are real numbers. For example, and are complex numbers. Remembering
that and using expected
arithmetic rules, we can add and multiply complex numbers. For example,
Using the quadratic formula, complex
numbers give roots to all real quadratics. For example, the quadratic
has a discriminant
of , and so it has
no real roots. However, if we accept that means "a number that squares
to ", we can infer that or could reasonably be considered as
. Indeed, using the
quadratic formula, we get If you are new to complex numbers, or you just
want to have some fun, you might want to check that and using the methods for adding
and multiplying complex numbers demonstrated above.
For the next three exercises, it will be useful to remember that if
is a root of a polynomial , then is a factor of .
Find all roots of the polynomial .
Find all roots of the polynomial .
Find all roots of the polynomial .
Definition: A polynomial is called a rational
polynomial if all of its coefficients are rational numbers. The set
of rational polynomials is denoted by .
Definition: Suppose has degree at least
. We say that is reducible in (or reducible over
) if there are
rational polynomials and , both of degree at least , such that . We say that is irreducible over if it is not reducible
over . In other words,
is irreducible over if it cannot be factored as a
product of rational polynomials of degree lower than that of .
Determine whether each given polynomial is reducible or
irreducible over .
Definition: A complex number is called algebraic if it
is a root of some non-constant rational polynomial. That is, is algebraic if there is a
polynomial of
degree at least such that . The degree of the
algebraic number is the
smallest positive integer such
that there is a rational polynomial of degree with . [The word "positive" is
important because every number is a root of the constant polynomial.]
Show that , , , and are all algebraic
numbers and find their degrees. It might be easier to find the degrees
after thinking about some of the later questions.
Suppose is an
algebraic number of degree . Prove
that there is a unique irreducible polynomial of degree with leading coefficient equal to such that .
Note: Numbers that are not algebraic are called
transcendental numbers. Two famous examples of transcendental
numbers are and .
Definition: If is a polynomial and is a root of , then is a repeated root of
if there is a polynomial such that . Note that might be a complex number, which
means could have complex
coefficients.
Let . Find
complex numbers
such that . In
other words, find all roots of .
Hint: Some of the roots are small integers and every root corresponds a
linear factor.
Given a polynomial of
degree , if we expand the
expression (here, is another variable), we can write
as
for unique polynomials .
For the polynomial from
part (g), determine the polynomials and described above and find all
roots of and .
Suppose that is a
polynomial and that is a root of
. Prove that is a repeated root of if and only if is a root of .
Prove that if and are irreducible rational polynomials
with a root in common, then there is a rational number such that .
Prove that an irreducible rational polynomial cannot have a
repeated root.
Note: The division algorithm for
polynomials might be useful in some of the later problems. It will
be explained briefly in the hint.
Hint
The Rational Root Theorem could come in handy: If a
polynomial
has integer coefficients and is a
rational root of , then it must
be of the form where
and are integers, is a divisor of , and is a divisor of .
For the polynomial in (a), this means the only possible rational
roots are , , , and , the divisors
of (the leading coefficient is
).
This polynomial is a perfect square.
This polynomial has no rational roots, but it does have a real
root that is easy to find.
A polynomial has a rational root if and only if it has a rational
linear factor. If and are polynomials of degree and , then what is the degree of ?
To show that a number is algebraic, you need to find a rational
polynomial with that number as a root. For , let so that . Now cube both
sides.
If has degree and factors as the product of two
polynomials of degree at least ,
then both of these polynomials have degree less than . Read the definition of "degree"
carefully.
For uniqueness, suppose that two polynomials, and , have the described properties. What
can be said about the degree of their difference?
No hint given.
(i) Warm up by trying this with a polynomial of lower degree. It
turns out that the polynomial is the derivative of
. This is not important for the
problem, but it is interesting.
(ii) If you know some calculus, then there is a nice proof of this
involving the product rule. Otherwise, if , then . Expand and as described in part (i) and
compare "coefficients" of .
By definition, the shared root is algebraic and so has a minimal
polynomial, . Show that each of
and is a scalar multiple of .
Division Algorithm for Polynomials: For polynomials
and with not the zero polynomial, there exist
unique polynomials and such that where the degree of
is less than the degree of
. This is essentially the
result of doing polynomial or synthetic division of by .
Convince yourself that every polynomial can be expressed as a
product of irreducible polynomials. As well, as long as has degree at least , the polynomial is not the zero polynomial and has
degree less than that of (in
fact, the degree is one less).
Solution
Notice that , so
is a root of . This means is a factor of . Factoring gives . Now evaluating
, we get that
is a root of , so is a factor of . Factoring gives .
Applying the quadratic formula to gives So the roots of are
, , and with appearing as a repeated root.
This polynomial has no real roots, but notice that . The roots of
are , so the only roots of are and . In fact, can be factored as which shows that each
of these two roots are repeated roots.
We can use a difference of square to get that . The roots of are and . The roots of are and . Thus, has four distinct roots (no repeated
roots), two of which are real and two of which are not real.
Notation: In several of the remaining solutions, we
will use the word monic to describe a polynomial with a leading
coefficient of . One of the main
observations about monic polynomials is that if is a polynomial with leading
coefficient , then is a monic polynomial of
the same degree with exactly the same roots as . We will leave the following fact as
an exercise: If is a reducible
monic polynomial, then factors
as the product of two monic polynomials of degree at least .
The polynomial is irreducible. Suppose is reducible. Since the polynomial
is monic, there must be monic rational polynomials and of degree at least such that . Since and both have degree at least and their product has degree , they must both have degree exactly
.
Therefore, there are rational numbers and such that and , so . Expanding, we get
. Comparing
coefficients, or , and . Substituting into gives or . It is well known that no rational
number has the property that
, and so there is a problem.
We conclude that cannot be
factored into the product of two rational polynomials both with positive
degree.
Observation: It is important to observe that we have
specifically shown that does
not factor over . If we
allow for any real coefficients, we easily get that which is a
perfectly good factorization into a product of polynomials with real
coefficients. Extending the language defined in the problem, we would
say that while is irreducible
over , it is reducible
over .
The polynomial is reducible. Checking for
rational roots and then factoring, one finds that .
The polynomial is irreducible. If a cubic
polynomial is equal to the product of polynomials and each with degree at least , then one of them must be linear and
the other must be quadratic. This is because is the only way to express (the degree) as the sum of positive
integers. Since is monic,
there must be rational numbers ,
, and so that . Of course, this
shows that is a rational root,
so we get the following useful fact that is special to cubics (and
quadratics): A cubic polynomial is reducible over if and only if it has a
rational root.
By the rational root theorem,
and are the only candidates for
a rational root of . Neither
is a root, so the polynomial has no rational roots. Therefore, by the
argument above, the polynomial is irreducible.
The polynomial is irreducible. Every linear
polynomial is irreducible. This is because the product of two
polynomials of positive degree must have degree at least , so a polynomial of degree less than
cannot possibly be expressed as
the product of two polynomials of positive degree.
The polynomial is reducible. Observe that , and so can be expressed as the
product of two rational polynomials of positive degree.
The roots of the polynomial are , , and , none of which are real. In
part (iii) above, it was noted that a rational cubic is irreducible over
if and only if it has a
rational root. This example shows that this is special property of
polynomials of low degree since is reducible, but it does not
have any rational roots.
The polynomial is irreducible. If , then , which is impossible for a
real number . Therefore, has no rational roots (since it has
no real roots).
If factors as the product
of two rational polynomials of positive degree, then it must be the
product of a linear with a cubic, or the product of two quadratics. The
polynomial has no rational root, so it has no linear factor, which means
the only remaining possibility is that is the product of two rational
quadratics. As mentioned earlier, if a monic polynomial factors, then it
factors as the product monic polynomials.
We will assume that , , , and are real numbers such that and deduce
that these numbers cannot all be rational.
Expanding, we have and by comparing
coefficients, we get From Equation , we get and so we can substitute into
Equations and above to get
If , then Equation
implies , and substituting into
Equation gives or . This means or , neither of which is rational.
If , then we can divide
through by in Equation to
get or . Equation now implies that , so either or .
If , then Equation
gives or , so . Either way, is irrational.
If , then Equation
gives and so , both of which are
irrational.
We have exhausted all possibilities and deduced that at least one of
, , , and must be irrational in all cases, so we
have shown that cannot
possibly factor as the product of two rational quadratic
polynomials.
If you look a bit more closely at the case work above, it actually
shows that has the following
three different factorizations:
but none of them are factorizations into rational polynomials.
The real number is
algebraic because it is a root of the rational polynomial .
To find a rational polynomial to which is a root, we write and rearrange to get
. Cubing both sides,
we get . We can
rearrange this to see that , which shows that is a root of the
polynomial , which is
a rational cubic.
Let and . Notice that and .
The polynomial ,
a rational quadratic, has as a root by
construction.
For , we will
use a similar trick to that which was used for . Set and rearrange to get
. Squaring
both sides gives
which can be rearranged to get . Squaring both sides again gives , which can be
rearranged to .
Therefore, is a
root of the rational polynomial .
The degrees of , , , and are , , , and , respectively. We will justify this at
the end of the solution to part (j).
Suppose is an
algebraic number of degree . It
follows from the remark before the solution to part (d) that there is a
rational monic polynomial of
degree such that .
Suppose is reducible over
. Then there are rational
polynomials and such that and both and have degree at least . Since the sum of the degrees of and is , it follows that each of them has
degree less than .
Since , we get
, and so either
or . This is impossible since
is the smallest positive degree
of a rational polynomial having as a root.
This shows is irreducible,
so we have shown that there exists a monic irreducible rational
polynomial of degree with .
Now we want to show that that is only one such polynomial. To do
this, suppose and are monic irreducible polynomials of
degree such that . Let . Since and have the same leading term, , the degree of must be less than . As well, , so is a root of a polynomial with
degree less than . By the
definition of , cannot have positive degree, so it
must be constant. The only constant polynomial with roots is the
constant zero polynomial, so for all , from which it follows that .
We have assumed that two monic irreducible polynomials of degree
have as a root and deduced that they
are the same polynomial. We conclude that there is a unique
monic irreducible polynomial
of degree such that .
By looking for rational roots and removing corresponding factors,
we arrive at In part
(b), it was observed that , so factors completely as and so
the values of , , , , , , are , , , , , , .
Expanding for each
from through , we have Substituting for in , we get Without
actually substituting the expressions for through from above, we can imagine what
will happen if we do. The polynomial is equal to the sum of the terms
we would get that have no factor of . The only term in that does not have a factor of
is . Therefore, we can conclude that
which is , the roots of which
were found in the previous part.
The polynomial has the
property that is the sum of
all terms that have a factor of
and the exponent of is exactly
. In , this term is always of the form
.
Therefore, we can collect all terms that have exactly one factor of
in to get So we
conclude that .
After checking for rational roots, one finds that and
that has
no rational roots. However, a bit of experimentation or observation
leads to and one can check that as well. Thus, we should be able
to factor and out of , but , so we can factor out of and avoid arithmetic with complex
numbers. After doing this, we find . Using the
quadratic formula on
gives .
We have now found all roots of and they are , , , , , and . Observe that
, , and were all repeated roots of (from part (g)) and they all appear
as roots of .
In general, can be
expressed as where is some
expression that is the sum of products of scalars, powers of , and powers of . However, since and are the collections of terms that
have no factor of and exactly one
factor of , we can conclude that
has a factor of . Therefore, we can refine this
observation to get that
where is the sum
of terms that are products of scalars, powers of , and powers of . Note that if is constant, then and will be , and if has degree , then will be .
Assume that is a root of .
We will first show that if is
a repeated root of , then must be a root of . To do that, we assume that is a repeated root of . By definition, this means there is
a polynomial such that .
Expanding , we get
Then we have where is some expression in and . Therefore, when we expand , the sum of the terms with as their power of is . By
definition, this sum also equals , so .
Substituting into this equation
gives .
Therefore, is a root of .
We now assume that is a root
of both and and will deduce that is a factor of .
Since we are assuming that
has a root of , we can write for some polynomial . Then
where is some expression in
and . Similar to the argument for the other
direction, this implies , hence . We are assuming
that , so we can substitute
on both sides of this equation
to get or
. Therefore, , so there is some polynomial such that . Substituting into , we get , and so is a repeated root of by definition.
A proof using calculus. If you take a minute to
verify that the polynomial
is the derivative of polynomial , denoted by , then we can reframe this
result as follows: Suppose that is a polynomial and that is a root of . Prove that is a repeated root of if and only if is a root of .
Assume that is a root of .
Suppose that is a repeated
root of . Then for some polynomial
. By the product rule, ,
so . Therefore,
is a root of .
Now suppose that is a root of
. Since is a root of , there is a polynomial such that . By the product rule,
.
Substituting gives and since
by assumption, this
implies , so is a root of . Therefore, there is a polynomial
such that . Substituting gives , so is a repeated root of .
Suppose and are irreducible rational polynomials
with a root, , in common.
Assume that had degree . We know that is an algebraic number, so let
be its minimal polynomial.
By the division algorithm for polynomials, there are polynomials
and such that and the degree of
is less than the
degree of . By the definition
of the minimal polynomial, . By assumption, , so
implies that or . Since is the minimal polynomial of and the degree of is less than the degree of , we must have that does not have positive degree. This
means is constant, and since
, it must be the zero
polynomial2.
Therefore, ,
which is a factorization of
into a product of two polynomials. Since is irreducible and has positive degree, we must have
that is constant. Therefore,
there is a constant such that
. Since is irreducible, it has degree at
least , so .
By an essentially identical argument, there is a constant such that . Taking , we have
Computing the degrees of the algebraic numbers from part
(e). We can use parts (f) and (j) to prove the following: If an
algebraic number is a root of an irreducible polynomial of degree , then the degree of the algebraic
number is .
To see why this is true, suppose is algebraic of degree and is a root of an irreducible
polynomial of degree . By part (f), the minimal polynomial,
, of has degree . This means and are irreducible polynomials with a
root, , in common. By part
(j), one is a scalar multiple of the other (and that scalar is nonzero),
so they have the same degree. In other words, .
It follows that if we are given an algebraic number and produce an irreducible
polynomial of degree to which
is a root, we will have
shown that the degree of is
. In part (e), one can show that
each of the four polynomials produced (for each algebraic number) is
irreducible, so the degrees of the algebraic numbers are as stated at
the end of the solution to (e).
Suppose is an
irreducible rational polynomial with a repeated root, . By part (h)(ii), is also a root of . Note that if is the leading term of , then is the leading term of , and so has degree strictly lower than
that of . As well, has a repeated root, so , which means . Therefore, has positive degree less than
.
Every polynomial can be factored into a product of irreducible
factors. To see why, we can emulate the reasoning used to see that every
positive integer is the product of prime numbers. For example, if is irreducible, then we stop.
Otherwise, it can be factored as where each of and has degree at least and less than that of . Now either and are irreducible, or they can be
factored into polynomials of lower degree. Critically, the degrees
always go down but stay larger than when we factor. Consequentially, this
cannot go on forever, and we will eventually be left with expressed as a product of
irreducible polynomials.
Since , one of
these irreducible factors, say , has as a root. Since is a factor of , its degree is no larger than the
degree of , which means has degree less than .
We now have that is a
root of both and . Both polynomials are irreducible,
so part (j) implies that they must have the same degree. We have just
argued that the degree of is
less than the degree of , so
this is a problem.
This means our assumption that has a repeated root must have been
wrong, so we conclude that an irreducible rational polynomial cannot
have a repeated root.
Footnotes
For technical reasons, mathematicians usually distinguish the zero polynomial among the constant polynomials
and do not consider it to have degree . Typically it is either not assigned a degree or assigned a "degree" of . For the purposes of this document, there is no harm in just taking the zero polynomial to have
degree .↩︎
Problem 7: April
2024
Problem
Curves in the plane are often given as the set of points that satisfy some equation in and . For example, the set of points that satisfy is a parabola, the set of points
that satisfy is a line, and the set of points
that satisfy is the circle of radius centred at the origin.
Another way to express a curve in the plane is using
parametric equations. With this type of description, we
introduce a third variable, ,
called the parameter, and each of and is given as a function of . This is useful for describing the
position of a point that is moving around the plane. For example,
imagine that an ant is crawling around the plane. If its -coordinate at time is and its -coordinate at time is , then its position at time is .
A particle’s position at time is . That is, its -coordinate at time is and its -coordinate at time is .
Plot the position of the particle at , , , , and .
Show that every position the particle occupies is on the line
with equation .
Sketch the path of the particle from through .
A particle’s position at time is . Sketch the path of the
particle from through .
A particle’s position at time is .
Plot the position of the particle at for the integers through . Sketch the path of the particle
from through .
Show that every position the particle occupies is on the curve
with equation .
Circle 1 is centred at the origin, Circle 2 is centred at , and both circles have radius . The circles are tangent at . Circle 2 is "rolled" in the
counterclockwise direction along the outside of the circumference of
Circle 1 without slipping. The point on Circle 2 that was originally at
(the point of tangency)
follows a curve in the plane. Find functions and so that the points on this curve are
for .
The setup in this problem is similar to (d). Circle 1 is centred
at the origin and has radius and
Circle 2 is centred at and
has radius so that the two
circles are tangent at .
Circle 2 is rolled around the inside of the circumference of Circle 1 in
the counterclockwise direction. Describe the curve in the plane followed
by the point on Circle 2 that is initially at .
Circle 1 is centred at the origin and has radius . Circle 2 has radius , is inside Circle 1, and the two
circles are initially tangent at . When Circle 2 is rolled around the
inside of Circle 1 in the counterclockwise direction, the point on
Circle 2 that was initially at will follow some curve in the
plane.
Show that when , the points on the curve
satisfy the equation .
Show that the curves for and are exactly the same and
that the point initially at
travels this curve in opposite directions for the two radii.
Hint
In part (ii), solve for in
terms of and then substitute into
the equation involving .
At time , how far is the
particle from the origin?
Starting with , use trigonometric identities to eliminate all
appearances of the variable .
Remember that .
As Circle 2 rolls around Circle 1, let be the angle made by the positive -axis and the line segment connecting
the origin and the centre of Circle 2. It will help to draw a reasonably
accurate diagram with Circle 2 rolled part of the way around Circle 1
(perhaps an angle of
or so). Once you have done this, mark the point on the circumference of
Circle 2 that was originally at by (or some other label). The objective is
to find the coordinates of in
terms of . Since the circles roll
without slipping, the arc length from the point of tangency along Circle
1 to should equal the arc
length from the point of tangency along Circle 2 to .
As Circle 2 rolls along the inside of Circle 1, it (usually)
intersects the -axis at two
points. Convince yourself that one of these two points must be the
origin, then think about the other point.
Using a strategy similar to part (d), find a general formula for
the coordinates of in terms of
the angle . Do this either in
general for or do it separately
for the three relevant values of
in this question.
Find identities for
in terms of and in terms of .
Find the parametric equations for the position of when if Circle 2 is rolled
clockwise around Circle 1 instead of counterclockwise.
Solution
When , the position is
. When , the position is . When , the position is , when , the position is , and when , the position is . The plot of these positions is
below.
For each , we have and . Solving for in the equation gives , which can be substituted into the
second equation to get . Therefore,
every point of the form satisfies .
From part (ii), the points that the particle occupies are all on
the line with equations . We
care about the points on this line from to inclusive, so the plot is just the
line segment connecting (the
point for ) to (the point for ). The plot is below.
We have and , so for any position that the particle occupies, . Therefore, the
particle is always somewhere on the unit circle.
Indeed, every point on the unit circle has coordinates for exactly one real
number with . The graph of the path of the particle is
In each of the three tables below, the left column contains
values of , the middle column
contains the corresponding values of , and the right column contains the corresponding values of
. Although it is not
particularly difficult to write down exact values for each of the
trigonometric ratios in the table, we want to plot the points so the
values are all given rounded to three digits past the decimal point.
Below is a plot of the points above including a sketch of the
curve.
Every point on the
parametric curve satisfies
and for some real number
. Using the double-angle formula
for , we get , so . By the Pythagorean
identity, .
Substituting gives .
We will label the point on Circle 2 that is originally at by and we will label the centre of Circle
2 by . Since the circumferences of
the circles are the same, Circle 2 will return to its original position
after rolling exactly once around Circle 1. This means will travel exactly once around the
circle of radius centred at
the origin.
We will let represent the
angle made by the positive -axis
and the ray from the origin to .
For example, the diagram below depicts the position of the outer circle
when . The origin
is labelled by .
We wish to find the coordinates of in terms of the angle . In the diagram below, we have added to
the previous diagram a line through the origin and , a line segment connecting to , as well as a horizontal line through
. The horizontal line intersects
Circle 2 at to the right of . The line through and intersects the point of tangency of the
two circles at and it also
intersects Circle 2 at (the
points and are different). A perpendicular has
also been drawn from to intersecting at .
The line connecting the centres of tangent circles always passes
through the point of tangency, which justifies the implicit claim in the
previous paragraph that passes
through the point of tangency. It also implies that the length of is . Therefore, the coordinates of
are . Since is horizontal by construction, is parallel to the axis, which implies .
Because Circle 2 is rolling along Circle 2 without slipping, the arc
from to the axis along Circle 1 has the same length
as the arc . This means as well since the two
circles have the same radius. Since is a line, we get that .
Suppose has coordinates and has coordinates . The radius of Circle 2 is
, so . This means and . Thus,
where the last equality is by trigonometric identities. Therefore, and . A plot of this
curve is given below.
As Circle 2 rolls around the inside of Circle 1, if a line is
drawn through the point of tangency perpendicular to the mutual tangent,
then the line will pass through the centre of both circles. Such a line
contains a diameter of both circles, and since the radius of Circle 1
equals the diameter of Circle 2, the centre of Circle 1 is always on
Circle 2. In the diagram below, Circle 2 has been rotated by some
positive angle between and . The origin is labelled by
, the current point of tangency is
labelled by , the centre of
Circle 2 is labelled by , the
other point at which Circle 2 intersects the -axis is labelled by , and is labelled by .
We wish to determine the current location of the point on Circle 2
that started at . Circle 2 does
not slip as it rolls, so this point is the same distance from in the clockwise direction along both
circles.
Since is on the circumference
of Circle 2 and is the centre of
Circle 2, a well-known circle property implies that . The radius of
Circle 1 is , so provided we
measure angles in radians, the length of the arc is . The radius of Circle 2 is , so the length of arc is . These quantities are equal, so the arcs and have equal length. Therefore, the
original point of tangency is at .
By drawing similar diagrams for obtuse and reflex angles, it can be
similarly shown that the original point of tangency is always on the
diameter of Circle 1. Now note half the circumference of Circle 1 is
equal in length to the circumference of Circle 2, so when Circle 2 has
rolled exactly half way around Circle 1, the original point of tangency
is exactly where Circle 1 intersects the negative -axis. It follows by symmetry that the
original point of tangency will go from to and back to as Circle 2 rolls around Circle
1.
We will first work out, in general, a pair of parametric
equations for , the original point
of tangency. As in part (d), is
the origin, is the centre of
Circle 2, and the measure of the angle made by the positive -axis and the ray from to is . In the diagram below, a horizontal
line is drawn through
intersecting Circle 2 at to the
right of and the line defined by
, for the same reasoning that was
used in part (d), passes through the mutual point of tangency labelled
by . We label by .
As mentioned, , , and are on a line, and so . Therefore, the coordinates
of are . If we
let be , then by reasoning similar to
that which was used in part (d), the coordinates of are For now, assume that is small enough that Circle 2 has not
yet rolled far enough for to have
returned to the circumference of Circle 1. The length of arc on Circle 2 is equal to the length of
arc on Circle 1, which is equal
to since the radius of Circle 1
is (provided we use radians as
our unit of angle measure). Because is parallel to , , so (note that this angle is measured clockwise from
, so in the diagram, the angle
measures more than radians).
The radius of Circle 2 is , so the
length of arc is . The arcs and are equal, so , which can be solved for
to get , and we note that
, so is positive.
Now suppose that is such that
has already returned to Circle 1
times. Between consecutive times
that returns to Circle 1, the arc
increases in length by , the circumference of Circle 2.
Therefore, instead of the equation , we get since the arc
length from to is still , but to get equality, we need to
account for the complete
revolutions of Circle 2.
Solving this equation for
gives . However, since we will be
taking and of , we can ignore the quantity since is an integer. Therefore, the
coordinates of when makes an angle of with the positive -axis are
Before answering the given questions, we note that if , (that is, the radius of
Circle 2 is twice that of Circle 1), then the coordinates simplify to
, meaning the point always has a -coordinate of . This gives another proof of the result
in (e).
When , the
coordinates of are Using standard
trigonometric identities, one can show that and .
Substituting into the coordinates above, we get leading to the rather tidy
expression for the coordinates of . Therefore, and , so .
For , we get
For , we get
Focusing for a moment on the equations for , if we substitute , we get and , which means the point
initially at on Circle 2 has
not returned to its original position yet. This is because the
circumference of Circle 1 is not an integer multiple of the
circumference of Circle 2. Indeed, the circumference of Circle 1 is
, but the circumference of
Circle 2 is .
When Circle 2 first reaches the point where it is tangent to Circle
at , some points on Circle 2 have been
tangent to Circle 1 more than once. To be precise, , so
every point on Circle 2 has been tangent to Circle 1 at least once, but
the points on an arc of length on Circle 2 have been
tangent to Circle 1 twice. Specifically, since ,
exactly half of the points on Circle 2 have been tangent to Circle 1
twice and the rest have been tangent once.
If Circle 2 rolls around Circle 1 again, then half the points on
Circle 2 will be tangent to Circle 1 exactly twice, and the other half
will be tangent exactly once. This gives a total of three times for each
point. Indeed, , so three times the circumference of Circle 2 is an
integer multiple of the circumference of Circle 1. Therefore, returns to for the first time when the
circumference of Circle 2 wraps around the inside of the circumference
of Circle 1 exactly 2 times.
Algebraically, if we substitute , we get and , so the curve for is travelled periodically
every two times Circle 2 rolls along Circle 1.
To avoid confusion, we will refer to the circle with as Circle 3 and the circle
with as Circle 2.
The circumference of Circle 1 is an integer multiple of the
circumference of Circle 3, so point reaches after Circle 3 rolls around Circle
1 exactly once.
Suppose the centre of Circle 3 revolves around the origin at a rate
of radian per second and the
centre of Circle 2 revolves around the origin at a rate of radians per second. By assuming this,
we will have that both circles take exactly seconds for to return to its original position for
the first time.
If Circle 3 is instead rolled clockwise around Circle 1, then the
position of will be where and are as given for above. This is because,
for example, point is in the same
position after rolling radians counterclockwise
as it would be if it had rolled radians clockwise.
Thus, if Circle 3 rotated clockwise instead of counterclockwise, its
position at time is given by
where
If Circle 2 is rotated counterclockwise
(as before) at radians per
second, then at time the angle is
, and so the coordinates of are
which are the exact same coordinates as
Circle 3 at time . Of course, if
Circle 3 is rotated clockwise, then it travels the same path as if it
were rotated counterclockwise but in the opposite direction. Thus, if
both Circle 2 and Circle 3 are rotated counterclockwise, then travels the same path in opposite
directions.
Problem 8: May 2024
Problem
This month’s problem is an extension of Question
4 from the 2024 Galois Contest. It is not necessary to try the
problem before attempting the questions below.
In an rectangular
grid, we say that two cells are neighbours if they share an
edge. The neighbourhood of a cell is the cell itself along with
its neighbours.
An grid is called a
Griffin Grid if each of its cells contains either a or a and the integer in every cell is equal
to the product of the other integers in its neighbourhood.
For example, the grid
below is a Griffin Grid. The three shaded regions are the neighbourhoods of the cells in Row 1 and Column 1, Row 1 and Column 8, and Row 4 and Column 4.
The Galois problem restricted this definition to . Here we want to explore what happens
more generally. If a question is marked with an asterisk , it means I was unable to solve it.
Solutions will not be provided for these problems, but I would love to
hear if you solve one!
Show that an grid
with or in every cell is a Griffin Grid if and
only if the cells in every neighbourhood have a product of .
For every , determine the
number of , , and Griffin Grids. Determining the
number of Griffin Grids
in general is essentially what is required to answer part (c) of the
Galois question.
Show that the number of Griffin Grids is of the form for some integer with .
* For general , determine
for which there exists with the property that the number of
Griffin Grids is exactly
.
Show that for all there
exist infinitely many for which
there is exactly one
Griffin Grid.
Show that for all there
exist infinitely many for which
there are distinct Griffin Grids.
* Find a simple general way to calculate the number of Griffin Grids.
Hint
No hint given.
Once the integers are
placed in the leftmost column of a Griffin Grid, the rest of the
integers in the grid are uniquely determined.
The definition of a Griffin Grid can be extended to infinite grids.
It is useful to consider the infinite (in one direction) grid with rows and infinitely many columns
numbered , , , and so on indefinitely. In such an
infinite Griffin Grid, the first
columns form an Griffin
Grid if and only if the st column consists
entirely of s.
Instead of filling in the infinite grid with s and s, fill the first column with variables,
then start to fill in the grid in general. Keep in mind that the only
values that the variables will ever take is and , so you can assume that every variable
squares to . For example, if and the variables are (in the top cell) and (in the bottom cell), then both
variables in the second column are , the third column is identical to the
first column, and the fourth column has in both cells. Using the observation at
the end of the previous paragraph, the number of Griffin Grids is always equal
to the set of solutions to a very specific type of system of
equations.
See hint for (b).
No hint given.
Use the same approach as is outlined for part (c) above. You want
to show that there are always lots of columns that give rise to systems
of equations that have many solutions and lots that give rise to systems
with very few solutions. For example, if the st column (in the general
grid with variables) consists entirely of s, then there are different Griffin Grids.
See hint for (e).
No hint given.
Solution
Suppose an grid
with a or in every cell is a Griffin Grid.
Consider an arbitrary cell and
suppose it contains the integer
(so or ). Let be the product of the integers in the
neighbours of . Since the grid is
a Griffin Grid, we have . The
product of the integers in the neighbourhood of is , since .
Now suppose an grid
has a or a in every cell and that the product of
the integers in every neighbourhood is . Let be an arbitrary cell, let be the integer in , and let be the product of the integers in the
neighbours of . To verify that the
grid is a Griffin Grid, we need to show that .
We are assuming that , and
we know that and because it is the product of some
integers, all of which are either
or . If and were different, then their product
would be , not . Therefore, .
Using similar reasoning to that which was used in part (a), it
can be shown that an grid
with or in every cell is a Griffin Grid if and
only if for every neighbourhood in the grid, the integer in each cell in
the neighbourhood is equal to the product of the other cells in that
neighbourhood.
In any grid with or in every cell, there are only four possibilities for the first column. They are shown below.
As suggested in the hint, we will now try to understand Griffin Grids
with rows and infinitely many
columns. We will refer to such a grid as a Griffin Grid.
The second column can be completely determined from the first column
using the observation at the beginning of this part of the solution.
Specifically, consider the two neighbourhoods highlighted below:
In both of these three-cell neighbourhoods, the integer in the second
column is equal to the product of the integers in the first column.
Thus, for each of the four possible first columns, we can compute the
second column as follows:
From here, we can see that there is exactly one Griffin Grid. This is because
there are only four possible ways to fill in the first column, and if a
grid is to be a Griffin
Grid, then its second column must be filled in according to the
appropriate grid above. If we imagine "chopping off" the first two
columns of the infinite grids above, only the first of the four grids gives a Griffin Grid.
Continuing in this way, we can examine Griffin Grids by filling in the
next column. This can be done using the neighbourhoods shown below.
Similar to before, the integers in these neighbourhoods that are in
the third column are equal to the product of the integers (in the
respective neighbourhood) in the first two columns. Thus, if the cells
in the first two columns contain the integers , , , and , as shown, then the cells in the third column are as shown.
However, we can simplify this a little bit. From earlier, we know
that . As well, since each of the
variables , , , and can only take the values and . Therefore, and . We now have the
following simpler and completely general version of the first three
columns of a Griffin Grid.
In the same way that the third column was computed from the first and
second columns, we can compute the fourth column from the second and
third columns. After doing this, we get the diagram below. There is a
thick vertical line separating the first three columns from the rest of the grid.
Consider the six cells to the left of the thick line as a grid. The four integers in the
first two columns are equal to the products of their neighbours by
construction. Denote by the cell
in the first row and the third column. The integer in is . By construction, the to its right has been chosen so that
the product of the neighbourhood of , including the to its right, is . However, this means the product of the
cells in its neighbourhood that are to the left of the vertical line is
also equal to (since divided by is ). These three cells (left of , below , and itself) contain integers that have a
product of .
A similar argument can be used on the cell below to confirm that the grid to the left of the thick
line is a Griffin Grid. This is completely independent of the choice of
and . There are two possibilities for each
of and , so there are Griffin Grids of size . They are
This approach can be generalized to determine the number of Griffin Grids. To explain this,
we first continue to fill out a few more columns in the grid. We will call the
Griffin Grid filled in by starting with variables in the first column
and letting them propagate in the way described above the variable Griffin
Grid.
By similar reasoning to before, the first columns of a Griffin Grid will form a
Griffin Grid exactly when
both integers in the st column equal . If we examine the variable Griffin Grid, the
number of ways to assign values to and so that both integers in the st column are will be equal to the number of Griffin Grids.
For example, to count the Griffin Grids, we look at the th column of the variable Griffin Grid. Both
cells contain . Thus, the first
five columns form a
Griffin Grid if and only if .
This happens when and when
, so there are exactly two
Griffin Grids. Similarly,
to count Griffin Grids,
we count the number of ways to choose and so that the th column of the variable Griffin Grid
contains only . The th column contains and , so we get a Griffin Grid only when . Thus, there is exactly one Griffin Grid.
Now notice that the columns of the variable Griffin Grid
appear to repeat. Indeed, since each column after the second is computed
from the previous two columns, as soon as a pair of two consecutive
columns appears for a second time, the columns must repeat. The first
and second columns are identical to the fifth and sixth columns, so the
columns in the
variable Griffin Grid must repeat with period . This means the number of Griffin Grids is always the
same as the number of
Griffin Grids.
The number of Griffin
Grids is (this can be seen using
the method described above). The number of Griffin Grids is (this was noted earlier but can also be
checked using the method described above). The number of Griffin Grids is , and the number of Griffin Grids is . This repeats, so we get the
following:
If is even, then there is
only one Griffin
Grid.
If is one more than a
multiple of , then there are two
Griffin Grids.
If is three more than a
multiple of , then there are four
Griffin Grids.
As with Griffin Grids,
we can fill in the
variable Griffin Grid starting with , , and in the first column. As before, we can
assume . Filling out
subsequent columns until we see a repetition, we get the following:
A grid with three rows and the leftmost fourteen columns filled in. Each entry is either an expression in variables ,
, and , or the number . The entries are given in the following
table with three rows and fourteen columns:
To determine the number of Griffin Grids, we need to find all ways to choose , , and so that the integers in the second
column are all . In other words,
we need all solutions to the system of where , , and are all .
The equations and can be multiplied to get or , so . We can multiply this equation by
to get or . Finally, multiplying by gives so . This method of solving probably
seems unnecessarily complicated, but it generalizes nicely. We have
shown that the only solution to the system is . Therefore, there is only one
Griffin Grid.
To determine the number of Griffin Grids, we need to count the number of ways to choose
, , and to each be so that the entries in the third
column are all . The middle
integer is always , so this cell
is regardless of how , , and are chosen. The other two equations are
both , so this time the number
of Griffin Grids is equal to the number of solutions to the system with
just the equation , where , , and must all be .
This system does not restrict
beyond . For , we need either or . This means there are solutions ( choices for and two independent choices for the
equal value of and ). There are four Griffin Grids.
Continuing in this way, we can count the number of Griffin Grids of
size for through . After that the number of Griffin
Grids repeats with period . The
number of Griffin Grids
are summarized in the table below.
# of Griffin Grids
, , , , , , , or more than a multiple of
or more than a multiple of
or more than a multiple of
Finally, we leave as an exercise that the number of Griffin Grids of
size is if is a multiple of and otherwise.
Suppose , , , are variables and , , are each the product of some of the
. By convention, we consider a
single variable to be a product. For example, it might be that . We will also allow the to be , the so-called "empty product". We will
show that the number of solutions to the system is a power of , provided each is restricted to the values and . Since each , we have that , so we can assume that no
equation mentions a variable more than once. Following the work from
part (b), the number of
Griffin Grids is always equal to the number of solutions to such a
system of equations, so this will prove that the number of Griffin Grids
is always a power of .
The key observation is the following: For any with , the system of equations above has the exact same set
of solutions as the system That is, if we modify the system by
multiplying one equation by another equation, the solution set does not
change. To see why this is true, we first suppose that
is a solution to the original system. Every equation in the second
system appears in the original system except , so all equations in the second
system except are
automatically satisfied by the choice of the . By assumption, and , so we also have as well. We have confirmed that
is a solution to the second system.
A nearly identical argument shows that a solution to the second
system is also a solution to the first system, proving that the two
systems have the exact same set of solutions.
We will now prove that the number of solutions is a power of by induction on , the number of variables.
If , then the only possible
equations are and . If appears, then there is one
solution. If does not appear,
then all equations are , so the
equations to not restrict the value of beyond and . Therefore, the number of
solutions is either or , both of which is a power of .
Now suppose the number of solutions to such a system of equations in
at most variables is always a
power of .
Consider a system of equations in variables, through . If it happens to be that none of the
equations mention , then the
system can be viewed as having at most variables. By induction, the number
of solutions to this system (with ignored) is a power of . That is, the number of ways to choose
values of through so that the equations are all
satisfied is for some
non-negative integer .
Since is not mentioned in
the equations, every one of these solutions allows us to choose or . Therefore, the system has solutions.
Now suppose appears in at
least one equation. By possibly reordering the equations, we can assume
that mentions the variable
. Consider the system where if does not mention , and if mentions . In other words, equations from through that mention get multiplied by and the others are left alone. From
earlier, the new system has the same solutions as the original
system.
If mentions , then it must mention it exactly
once. This means the equation
mentions exactly twice, but
these occurrences can be deleted since .
The point is that we have converted the given system to a new system
that has the same solution set and is the only equation that mentions
. Now consider the system which does not mention . By induction, the number of
solutions to this system is for
some non-negative integer . Each
such solution to this smaller system is an assignment of values to the
variables through . Once these values are chosen,
the equation , which mentions
, will determine the value of
.
Therefore, the number of solutions to the original system is . Using induction, we have now shown
that the number of solutions to any system of this type is a power of
. Therefore, the number of Griffin Grids is always a power
of .
Finally, note that the system arising from the variable Griffin Grid
always has variables. There are
at most ways to assign a value
of or to each variable, so the number of
solutions must be a power of that
is at most .
No solution provided.
Once again, we imagine filling in the variable Griffin Grid
starting with variables in the first column.
Every cell in the grid contains either or the product of some of through , where each variable appears at most
once in such a product. There are exactly possible expressions that can go in
the cells. In any two consecutive columns, there are cells, which means there are possible ways that the
cells in two consecutive columns
can be filled. In practice, not all of these possibilities will actually
occur.
Among the first
columns, there are pairs
of consecutive columns, which means there must be two pairs of
consecutive columns that are identical.
Since there are two identical pairs of consecutive columns, we can
choose the earliest ones. More precisely, let be the smallest positive integer such
that there is with the
property that the th
column equals the th
column and the st
column equals the st column.
Suppose that . Let be the products in column let be the products in column , and let be the products in column .
By construction, we have that (after possibly removing
the squares of some variables). This equation can be multiplied on both
sides by to get the equation
. Since
the square of every variable in
and is , we also have , so .
We also have that , and it similarly
follows that .
Continuing in this way, we get that each can be computed in terms of the and . In other words, column can be computed directly from columns
and .
Because of our assumptions about and , it follows that column must be equal to column . However, this means columns and are identical to columns and , which contradicts the minimality of
.
We conclude that is
impossible, so it must be that
which means column equals column
and column equals column .
Therefore, the products in column are all single variables, and in fact,
they are the variables , , , in order from top to bottom. The only
way to assign the variables so that the entire column contains is to set , , and so on to . Therefore, there is exactly one
Griffin
Grid.
Most of the work was done in part (e). Let’s assume that column
equals column and column equals column . Thus, we are assuming that the entries
in column are , , , from top to bottom and that the
entries in column are , , , , , from top to bottom.
Suppose that , , , are the products in column . The top cell in column contains since column equals column . The expression must also be by the way the variable Griffin Grid is
filled in. From ,
we get .
Looking at the second cell in column , we have that it is equal to , but it is also equal to , and so .
Continuing in this way, we get that every entry in column equals . Since any assignment of values to
, , , will lead to column having all s, we conclude that there are Griffin Grids of size . As a final note, observe
that column 1 and column 2 always (for every ) contain products that are not equal to
, so we know that , from which it follows that
. This means we do not need
to worry about the possibility that .