More storage
by math154, Jan 3, 2012, 3:29 AM
1. (Sierpinski) Prove that for all
there exists a
such that more than
prime numbers can be written in the form
for some integer
, where
is a nonconstant monic polynomial.
Solution
2. (ROM TST 1996) Let
and consider a set
of
pairwise distinct positive integers smaller than or equal to
. Prove that one can find nine distinct numbers
and three nonzero integers
such that
,
, and
.
Solution
3. (USA TST 2003) For a pair
of integers with
, a subset
of
is called a skipping set for
if
for any
. Let
be the maximum size of a skipping set for
. Determine the maximum and minimum values of
.
Solution
4. (Erdős and Selfridge) Find all positive integers
with the following property: for any real numbers
, knowing the numbers
,
, determines the values
uniquely.
Solution
5. (Brouwer-Schrijver) Prove that the minimal cardinality of a subset of
that intersects all hyperplanes is
.
Solution





![$f\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/1/9/119792ece753aa569a509d6f54a0a9f7f9ccc014.png)
Solution
Let
. For fixed
, let
denote the number of positive
such that
is prime, and suppose for the sake of contradiction that there exists some
such that
for all
. Fix a real
; if
is the set of primes, then










\[\begin{align*} N\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{1}{k^s} &\ge\sum_{k\ge1}\frac{g(k)}{k^s} \\ &=\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\sum_{1\le f(T)for some
independent of
. Any
gives the desired contradiction, since the sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges.
Edit: Thanks.
2. (ROM TST 1996) Let









Solution
The key is to realize that we probably want to use pigeonhole somehow (the
and
are rather ugly for an inductive argument). But this is not really related to the geometry of numbers since we have at least as many equations as variables, so we want to "fix" some sort of vector
and then find the
's from there (the three vectors
, etc. are orthogonal to
).
Now we want to get a feel of the most natural way to fix
. Note that we can parameterize all solutions to
by
This gives us the idea of fixing
(all nonzero for pigeonhole to work out).
Intuitively, to get the best bounds for this simplest case, we want to take
(or all
). (Furthermore, if we had, say,
, then it would be hard to control the requirement that
are all nonzero.) Luckily, the rest works out easily: to make
as small as possible (for pigeonhole to work optimally, since we know all the
are less than or equal to
), let the elements of
be
, and for the
, choose from the first set of
indices, for
, choose from the second set of
indices, and for
, choose from the last set of
indices. We get a total of
(optimal by AM-GM)
(note that
and
), yet only
triples with
and
are possible in the first place (to count all possible triples, we can assume the smallest number chosen is
and then choose two larger values in the range
), so by pigeonhole, some
must occur at least
times, as desired.






Now we want to get a feel of the most natural way to fix


![\[(x,y,z)=(sb-tc,rc-sa,ta-rb).\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/6/1/a61a0691f211ac68254bd29c6f0536a29f57cd5e.png)

Intuitively, to get the best bounds for this simplest case, we want to take























![$[2,n^3]$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/9/0/190b163fcdebd34730f1948a1c136e57d3fe3692.png)


3. (USA TST 2003) For a pair










Solution
Let
.
For the minimum, note that we can keep doing the following: take
, which kills at most two others in
(
if they're in
), and repeat with the new set
. Each time we remove at most
elements, so we end up with at least
elements, which is realized for
.
For the maximum, we first analyze the one variable case to gain some intuition: of course, for fixed
, we can just consider each residue modulo
separately (and it's just alternating in
, out
, etc. for a fixed residue), where the best ratio is around
, achieved for
for
.
With the proof and construction for the one variable case in mind, we suspect that
for
will give the maximum (we know it can't be far). Indeed, we can get
with
.
It remains to show that
always. Assume for the sake of contradiction that
for some
.
First we get some crude estimations from
alone: letting
for
and
, we get
If
is odd, this becomes
, and if
is even, then
.
Hence
. If
, then
, so
and from the previous paragraph,
. Thus
, so because equality holds everywhere, we must have
, which contradicts
.
Otherwise, if
, then
, so
, contradiction.

For the minimum, note that we can keep doing the following: take








For the maximum, we first analyze the one variable case to gain some intuition: of course, for fixed







With the proof and construction for the one variable case in mind, we suspect that




It remains to show that



First we get some crude estimations from




![\[1335\le f(a,b)\le f(a) = \lceil{(q+1)/2}\rceil r+\lceil{q/2}\rceil (a-r).\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/1/d/d1d66c4771c0c5fb8ec65c5f1f5efa297a1613bd.png)




Hence








Otherwise, if



4. (Erdős and Selfridge) Find all positive integers





Solution
The property (say, goodness) holds iff for every two "polynomials"
and
(with real but not necessarily integer exponents), then
.
We'll show that
is good iff it's not a power of 2. To do this, we want to do some sort of bounding with values in
(maybe
), algebraic manipulation (especially either using
to telescope products some way or differentiation), or just special values. Screwing around, it turns out differentiation is pretty helpful here.
If
is not a power of 2, then by the general Leibniz rule on
and the fact that
for some polynomials
(both facts are easily proven by induction), we can show by induction on
(base case is just
) that (sorry for sloppiness, but this is assuming the strong inductive hypothesis for
)
which implies
for all
. Thus (by induction/Stirling numbers)
for all integers
, so by easy bounding considerations
.
Otherwise, let
. For the construction, we take
to be actual polynomials (i.e. with integer exponents), so taking the induction from the previous paragraph up until
, we have that
for some polynomial
. Plugging this in, we have
. We can just take
(identically); then the sets of numbers corresponding to
and
suffice.
Edit: There's a cleaner way using rational approximation (assume all the guys are large integers). If
is a root of
with multiplicity
, then
for some
. But then
means that
is a power of 2, as desired.



We'll show that

![$[0,1]$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/8/6/e861e10e1c19918756b9c8b7717684593c63aeb8.png)


If

![$[f(x)f(x)]^{(m)}$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/4/c/54cd75085605e25a31511cb243fbbff62a84251e.png)
![\[[f(x^2)]^{(m)} = (2x)^{m}f^{(m)}(x^2)+\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}P_{m,j}(x)f^{(j)}(x^2)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/1/7/e1719e74c1e1c93eb39f7edcbadcb4df164423ff.png)




![\[2^m(f^{(m)}(1)-g^{(m)}(1)) = 2n[f^{(m)}(1)-g^{(m)}(1)],\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/f/0/8/f08ea9124c9dfc81fe869313dbb47988d8cf0505.png)





Otherwise, let







![$f(x)=[(x+1)^{m+1}+(x-1)^{m+1}]/2$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/c/2/8/c28cff6c1953fb9402a54167c82d8ad060940ca8.png)
![$g(x)=[(x+1)^{m+1}-(x-1)^{m+1}]/2$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/f/7/ef76f8370adf9dc8f8ad90b26e0cf37cb91939d1.png)
Edit: There's a cleaner way using rational approximation (assume all the guys are large integers). If







5. (Brouwer-Schrijver) Prove that the minimal cardinality of a subset of


Solution
Suppose by way of contradiction that there's a set
intersecting all hyperplanes with
. WLOG
; now consider the polynomial (over
)
where
is taken so that
. Since
,
. Since the coefficient of
in
is nonzero, CNS guarantees
such that
(
), whence
does not intersect the plane
(obviously
does not belong to it, and because
, the second part of
vanishes at
and so the first cannot, whence
does not intersect the plane either), contradiction.
On the other hand, the construction for
is obvious: just take
the set of
with at least
of the
's zero (if a plane does not contain the origin, it's WLOG of the form
with
, and so
works).
Comment: This extends directly to any finite field
.




![\[f(x)=\prod_{s\in S'=S\setminus0}(\langle{x,s}\rangle - 1)+C\prod_{i=1}^{d}\prod_{j=1}^{p-1}(x_i-j),\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/2/d/a2de23b2953566e0ae97d69b28880a4428fe1240.png)
















On the other hand, the construction for








Comment: This extends directly to any finite field

This post has been edited 8 times. Last edited by math154, Dec 9, 2012, 11:06 PM