So I haven't updated in a long time... Here's some random stuff.
1. 3-D proofs for Brianchon and Pascal.
Click to reveal hidden textThis proof only works for non-degenerate cases (for Brianchon,

all distinct points on opposite sides; for Pascal, no two opposite sides parallel)

circumscribes the circle with tangency points
(
on
, 
on
, etc.)
lift stuff alternately by constant angles so that

is above,

is below
, etc. so that

is a plane, etc.
now we get three planes of the form
,
, etc. that are not the same, but have pairwise intersections exactly equal to lines
,
,
, which means that the three planes must intersect in a point, which must lie on all three lines; now project everything onto the plane of

to get a proof of brianchon
for pascal, note that

are coplanar, so

and

intersect at a point on the line equal to the intersection of planes

and
, which also contains

and
if
,
,
, then the plane

(possibly degenerate, but then the result's obvious) intersects plane

at a line containing
,
,
, so we're done
2. Let

be positive rational numbers and let

be integers greater than 1. If
, show that
![$\sqrt[k_i]{a_i}\in\mathbb{Q}$](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/e/9/1e98b3af4db054d32f00d529032658c15875251a.png)
for all
.
Click to reveal hidden textLet

and go by contradiction. For motivation we look at the

case. WLOG

are ``minimal'' in the sense that

for
. Then our assumption is equivalent to

for all
.
Note that

is the minimal polynomial of

over the rationals, so
. But then
; by symmetry

and we can easily get a contradiction by considering the
![$[x^{k_1-1}]$](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/1/3/a131a3600dec6f0f8fc7d7d771d8e0224b7b78cc.png)
coefficients.
In a similar vein,
![\[x^{k_1}-a_1\mid \prod_{\omega_i^{k_i}=1,2\le i\le n}(S-x-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_i a_i^{1/k_i})\in\mathbb{Q}[x],\]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/c/e/1ce1cb394f58859b98d50fe5b410b813d4c9a5a1.png)
so for some choice of
th roots of unity

and (any) nontrivial
th root of unity
, we have
. But then
![\[ 0=\Re(S-S) = \Re(a_1^{1/k_1}(1-\omega_1))+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\Re((1-\omega_i)a_i^{1/k_i}) > \sum_{i=2}^{n}\Re((1-\omega_i)a_i^{1/k_i}) \ge 0,\]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/2/3/9/2399ccddd04a1f97962cffb620d26fa61541fa66.png)
contradiction. (We can also take magnitudes and use the triangle inequality: for equality, the

must be in the same positive direction since the

are all positive, but then

would be in
.)
3. (Russia 1998) Each square of a

square board contains either

or
. Such an arrangement is deemed successful if each number is the product of its neighbors. Find the number of successful arrangements.
Click to reveal hidden textFor

there are two; we restrict our attention to
. Let
. Take the

of each entry so we're working in

instead; we're choosing some of the

entires to be 1. Viewing this as the equation

(where boundary cases are 0 for convenience), we can set up a matrix equation

where

iff entries

and

(there are

total) are neighboring, and

has a 1 for each entry

we include in the successful arrangement.
We show by induction on

that

(whence

must be the all-zero vector and there's exactly one solution)---note that for

the matrix equation doesn't actually correspond to the original problem, but this is not an issue. To do this, observe that

(as we're working
). Now for a fixed permutation

that contributes 1 to the sum (i.e. doesn't vanish), draw an arrow from

to

for each
; we get a partition of the original

board into disjoint directed cycles of size 1 or

for some

(arrows connect neighboring elements---these directed cycles correspond to permutation cycles). These cycles are nontrivially ``reversible'' iff
, so pairing up the permutations with their reversals (this corresponds to
), we're left (mod 2, of course) with the number of tilings of the

grid using
,
, and

tiles. Reflecting over the horizontal axis we're left with horizontally symmetric tilings; now reflecting over the vertical axis we're left with tilings that are both horizontally and vertically symmetric.
For odd

it's easy to check that

where
,
, 
is Fibonacci, as all dominoes intersecting one of two axes must lie within the axes (by symmetry). By induction we get
.
Comment. We can use this kind of symmetry argument directly on the original problem (e.g. consider the product of a successful arrangement with its vertical reflection, which results in another successful arrangement), which is slightly weaker but still works for the particular problem (we don't immediately get
), but the linear algebra setting is perhaps more motivated. It may be possible to do nontrivial general analysis on

boards using the same recursive linear algebra ideas, but when both of

are even it seems hard to reduce the problem.
4. (Russia 2010) Let

be a connected graph disconnected by the removal of (all of the edges of) any odd cycle. Prove that

is 4-partite.
Click to reveal hidden textSince we need to find a 4-(vertex)-coloring, the following lemma will help:
Lemma. Let

be two positive integers. A graph

is
-colorable iff there exists an edge partition

such that

and

are
- and
-colorable, respectively.
Proof. Just use product coloring for the ``if'' direction: we can assign the color

to a vertex colored

in
, respectively.
Conversely, if

is
-colorable, then split the graph into

sets
, each containing the vertices of exactly

colors; we can then take

defined by

and
, which are
- and
-colorable, respectively. Alternatively, label the

colors

for

and

and define

by the first and second coordinates, respectively---the induced subgraphs

are clearly
- and
-colorable, and we can then remove duplicate edges from

until we get an edge partition. (The idea is that independent sets behave like single vertices, and

can easily be split in the desired form.)
In view of the lemma, we try to find an edge partition such that

and

are both bipartite.
Let

be a maximal bipartite subgraph; then we can't add any more edges to

without inducing an odd cycle. Now assume for the sake of contradiction that

(where
) has an odd cycle
,
. By the maximality of
, 
and

(indices modulo
) are connected by a (simple) path of even length in

(i.e. with edges in
) for all
, so in particular

are connected in

for all
. Then since

is connected, every vertex

is connected in

to at least one vertex of
, whence

must be connected as well, contradicting the problem hypothesis. Hence

must be bipartite and since

is bipartite by construction, we're done by the lemma.
Comment. In fact, we could've taken

to be a maximal forest (any spanning tree) instead of a maximal bipartite graph.
In other news, December TST is this Thursday and MIT decisions
should will come out
soon Saturday.
This post has been edited 10 times. Last edited by math154, May 9, 2013, 2:29 PM