We have your learning goals covered with Spring and Summer courses available. Enroll today!

G
Topic
First Poster
Last Poster
k a My Retirement & New Leadership at AoPS
rrusczyk   1571
N Mar 26, 2025 by SmartGroot
I write today to announce my retirement as CEO from Art of Problem Solving. When I founded AoPS 22 years ago, I never imagined that we would reach so many students and families, or that we would find so many channels through which we discover, inspire, and train the great problem solvers of the next generation. I am very proud of all we have accomplished and I’m thankful for the many supporters who provided inspiration and encouragement along the way. I'm particularly grateful to all of the wonderful members of the AoPS Community!

I’m delighted to introduce our new leaders - Ben Kornell and Andrew Sutherland. Ben has extensive experience in education and edtech prior to joining AoPS as my successor as CEO, including starting like I did as a classroom teacher. He has a deep understanding of the value of our work because he’s an AoPS parent! Meanwhile, Andrew and I have common roots as founders of education companies; he launched Quizlet at age 15! His journey from founder to MIT to technology and product leader as our Chief Product Officer traces a pathway many of our students will follow in the years to come.

Thank you again for your support for Art of Problem Solving and we look forward to working with millions more wonderful problem solvers in the years to come.

And special thanks to all of the amazing AoPS team members who have helped build AoPS. We’ve come a long way from here:IMAGE
1571 replies
rrusczyk
Mar 24, 2025
SmartGroot
Mar 26, 2025
k a March Highlights and 2025 AoPS Online Class Information
jlacosta   0
Mar 2, 2025
March is the month for State MATHCOUNTS competitions! Kudos to everyone who participated in their local chapter competitions and best of luck to all going to State! Join us on March 11th for a Math Jam devoted to our favorite Chapter competition problems! Are you interested in training for MATHCOUNTS? Be sure to check out our AMC 8/MATHCOUNTS Basics and Advanced courses.

Are you ready to level up with Olympiad training? Registration is open with early bird pricing available for our WOOT programs: MathWOOT (Levels 1 and 2), CodeWOOT, PhysicsWOOT, and ChemWOOT. What is WOOT? WOOT stands for Worldwide Online Olympiad Training and is a 7-month high school math Olympiad preparation and testing program that brings together many of the best students from around the world to learn Olympiad problem solving skills. Classes begin in September!

Do you have plans this summer? There are so many options to fit your schedule and goals whether attending a summer camp or taking online classes, it can be a great break from the routine of the school year. Check out our summer courses at AoPS Online, or if you want a math or language arts class that doesn’t have homework, but is an enriching summer experience, our AoPS Virtual Campus summer camps may be just the ticket! We are expanding our locations for our AoPS Academies across the country with 15 locations so far and new campuses opening in Saratoga CA, Johns Creek GA, and the Upper West Side NY. Check out this page for summer camp information.

Be sure to mark your calendars for the following events:
[list][*]March 5th (Wednesday), 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, HCSSiM Math Jam 2025. Amber Verser, Assistant Director of the Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, will host an information session about HCSSiM, a summer program for high school students.
[*]March 6th (Thursday), 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Free Webinar on Math Competitions from elementary through high school. Join us for an enlightening session that demystifies the world of math competitions and helps you make informed decisions about your contest journey.
[*]March 11th (Tuesday), 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, 2025 MATHCOUNTS Chapter Discussion MATH JAM. AoPS instructors will discuss some of their favorite problems from the MATHCOUNTS Chapter Competition. All are welcome!
[*]March 13th (Thursday), 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Free Webinar about Summer Camps at the Virtual Campus. Transform your summer into an unforgettable learning adventure! From elementary through high school, we offer dynamic summer camps featuring topics in mathematics, language arts, and competition preparation - all designed to fit your schedule and ignite your passion for learning.[/list]
Our full course list for upcoming classes is below:
All classes run 7:30pm-8:45pm ET/4:30pm - 5:45pm PT unless otherwise noted.

Introductory: Grades 5-10

Prealgebra 1 Self-Paced

Prealgebra 1
Sunday, Mar 2 - Jun 22
Friday, Mar 28 - Jul 18
Sunday, Apr 13 - Aug 10
Tuesday, May 13 - Aug 26
Thursday, May 29 - Sep 11
Sunday, Jun 15 - Oct 12
Monday, Jun 30 - Oct 20
Wednesday, Jul 16 - Oct 29

Prealgebra 2 Self-Paced

Prealgebra 2
Tuesday, Mar 25 - Jul 8
Sunday, Apr 13 - Aug 10
Wednesday, May 7 - Aug 20
Monday, Jun 2 - Sep 22
Sunday, Jun 29 - Oct 26
Friday, Jul 25 - Nov 21


Introduction to Algebra A Self-Paced

Introduction to Algebra A
Sunday, Mar 23 - Jul 20
Monday, Apr 7 - Jul 28
Sunday, May 11 - Sep 14 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Wednesday, May 14 - Aug 27
Friday, May 30 - Sep 26
Monday, Jun 2 - Sep 22
Sunday, Jun 15 - Oct 12
Thursday, Jun 26 - Oct 9
Tuesday, Jul 15 - Oct 28

Introduction to Counting & Probability Self-Paced

Introduction to Counting & Probability
Sunday, Mar 16 - Jun 8
Wednesday, Apr 16 - Jul 2
Thursday, May 15 - Jul 31
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Wednesday, Jul 9 - Sep 24
Sunday, Jul 27 - Oct 19

Introduction to Number Theory
Monday, Mar 17 - Jun 9
Thursday, Apr 17 - Jul 3
Friday, May 9 - Aug 1
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Monday, Jun 9 - Aug 25
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Tuesday, Jul 15 - Sep 30

Introduction to Algebra B Self-Paced

Introduction to Algebra B
Sunday, Mar 2 - Jun 22
Wednesday, Apr 16 - Jul 30
Tuesday, May 6 - Aug 19
Wednesday, Jun 4 - Sep 17
Sunday, Jun 22 - Oct 19
Friday, Jul 18 - Nov 14

Introduction to Geometry
Tuesday, Mar 4 - Aug 12
Sunday, Mar 23 - Sep 21
Wednesday, Apr 23 - Oct 1
Sunday, May 11 - Nov 9
Tuesday, May 20 - Oct 28
Monday, Jun 16 - Dec 8
Friday, Jun 20 - Jan 9
Sunday, Jun 29 - Jan 11
Monday, Jul 14 - Jan 19

Intermediate: Grades 8-12

Intermediate Algebra
Sunday, Mar 16 - Sep 14
Tuesday, Mar 25 - Sep 2
Monday, Apr 21 - Oct 13
Sunday, Jun 1 - Nov 23
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Nov 18
Wednesday, Jun 25 - Dec 10
Sunday, Jul 13 - Jan 18
Thursday, Jul 24 - Jan 22

Intermediate Counting & Probability
Sunday, Mar 23 - Aug 3
Wednesday, May 21 - Sep 17
Sunday, Jun 22 - Nov 2

Intermediate Number Theory
Friday, Apr 11 - Jun 27
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Wednesday, Jun 18 - Sep 3

Precalculus
Sunday, Mar 16 - Aug 24
Wednesday, Apr 9 - Sep 3
Friday, May 16 - Oct 24
Sunday, Jun 1 - Nov 9
Monday, Jun 30 - Dec 8

Advanced: Grades 9-12

Olympiad Geometry
Wednesday, Mar 5 - May 21
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Aug 26

Calculus
Sunday, Mar 30 - Oct 5
Tuesday, May 27 - Nov 11
Wednesday, Jun 25 - Dec 17

Group Theory
Thursday, Jun 12 - Sep 11

Contest Preparation: Grades 6-12

MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Basics
Sunday, Mar 23 - Jun 15
Wednesday, Apr 16 - Jul 2
Friday, May 23 - Aug 15
Monday, Jun 2 - Aug 18
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Advanced
Friday, Apr 11 - Jun 27
Sunday, May 11 - Aug 10
Tuesday, May 27 - Aug 12
Wednesday, Jun 11 - Aug 27
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

AMC 10 Problem Series
Tuesday, Mar 4 - May 20
Monday, Mar 31 - Jun 23
Friday, May 9 - Aug 1
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Tuesday, Jun 17 - Sep 2
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

AMC 10 Final Fives
Sunday, May 11 - Jun 8
Tuesday, May 27 - Jun 17
Monday, Jun 30 - Jul 21

AMC 12 Problem Series
Tuesday, May 27 - Aug 12
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Wednesday, Aug 6 - Oct 22

AMC 12 Final Fives
Sunday, May 18 - Jun 15

F=ma Problem Series
Wednesday, Jun 11 - Aug 27

WOOT Programs
Visit the pages linked for full schedule details for each of these programs!


MathWOOT Level 1
MathWOOT Level 2
ChemWOOT
CodeWOOT
PhysicsWOOT

Programming

Introduction to Programming with Python
Monday, Mar 24 - Jun 16
Thursday, May 22 - Aug 7
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Tuesday, Jun 17 - Sep 2
Monday, Jun 30 - Sep 22

Intermediate Programming with Python
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Monday, Jun 30 - Sep 22

USACO Bronze Problem Series
Tuesday, May 13 - Jul 29
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 1

Physics

Introduction to Physics
Sunday, Mar 30 - Jun 22
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15

Physics 1: Mechanics
Tuesday, Mar 25 - Sep 2
Thursday, May 22 - Oct 30
Monday, Jun 23 - Dec 15

Relativity
Sat & Sun, Apr 26 - Apr 27 (4:00 - 7:00 pm ET/1:00 - 4:00pm PT)
Mon, Tue, Wed & Thurs, Jun 23 - Jun 26 (meets every day of the week!)
0 replies
jlacosta
Mar 2, 2025
0 replies
k i Adding contests to the Contest Collections
dcouchman   1
N Apr 5, 2023 by v_Enhance
Want to help AoPS remain a valuable Olympiad resource? Help us add contests to AoPS's Contest Collections.

Find instructions and a list of contests to add here: https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c40244h1064480_contests_to_add
1 reply
dcouchman
Sep 9, 2019
v_Enhance
Apr 5, 2023
k i Zero tolerance
ZetaX   49
N May 4, 2019 by NoDealsHere
Source: Use your common sense! (enough is enough)
Some users don't want to learn, some other simply ignore advises.
But please follow the following guideline:


To make it short: ALWAYS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IF POSTING!
If you don't have common sense, don't post.


More specifically:

For new threads:


a) Good, meaningful title:
The title has to say what the problem is about in best way possible.
If that title occured already, it's definitely bad. And contest names aren't good either.
That's in fact a requirement for being able to search old problems.

Examples:
Bad titles:
- "Hard"/"Medium"/"Easy" (if you find it so cool how hard/easy it is, tell it in the post and use a title that tells us the problem)
- "Number Theory" (hey guy, guess why this forum's named that way¿ and is it the only such problem on earth¿)
- "Fibonacci" (there are millions of Fibonacci problems out there, all posted and named the same...)
- "Chinese TST 2003" (does this say anything about the problem¿)
Good titles:
- "On divisors of a³+2b³+4c³-6abc"
- "Number of solutions to x²+y²=6z²"
- "Fibonacci numbers are never squares"


b) Use search function:
Before posting a "new" problem spend at least two, better five, minutes to look if this problem was posted before. If it was, don't repost it. If you have anything important to say on topic, post it in one of the older threads.
If the thread is locked cause of this, use search function.

Update (by Amir Hossein). The best way to search for two keywords in AoPS is to input
[code]+"first keyword" +"second keyword"[/code]
so that any post containing both strings "first word" and "second form".


c) Good problem statement:
Some recent really bad post was:
[quote]$lim_{n\to 1}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{n}-lnn$[/quote]
It contains no question and no answer.
If you do this, too, you are on the best way to get your thread deleted. Write everything clearly, define where your variables come from (and define the "natural" numbers if used). Additionally read your post at least twice before submitting. After you sent it, read it again and use the Edit-Button if necessary to correct errors.


For answers to already existing threads:


d) Of any interest and with content:
Don't post things that are more trivial than completely obvious. For example, if the question is to solve $x^{3}+y^{3}=z^{3}$, do not answer with "$x=y=z=0$ is a solution" only. Either you post any kind of proof or at least something unexpected (like "$x=1337, y=481, z=42$ is the smallest solution). Someone that does not see that $x=y=z=0$ is a solution of the above without your post is completely wrong here, this is an IMO-level forum.
Similar, posting "I have solved this problem" but not posting anything else is not welcome; it even looks that you just want to show off what a genius you are.

e) Well written and checked answers:
Like c) for new threads, check your solutions at least twice for mistakes. And after sending, read it again and use the Edit-Button if necessary to correct errors.



To repeat it: ALWAYS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IF POSTING!


Everything definitely out of range of common sense will be locked or deleted (exept for new users having less than about 42 posts, they are newbies and need/get some time to learn).

The above rules will be applied from next monday (5. march of 2007).
Feel free to discuss on this here.
49 replies
ZetaX
Feb 27, 2007
NoDealsHere
May 4, 2019
Question 2
Valentin Vornicu   87
N 17 minutes ago by ItsBesi
Consider five points $ A$, $ B$, $ C$, $ D$ and $ E$ such that $ ABCD$ is a parallelogram and $ BCED$ is a cyclic quadrilateral. Let $ \ell$ be a line passing through $ A$. Suppose that $ \ell$ intersects the interior of the segment $ DC$ at $ F$ and intersects line $ BC$ at $ G$. Suppose also that $ EF = EG = EC$. Prove that $ \ell$ is the bisector of angle $ DAB$.

Author: Charles Leytem, Luxembourg
87 replies
Valentin Vornicu
Jul 25, 2007
ItsBesi
17 minutes ago
Number theory
spiderman0   1
N 23 minutes ago by MR.1
Find all n such that $3^n + 1$ is divisibly by $n^2$.
I want a solution that uses order or a solution like “let p be the least prime divisor of n”
1 reply
spiderman0
3 hours ago
MR.1
23 minutes ago
VERY HARD MATH PROBLEM!
slimshadyyy.3.60   16
N 28 minutes ago by slimshadyyy.3.60
Let a ≥b ≥c ≥0 be real numbers such that a^2 +b^2 +c^2 +abc = 4. Prove that
a+b+c+(√a−√c)^2 ≥3.
16 replies
+3 w
slimshadyyy.3.60
Yesterday at 10:49 PM
slimshadyyy.3.60
28 minutes ago
Escape from the room
jannatiar   2
N 32 minutes ago by sami1618
Source: 2024 AlborzMO P3
A person is locked in a room with a password-protected computer. If they enter the correct password, the door opens and they are freed. However, the password changes every time it is entered incorrectly. The person knows that the password is always a 10-digit number, and they also know that the password change follows a fixed pattern. This means that if the current password is \( b \) and \( a \) is entered, the new password is \( c \), which is determined by \( b \) and \( a \) (naturally, the person does not know \( c \) or \( b \)). Prove that regardless of the characteristics of this computer, the prisoner can free themselves.

Proposed by Reza Tahernejad Karizi
2 replies
1 viewing
jannatiar
Mar 4, 2025
sami1618
32 minutes ago
Midpoints of chords on a circle
AwesomeToad   38
N an hour ago by LeYohan
Source: 0
Let $C$ be a circle and $P$ a given point in the plane. Each line through $P$ which intersects $C$ determines a chord of $C$. Show that the midpoints of these chords lie on a circle.
38 replies
AwesomeToad
Sep 23, 2011
LeYohan
an hour ago
Polish MO finals, problem 1
michaj   4
N an hour ago by AshAuktober
In each cell of a matrix $ n\times n$ a number from a set $ \{1,2,\ldots,n^2\}$ is written --- in the first row numbers $ 1,2,\ldots,n$, in the second $ n+1,n+2,\ldots,2n$ and so on. Exactly $ n$ of them have been chosen, no two from the same row or the same column. Let us denote by $ a_i$ a number chosen from row number $ i$. Show that:

\[ \frac{1^2}{a_1}+\frac{2^2}{a_2}+\ldots +\frac{n^2}{a_n}\geq \frac{n+2}{2}-\frac{1}{n^2+1}\]
4 replies
michaj
Apr 10, 2008
AshAuktober
an hour ago
2025 Caucasus MO Seniors P7
BR1F1SZ   1
N an hour ago by X.Luser
Source: Caucasus MO
From a point $O$ lying outside the circle $\omega$, two tangents are drawn touching $\omega$ at points $M$ and $N$. A point $K$ is chosen on the segment $MN$. Let points $P$ and $Q$ be the midpoints of segments $KM$ and $OM$ respectively. The circumcircle of triangle $MPQ$ intersects $\omega$ again at point $L$ ($L \neq M$). Prove that the line $LN$ passes through the centroid of triangle $KMO$.
1 reply
BR1F1SZ
Mar 26, 2025
X.Luser
an hour ago
Easy geometry
Bluesoul   13
N an hour ago by AshAuktober
Source: CJMO 2022 P1
Let $\triangle{ABC}$ has circumcircle $\Gamma$, drop the perpendicular line from $A$ to $BC$ and meet $\Gamma$ at point $D$, similarly, altitude from $B$ to $AC$ meets $\Gamma$ at $E$. Prove that if $AB=DE, \angle{ACB}=60^{\circ}$
(sorry it is from my memory I can't remember the exact problem, but it means the same)
13 replies
Bluesoul
Mar 12, 2022
AshAuktober
an hour ago
IMO Shortlist 2013, Geometry #2
lyukhson   77
N an hour ago by endless_abyss
Source: IMO Shortlist 2013, Geometry #2
Let $\omega$ be the circumcircle of a triangle $ABC$. Denote by $M$ and $N$ the midpoints of the sides $AB$ and $AC$, respectively, and denote by $T$ the midpoint of the arc $BC$ of $\omega$ not containing $A$. The circumcircles of the triangles $AMT$ and $ANT$ intersect the perpendicular bisectors of $AC$ and $AB$ at points $X$ and $Y$, respectively; assume that $X$ and $Y$ lie inside the triangle $ABC$. The lines $MN$ and $XY$ intersect at $K$. Prove that $KA=KT$.
77 replies
1 viewing
lyukhson
Jul 9, 2014
endless_abyss
an hour ago
f(x*f(y)) = f(x)/y
orl   23
N an hour ago by Maximilian113
Source: IMO 1990, Day 2, Problem 4, IMO ShortList 1990, Problem 25 (TUR 4)
Let $ {\mathbb Q}^ +$ be the set of positive rational numbers. Construct a function $ f : {\mathbb Q}^ + \rightarrow {\mathbb Q}^ +$ such that
\[ f(xf(y)) = \frac {f(x)}{y}
\]
for all $ x$, $ y$ in $ {\mathbb Q}^ +$.
23 replies
orl
Nov 11, 2005
Maximilian113
an hour ago
Heavy config geo involving mixtilinear
Assassino9931   2
N 2 hours ago by Assassino9931
Source: Bulgaria Spring Mathematical Competition 2025 12.4
Let $ABC$ be an acute-angled triangle \( ABC \) with \( AC > BC \) and incenter \( I \). Let \( \omega \) be the mixtilinear circle at vertex \( C \), i.e. the circle internally tangent to the circumcircle of \( \triangle ABC \) and also tangent to lines \( AC \) and \( BC \). A circle \( \Gamma \) passes through points \( A \) and \( B \) and is tangent to \( \omega \) at point \( T \), with \( C \notin \Gamma \) and \( I \) being inside \( \triangle ATB \). Prove that:
$$\angle CTB + \angle ATI = 180^\circ + \angle BAI - \angle ABI.$$
2 replies
Assassino9931
Today at 1:23 PM
Assassino9931
2 hours ago
Guess the leader's binary string!
cjquines0   78
N 2 hours ago by de-Kirschbaum
Source: 2016 IMO Shortlist C1
The leader of an IMO team chooses positive integers $n$ and $k$ with $n > k$, and announces them to the deputy leader and a contestant. The leader then secretly tells the deputy leader an $n$-digit binary string, and the deputy leader writes down all $n$-digit binary strings which differ from the leader’s in exactly $k$ positions. (For example, if $n = 3$ and $k = 1$, and if the leader chooses $101$, the deputy leader would write down $001, 111$ and $100$.) The contestant is allowed to look at the strings written by the deputy leader and guess the leader’s string. What is the minimum number of guesses (in terms of $n$ and $k$) needed to guarantee the correct answer?
78 replies
cjquines0
Jul 19, 2017
de-Kirschbaum
2 hours ago
Monkeys have bananas
nAalniaOMliO   5
N 2 hours ago by jkim0656
Source: Belarusian National Olympiad 2025
Ten monkeys have 60 bananas. Each monkey has at least one banana and any two monkeys have different amounts of bananas.
Prove that any six monkeys can distribute their bananas between others such that all 4 remaining monkeys have the same amount of bananas.
5 replies
nAalniaOMliO
Friday at 8:20 PM
jkim0656
2 hours ago
Fixed point config on external similar isosceles triangles
Assassino9931   1
N 2 hours ago by E50
Source: Bulgaria Spring Mathematical Competition 2025 10.2
Let $AB$ be an acute scalene triangle. A point \( D \) varies on its side \( BC \). The points \( P \) and \( Q \) are the midpoints of the arcs \( \widehat{AB} \) and \( \widehat{AC} \) (not containing \( D \)) of the circumcircles of triangles \( ABD \) and \( ACD \), respectively. Prove that the circumcircle of triangle \( PQD \) passes through a fixed point, independent of the choice of \( D \) on \( BC \).
1 reply
Assassino9931
Today at 12:41 PM
E50
2 hours ago
Infimum of decreasing sequence b_n/n^2
a1267ab   33
N Mar 27, 2025 by aliz
Source: USA Winter TST for IMO 2020, Problem 1 and TST for EGMO 2020, Problem 3, by Carl Schildkraut and Milan Haiman
Choose positive integers $b_1, b_2, \dotsc$ satisfying
\[1=\frac{b_1}{1^2} > \frac{b_2}{2^2} > \frac{b_3}{3^2} > \frac{b_4}{4^2} > \dotsb\]and let $r$ denote the largest real number satisfying $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2} \geq r$ for all positive integers $n$. What are the possible values of $r$ across all possible choices of the sequence $(b_n)$?

Carl Schildkraut and Milan Haiman
33 replies
a1267ab
Dec 16, 2019
aliz
Mar 27, 2025
Infimum of decreasing sequence b_n/n^2
G H J
G H BBookmark kLocked kLocked NReply
Source: USA Winter TST for IMO 2020, Problem 1 and TST for EGMO 2020, Problem 3, by Carl Schildkraut and Milan Haiman
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
a1267ab
223 posts
#1 • 5 Y
Y by centslordm, Pluto1708, megarnie, Adventure10, kub-inst
Choose positive integers $b_1, b_2, \dotsc$ satisfying
\[1=\frac{b_1}{1^2} > \frac{b_2}{2^2} > \frac{b_3}{3^2} > \frac{b_4}{4^2} > \dotsb\]and let $r$ denote the largest real number satisfying $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2} \geq r$ for all positive integers $n$. What are the possible values of $r$ across all possible choices of the sequence $(b_n)$?

Carl Schildkraut and Milan Haiman
This post has been edited 3 times. Last edited by a1267ab, Dec 16, 2019, 6:11 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
TheUltimate123
1740 posts
#2 • 9 Y
Y by Idio-logy, Williamgolly, Doxuantrong, ashrith9sagar_1, CALCMAN, centslordm, Pluto1708, Adventure10, MS_asdfgzxcvb
The answer is $0\le r\le1/2$.
Claim. $r=1/2$ works, and is maximal.

Proof. To achieve $r=1/2$, take $b_n=n(n+1)/2$, from which \[\frac{b_n}{n^2}=\frac{n(n+1)}{2n^2}=\frac{n+1}{2n}=\frac12+\frac1{2n},\]which clearly satisfies the problem condition. We inductively show that $b_n\le n(n+1)/2$. The base case has been given to us. Now, if the hypothesis holds for all integers less than $n$, then \[\frac{b_n}{n^2}<\frac{b_{n-1}}{(n-1)^2}\le\frac n{2(n-1)}\implies b_n<\frac{n^3}{2(n-1)}.\]It is easy to verify the largest possiblie $b_n$ is $n(n+1)/2$, as claimed. $\blacksquare$
Claim. All $r<1/2$ work.

Proof. Consider the sequence $(a_n)$ defined by $a_n:=\left\lceil kn^2\right\rceil+n$. Since $a_n$ is $O(n^2)$ and $k<1/2$, there exists $N$ such that for all $n\ge N$, $a_n/n^2<1/2$. I claim the sequence \[b_n:=\begin{cases}n(n+1)/2&\text{ for }n<N\\ a_n&\text{ for }n\ge N\end{cases}\]works. By definition of $N$, $b_n/n^2>b_{n+1}/(n+1)^2$ for $n<N$, so it suffices to verify $a_n/n^2$ is strictly decreasing for $n\ge N$.

In other words, we want to show that \[L:=\frac{\left\lceil kn^2\right\rceil+n}{n^2}>\frac{\left\lceil k(n+1)^2\right\rceil+n+1}{(n+1)^2}=:R\]for all $n\ge N$. Since $\left\lceil kn^2\right\rceil\ge kn^2$, \[L\ge\frac{kn^2+n}{n^2}=k+\frac1n,\]and similarly since $\left\lceil k(n+1)^2\right\rceil<k(n+1)^2+1$, \[R<\frac{k(n+1)^2+n+2}{(n+1)^2}=\frac1k+\frac{n+2}{(n+1)^2},\]so it suffices to verify that \[\frac1n\ge\frac{n+2}{(n+1)^2}\iff(n+1)^2\ge n(n+2),\]which is true. $\blacksquare$
Combining these two claims, we are done.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by TheUltimate123, Dec 16, 2019, 5:49 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
spartacle
538 posts
#3 • 3 Y
Y by pad, centslordm, Adventure10
Sad... I essentially discovered this construction, but didn't think of replacing the initial "too large" terms with triangular numbers.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
jeff10
1117 posts
#4 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
Another Construction
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by jeff10, Dec 16, 2019, 8:20 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
MarkBcc168
1594 posts
#5 • 6 Y
Y by Mathphile01, SpecialBeing2017, MintTea, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
P1

The answer is $[0,\tfrac{1}{2}]$. We prove the bound first. Consider the following claim.

Claim: $b_n\leq\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ for all positive integer $n$.

Proof: Induct on $n$. The base case $n=1$ is obvious. Assume that $b_{n-1}\leq\tfrac{n(n-1)}{2}$. We will prove that $b_{n}\leq\tfrac{n(n+1)}{2}$. Note that
\begin{align*}
b_{n} &< \frac{n^2}{(n-1)^2}\cdot\frac{n(n-1)}{2} \\
&= \frac{n^3}{2(n-1)} \\
&= \frac{n^3-n}{2(n-1)} + \frac{n}{2(n-1)} \\
&< \frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1
\end{align*}hence we are done.$\blacksquare$

The claim immediately implies the bound. Now we move on to the construction part.

The equality case above $b_n=\tfrac{n(n+1)}{2}$ gives $\tfrac{1}{2}$. Now we give a sequence with converge to $L$ for $0<L<\tfrac{1}{2}$. Define
$$s_n = \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{1}{(n+1)^2} + \frac{1}{(n+2)^2} + \hdots$$Let $M$ be the smallest positive integer which $s_M<\tfrac{1}{2}-L$. We define the sequence $b_n$ by
$$b_n = \begin{cases}
\frac{n(n+1)}{2} & n<M^{2019} \\
\lfloor n^2(L+s_n)\rfloor & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$By the condition, for large $n$ we have
$$\frac{b_n}{n^2}\in \left(L+s_n+\frac{1}{n^2}, L+s_n\right] = (L+s_{n+1}, L+s_n).$$Intervals of this type are disjoint. This gives the strictly increasing. Moreover, $L<\tfrac{b_n}{n^2}\leq L+s_n$ thus the sequence $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2}$ converges to $L$ as desired.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by MarkBcc168, Dec 17, 2019, 10:50 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
IndoMathXdZ
691 posts
#6 • 4 Y
Y by FISHMJ25, MintTea, centslordm, Adventure10
I claim that any real numbers $0 \le r \le \frac{1}{2}$ satisfy this.

Notice that as $b_n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \in \mathbb{Q}^+$ for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$. This proves that $r \ge 0$.
To prove that $0$ is achievable, take $b_n = 1$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and we have
\[ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{b_n}{n^2} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n^2} = 0\]To prove that $r \le \frac{1}{2}$ is maximum, notice that from the problem's constraint:
\[ \frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2} < \frac{b_k}{k^2} \]We'll prove by induction that $b_k \le \frac{k(k+1)}{2}$ for every $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
For $k = 1$, we have $b_1 = 1$.
For $k = 2$, notice that $b_2 \le 3$.
Now, suppose that $b_k \le \frac{k(k+1)}{2}$ for a value $k  \ge 2$.
\[  b_{k+1} < \frac{(k+1)^2}{k^2} b_k \le \frac{(k+1)^3}{2k} = \frac{k^2 + 3k + 2}{2} + \frac{k + 1}{2k}\]As $\frac{k^2+3k+2}{2} \in \mathbb{N}$ and $0 < \frac{k+1}{2k} < 1$. This gives us
\[ b_{k+1} \le \left \lfloor \frac{k^2 + 3k + 2}{2} + \frac{k + 1}{2k} \right \rfloor = \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2} \]which completes the induction.
To prove that $r = \frac{1}{2}$ is achievable. Take the sequence $b_k = \frac{k(k+1)}{2}$ for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
\[ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{b_n}{n^2} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n+1}{2n} = \frac{1}{2} \]
It suffices to prove that for any positive reals $0 < r < \frac{1}{2}$, we can have
\[ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{b_n}{n^2} = r \]This is possible by taking $b_n = \lceil rn^2 \rceil + n$ for some $n > N$ and $b_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$, when $n \le N$. We'll first prove that such sequence satisfy.

Now, we'll prove that such sequence $b_k$ satisfies
\[ \frac{b_k}{k^2} > \frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2} \]By expanding, we want to prove that
\[ (k+1)^2k + (k+1)^2 \lceil rk^2 \rceil > k^2(k+1) + k^2 \lceil r(k+1)^2 \rceil \]\[ k(k+1) + (k+1)^2 \lceil rk^2 \rceil > k^2 \lceil r(k+1)^2 \rceil \]But actually,
\begin{align*}
 (k+1)^2 \lceil rk^2 \rceil &> (k+1)^2 (rk^2) \\ &= k^2 (r(k+1)^2 + 1) - k^2 \\ &> k^2 \lceil r(k+1)^2 \rceil - k^2
\end{align*}which is true.
Now, we need to find a constraint for $N$. Since $b_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ for all $n \le N$. Then we have $b_{N + 1} < \frac{(N+1)(N+2)}{2}$ as well. This gives us
\[ \lceil r(N+1)^2 \rceil  + N + 1 < \frac{(N+1)(N+2)}{2} \]But for large enough $N$, we must have
\[ \lceil r(N+1)^2 \rceil + N + 1 < r(N+1)^2 + N + 1 < \frac{1}{2} N^2 + \frac{3}{2}N + 1 \]as $r < \frac{1}{2}$.
We are hence finished.
Now,
\[ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{b_n}{n^2} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\lceil rn^2 \rceil + n}{n^2} = r \]because
\[ r = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ rn^2 + n}{n^2} \le \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \lceil rn^2 \rceil + n}{n^2} \le \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{rn^2 + n + 1}{n^2} = r \]
Motivation
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by IndoMathXdZ, Dec 17, 2019, 10:14 AM
Reason: typo
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pad
1671 posts
#8 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, 554183, Adventure10
Solution

Remarks
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
niyu
830 posts
#9 • 2 Y
Y by surferdude11, centslordm
We claim all $0 \leq r \leq \frac{1}{2}$ work.

We first prove that all $r$ are in this range. To do so, we will prove that $b_n \leq \frac{n^2 + n}{2}$ for all $n$. We do so by induction on $n$. As the base case, we have $b_1 = 1 = \frac{1^2 + 1}{2}$. Now, suppose $b_k \leq \frac{k^2 + k}{2}$. We have
\begin{align*}
        \frac{b_{k + 1}}{(k + 1)^2} &< \frac{b_k}{k^2} \\
        &< \frac{k^2 + k}{2k^2} \\
        &< \frac{k + 1}{2k} \\
        b_{k + 1} &< \frac{(k + 1)^3}{2k} \\
        b_{k + 1} &< \frac{k^2}{2} + \frac{3k}{2} + \frac{3}{2} + \frac{1}{2k}.
\end{align*}However, note that
\begin{align*}
        \frac{(k + 1)^2 + (k + 1)}{2} &= \frac{k^2 + 3k + 2}{2} \\
        &< \frac{k^2}{2} + \frac{3k}{2} + \frac{3}{2} + \frac{1}{2k} \\
        \frac{(k + 1)^2 + (k + 1)}{2} + 1 &= \frac{k^2 + 3k + 4}{2} \\
        &\geq \frac{k^2}{2} + \frac{3k}{2} + \frac{3}{2}k + \frac{1}{2k},
\end{align*}which is enough to show that $b_{k + 1} \leq \frac{(k + 1)^2 + (k + 1)}{2}$, completing the induction.

Hence, we have $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2n}$. As $n$ approaches infinity, the right side approaches $\frac{1}{2}$, showing that $r \leq \frac{1}{2}$. Clearly $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \geq \frac{1}{n^2}$, which approaches $0$ as $n$ approaches infinity. Hence, $r \geq 0$, showing that $0 \leq r \leq \frac{1}{2}$.

We now show that all $0 < r < \frac{1}{2}$ work (we have already provided constructions for $r = 0, \frac{1}{2}$). Consider some fixed $r$, and the sequence $b_n$ for which $b_n = \frac{n^2 + n}{2}$ if $rn^2 + n < \frac{n^2 + n}{2} + 100$ (this is false for large enough $n$ since $r < \frac{1}{2}$), and $b_n = \lceil rn^2 + n \rceil$ otherwise. This sequence satisfies $b_n \leq \frac{n^2 + n}{2}$ for all $n$ (which is necessary as $\frac{n^2 + n}{2}$ is the maximum value of $b_n$). We now show that
\begin{align*}
        \frac{b_n}{n^2} &> \frac{b_{n + 1}}{(n + 1)^2}
\end{align*}for all $n$. If $b_n = \frac{n^2 + n}{2}$ and $b_{n + 1} = \frac{(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1)}{2}$ this is true (as checked above). Otherwise, if $b_n = \frac{n^2 + n} {2}$ and $b_{n + 1} = \lceil r(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1) \rceil$, this is true because we have
\begin{align*}
        \frac{b_n}{n^2} &= \frac{\frac{n^2 + n}{2}}{n^2} \\
        &> \frac{\frac{(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1)}{2}}{(n + 1)^2} \\
        &> \frac{\lceil r(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1) \rceil}{(n + 1)^2} \\
        &= \frac{b_{n + 1}}{(n + 1)^2}.
\end{align*}Finally, suppose $b_n = \lceil rn^2 + n \rceil$ and $\lceil r(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1) \rceil$. We have
\begin{align*}
        \frac{rn^2 + n}{n^2} &> \frac{r(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1) + 1}{(n + 1)^2} \\
        \iff \frac{1}{n} &> \frac{n + 2}{(n + 1)^2} \\
        \iff (n + 1)^2 &> n(n + 2),
\end{align*}which is true. Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
        \frac{\lceil rn^2 + n \rceil}{n^2} &\geq \frac{rn^2 + n}{n^2} \\
        &> \frac{r(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1) + 1}{(n + 1)^2} \\
        &> \frac{\lceil r(n + 1)^2 + (n + 1) \rceil}{(n + 1)^2},
\end{align*}or $\frac{b_n}{n^2} > \frac{b_{n + 1}}{(n + 1)^2}$. Thus, this sequence satisfies the given condition. As the infimum of $\frac{b_n}{n^2}$ for this sequence is $r$, we may conclude that all $0 \leq r \leq \frac{1}{2}$ are achievable, as claimed.

This completes the proof.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
stamatelos
17 posts
#10 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Mango247
What is the logic behind bn<n(n+1)/2? you find it by try and error or its a method yo find it?
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by stamatelos, Jun 29, 2020, 8:00 PM
Reason: typo
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
jj_ca888
2726 posts
#11 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, Mango247, Mango247
stamatelos wrote:
What is the logic behind bn<n(n+1)/2? you find it by try and error or its a method yo find it?

Short answer: Trial and Error

Long answer: I think this is quite intuitive. When I did this problem I first listed out values of $b_i$'s.

Note that $b_1 = 1$. Then, we need $\tfrac{b_2}{4} < 1$ so the maximum possible value of $b_2$ is $3$. Then, we need $\tfrac{b_3}{9} < \tfrac34$ which yields the maximum possible value of $b_3$ is $6$. Then, we need $\tfrac{b_4}{16} < \tfrac69$ so the maximum possible value (after some computation) of $b_4$ is $10$.

So the maximum possible value of the first four $b_i$'s follows the sequence $1, 3, 6, 10$. Hopefully this looks familiar. After noting the (quite obvious) pattern at this point, you should be ready to induct.
This post has been edited 4 times. Last edited by jj_ca888, Jun 29, 2020, 8:06 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
smartninja2000
1631 posts
#13 • 1 Y
Y by centslordm
Wait, this seems similar to some CMC 10A problem...
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
arvind_r
136 posts
#14 • 1 Y
Y by centslordm
Why does $r < 0$ not work? (i.e. what if the $b_i$'s are negative?)
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
GorgonMathDota
1063 posts
#15 • 3 Y
Y by cosmicgenius, arvind_r, centslordm
arvind_r wrote:
Why does $r < 0$ not work? (i.e. what if the $b_i$'s are negative?)


a1267ab wrote:
Choose positive integers $b_1, b_2 \dots$
Your welcome
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
mathlogician
1051 posts
#16 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Mango247
The answer is $0 \leq r \leq 1/2$.

Proof of Necessity: Choose the $(b_i)$ to be as large as possible. Now I claim that $b_n = n(n+1)/2$ for all positive integers $n$, by induction. Note that if $b_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$, it remains to show that $b_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}$ works but $b_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+1$ fails. Therefore, it suffices to show $$\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{(n+1)^2} \leq\frac{n(n+1)}{n^2} \leq \frac{(n+1)(n+2)+2}{(n+1)^2}.$$
The left inequality expands to $n(n+2)\leq (n+1)^2$, while the right inequality expands to $(n+1)^3 \leq n(n^2+3n+4)$, or $n^3+3n^2+3n+1 \leq n^3+3n^2+4n \implies 1 \leq n$, obvious.

Now obviously $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \leq \frac{n(n+1)}{2n^2} = \frac{n+1}{2n}$, so $r \leq 1/2$.

Construction: It remains to show that any $r$ for $0 \leq r \leq 1/2$ is achievable for some choice of $(b_i)$. Set $b_n = \left\lceil rn^2 + n\right\rceil$ if $\frac{\left\lceil rn^2 + n\right\rceil}{n^2} < \frac{1}{2}$, and set $b_n = n(n+1)/2$ otherwise. It suffices to show that $b_n/n^2 > b_{n+1}/(n+1)^2$, as this sequence will tend towards $r$ for large $n$. One may manually check that this construction works, as desired.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
IAmTheHazard
5000 posts
#17 • 1 Y
Y by centslordm
The answer is $r \in [0,\tfrac{1}{2}]$.
I will first prove necessity. Clearly, $r \geq 0$, so we only have to prove $r \leq \tfrac{1}{2}$. This is established with the following claim.

Claim: For all $n$, we have $b_n\leq \tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)$.
Proof: Use induction on $n$, with the base case of $n=1$ being clear. Suppose now that we have $b_n \leq \tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)$. I will show that $b_{n+1} \leq \tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)$. We require:
$$\frac{b_n}{n^2}>\frac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2} \implies \frac{\tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)}{n^2}=\frac{n+1}{2n}>\frac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2}.$$From here, it's not hard to verify that all $b_{n+1} \geq \tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)+1$ fail this requirement, thus completing the induction. This clearly implies $r\leq \tfrac{1}{2}$.

It remains to provide a construction. For $r=\tfrac{1}{2}$, we can take $b_n=\tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)$, which gives $\tfrac{b_n}{n}=\tfrac{1}{2}+\tfrac{1}{2n}$ for all $n$. This is clearly valid.
Now we deal with $r<\tfrac{1}{2}$. For some arbitrary $r \in [0,\tfrac{1}{2})$, consider the sequence $(a_n)$ defined by $a_n=\lceil rn^2\rceil+n$. It is clear that for sufficiently large $n$, we have
$$a_n\leq rn^2+n+1<\tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1).$$So we can take some positive integer $N$ such that for all $N\geq n$, $a_n<\tfrac{1}{2}n(n+1)$. Then define
$$b_n=\begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)& n<N\\ a_n & n\geq N.\end{cases}$$Observe that
$$\frac{b_n}{n^2}\geq \frac{a_n}{n^2}=\frac{\lceil rn^2\rceil+n}{n^2}\geq \frac{rn^2}{n^2}=r,$$so we have $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2} \geq r$ for all $n \geq 1$. Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} \tfrac{b_n}{n^2}=r$, it follows that $r$ is maximal. Hence we only have to verify that $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2}>\tfrac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2}$ for all $n \geq 1$. This was already proven for all $n<N-1$ and is clear for $n=N-1$, so we only have to prove it for $n \geq N$. It suffices to show that
$$\frac{a_n}{n^2}>\frac{a_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2} \iff \frac{\lceil rn^2\rceil+n}{n^2}>\frac{\lfloor r(n+1)^2\rfloor+n}{(n+1)^2}$$holds for all $n \geq N$. We have:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\lceil rn^2\rceil+n}{n^2}&>\frac{\lceil r(n+1)^2\rceil+(n+1)}{(n+1)^2}&&\iff\\
(n+1)^2\lceil rn^2\rceil+n(n+1)^2&>n^2\lceil r(n+1)^2\rceil +n^2(n+1)&&\iff\\
n^2+n&>n^2\lceil r(n+1)^2\rceil-(n+1)^2\lceil rn^2\rceil&&\iff\\
n^2+n&>n^2(r(n+1)^2+\{1-r(n+1)^2\})-(n+1)^2(rn^2+\{1-rn^2\})&&\iff\\
n^2+n&>n^2\{1-r(n+1)^2\}-(n+1)^2\{1-rn^2\},
\end{align*}where we use the easily verifiable identity $\lceil x \rceil=x+\{1-x\}$ to get from the third line to the fourth.
Note that we have $n^2\{1-r(n+1)\}<n^2$, and $(n+1)^2\{1-rn^2\}$ must be nonnegative, so
$$n^2\{1-r(n+1)^2\}-(n+1)^2\{1-rn^2\}>n^2.$$As $n^2+n>n^2$, the original inequality is true, so we indeed have $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2}>\tfrac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2}$ for all $n$. Hence, this construction for $r$ works, and we're done. $\blacksquare$
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by IAmTheHazard, Jun 7, 2021, 6:45 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
somewhere123
2 posts
#18
Y by
为什么我无法下载这个文档,帮帮我
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Apple321
1506 posts
#19
Y by
somewhere123 wrote:
为什么我无法下载这个文档,帮帮我

Why can't you download the document?

I'm not sure what document your talking about..
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
508669
1040 posts
#20
Y by
a1267ab wrote:
Choose positive integers $b_1, b_2, \dotsc$ satisfying
\[1=\frac{b_1}{1^2} > \frac{b_2}{2^2} > \frac{b_3}{3^2} > \frac{b_4}{4^2} > \dotsb\]and let $r$ denote the largest real number satisfying $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2} \geq r$ for all positive integers $n$. What are the possible values of $r$ across all possible choices of the sequence $(b_n)$?

Carl Schildkraut and Milan Haiman

Posting for storage.

We see that if $b_n \leq \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$, then $b_{n+1}^2 < \dfrac{(n+1)^2b_n}{n^2} \leq \frac{(n+1)^3}{2n} = \dfrac{n^3 + 3n^2 + 3n + 1}{2n} = \dfrac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} + \frac{n+1}{2n} \implies b_{n+1} \leq \dfrac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}$ and $b_1 = \frac{1 \cdot 2}{2}$. This means that $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \leq \frac{n+1}{2n}$ which can be $\frac{1}{2} + \epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is an arbitrarily small positive real number. This means that $r \leq \frac{1}{2}$.

We claim that all reals $r \in [0, \frac{1}{2}]$ work. Simply choose $b_n = \lceil rk^2 + k \rceil$ if $\lceil rk^2 + k \rceil < \frac{k^2}{2}$ or $b_k = \frac{k(k+1)}{2}$ otherwise. Simply because $\lceil rk^2 + k \rceil < \frac{k^2}{2}$ may not be true for all positive integers $k$. We can see that this construction indeed works.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
FishHeadTail
75 posts
#21
Y by
I wonder what’s the motivation behind looking at $\lceil cn^2 \rceil +n$. Thanks a lot!
This post has been edited 3 times. Last edited by FishHeadTail, Sep 2, 2021, 2:07 PM
Reason: Typo
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
mathlogician
1051 posts
#22
Y by
FishHeadTail wrote:
I wonder what’s the motivation behind looking at $\lceil cn^2 \rceil +n$. Thanks a lot!

Here's how I came up with it (might be already mentioned in the thread). We need $cn^2$ so the limit of $(b_n)$ approaches $c$. However $c$ can be any real number, so we use the ceiling. However, $b_n = \lceil{cn^2 \rceil}$ still doesn't work, so we can add a linear term, knowing that the limit is still $c$ but $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2}$ is decreasing. There is one more issue: the initial terms are too large, but this is an easy fix as we can just replace them with triangular numbers, the end.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
guillermo.dinamarca
1 post
#23
Y by
a1267ab wrote:
Choose positive integers $b_1, b_2, \dotsc$ satisfying
\[1=\frac{b_1}{1^2} > \frac{b_2}{2^2} > \frac{b_3}{3^2} > \frac{b_4}{4^2} > \dotsb\]and let $r$ denote the largest real number satisfying $\tfrac{b_n}{n^2} \geq r$ for all positive integers $n$. What are the possible values of $r$ across all possible choices of the sequence $(b_n)$?

Carl Schildkraut and Milan Haiman
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
megarnie
5542 posts
#24
Y by
Note $b_1=1$.

We claim the answer is $\boxed{0\le r\le \frac{1}{2}}$.

Part 1: Show that $r=\frac{1}{2}$ works, and that it is maximal.
For $\frac{1}{2}$, set $b_n=\frac{n^2+n}{2}$, which is always an integer. So $\frac{b_n}{n^2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}$. The sequence $\frac{1}{2n}$ will converge to $0$, so $\frac{b_n}{n^2}$ will converge to $\frac{1}{2}$.

Now we will show that $\frac{1}{2}$ is maximal. We will use the following claim.

Claim: $\frac{b_n}{n^2}\le \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}$, which obviously proves the first part.
Proof: We will use induction.
Base case(s): $n=1,2$ ($n=2$ because the maximal value for $\frac{b_2}{2^2}$ is $\frac{3}{4}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4})$.

Inductive step: Suppose $\frac{b_k}{k^2}\le \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2k}\forall k<n$. Then we suppose for the sake of contradiction that $\frac{b_n}{n^2}>\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}$. Since $b_n$ and $n$ are both positive integers, the minimum value for $\frac{b_n}{n^2}$ is $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}+\frac{1}{n^2}$.

This gives us the inequality $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}+\frac{1}{n^2}<\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n-2}\implies \frac{1}{2n}+\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{n+2}{2n^2}<\frac{1}{2n-2}$. Multiplying both sides by $2n^2$ gives $n+2<\frac{n^2}{n-1}$. Since $n>1$, multiplying both sides by $n-1$ gives $(n+2)(n-1)<n^2\implies n^2+n-2<n^2\implies n-2<0$, a contradiction as $n\ge 2$.



Part 2: Show that all $0\le r<\frac{1}{2}$ work.
Obviously we can set $b_i=i\forall i$, which gives $r=0$, so henceforth assume $0<r<\frac{1}{2}$.

Let $N$ be a sufficiently large value so that for all $k\ge N$, $\left\lceil rk^2+k\right\rceil<\frac{k^2+k}{2}$.

Let $b_k=\left\lceil rk^2+k \right\rceil\forall k\ge N$ and $b_n=\frac{n^2+n}{2}\forall k<N$.

Clearly $\frac{b_k}{k^2}$ converges to $\frac{rk^2+k+c}{k^2}=r+\frac{1}{k}+\frac{c}{k^2}$, where $c<1$. Since both $\frac{1}{k}$ and $\frac{c}{k^2}$ converge to $0$, $\frac{b_k}{k^2}$ converges to $r$. It suffices to show that it's strictly decreasing.

For all $n<N$, $\frac{b_n}{n^2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2n}$, which is strictly decreasing.

We note $\frac{b_{N-1}}{(N-1)^2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2N-2}>\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2N}>\frac{b_{N}}{N^2}$.

Thus, it suffices to show that for all $k\ge N$, $\frac{b_k}{k^2}>\frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2}$. We have \[\frac{b_k}{k^2}=\frac{\left\lceil rk^2+k\right\rceil}{k^2}\ge\frac{rk^2+k}{k^2}\]
Claim: $\frac{rk^2+k}{k^2}>\frac{r(k+1)^2+(k+1)+1}{(k+1)^2}$. If we have proven this, we are done as $\frac{r(k+1)^2+(k+1)+1}{(k+1)^2}>\frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2}$
Proof: AFTSOC $\frac{rk^2+k}{k^2}\le \frac{r(k+1)^2+(k+1)+1}{(k+1)^2}$. Then $r+\frac{1}{k}\le r+\frac{1}{k+1}+\frac{1}{(k+1)^2}\implies \frac{1}{k}\le \frac{1}{k+1}+\frac{1}{(k+1)^2}=\frac{k+2}{(k+1)^2}$.

Multiplying both sides by $k(k+1)^2$ gives $(k+1)^2\le k(k+2)\implies k^2+2k+1\le k^2+2k$, which is absurd.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by megarnie, Dec 28, 2021, 8:23 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
asdf334
7586 posts
#25
Y by
After getting the upper and lower bounds on $r$, another approach would be to pick any arbitrary value of $r$ and an arbitrarily large $k$, then set $b_k$ as the smallest integer satisfying $\frac{b_k}{k^2}>r$ and move "backward", picking the smallest fraction greater than the previous, and show that this works via contradiction.
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by asdf334, Jan 15, 2022, 3:44 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Inconsistent
1455 posts
#26
Y by
The answer is all reals between $0$ and $\frac{1}{2}$. Upper bound is trivial by thinking. Construction is to stay on the upper bound construction until you are able to switch to $b_n = \lceil rn^2 \rceil + n$, finishing.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by Inconsistent, Oct 27, 2022, 10:03 PM
Reason: edit
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
EthanWYX2009
841 posts
#27
Y by
引理: 对于 $\forall n\in\mathbb Z_+$, 都有 $b_n\leqslant\frac 12n(n+1)$.
我们运用数学归纳法证明该引理. 由已知 $n=1$ 时结论成立. 假设对于 $n>1$, 结论对于 $n-1$ 成立, 则有
$$b_n<\frac{n^2}{(n-1)^2}b_{n-1}\leqslant\frac{n^2}{(n-1)^2}\cdot\frac 12n(n-1)=\frac{n^3}{2(n-1)}<\frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1$$结合 $b_n\in\mathbb Z$,$b_n\leqslant\frac 12n(n+1)$, 归纳成立.
回到原题, 由引理知 $r\leqslant\frac{b_n}{n^2}\leqslant\frac 12+\frac 1{2n}$, 因此 $r\leqslant\frac 12$. 对于数列 $b_n=\frac 12n(n+1)$,$r=\frac 12$; 对于数列 $b_n\equiv 1$,$r=0$.
对于 $0<r<\frac 12$,$N\in\mathbb Z_+$, 使得 $n\geq N$ 时, 都有 $\left\lceil rn^2+n\right\rceil <\frac 12n(n+1)$.
取数列 $b_n=\frac 12n(n+1)$, $1\leq n<N$; $b_n=\left\lceil rn^2+n\right\rceil$, $n\geq N$.$\lim_{n\to +\infty}\frac {b_n}{n^2}=r$.
综上所述, ${r}$ 的取值范围为 $\boxed{\left[0,\frac 12\right]}$.$\blacksquare$
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
john0512
4175 posts
#29
Y by
We claim that the answer is $0\leq r\leq 1/2.$

Claim 1: $$b_n\leq \frac{n(n+1)}{2}.$$We will use induction. Clearly, this is true for $n=1,2,3.$ We will use induction. Suppose that $$b_k\leq \frac{k(k+1)}{2}$$for some $k\geq 3$. Then, $$b_{k+1}<b_k\frac{(k+1)^2}{k^2}\leq \frac{(k+1)^3}{2k}.$$
Case 1: $k$ is even. Then, $$\frac{(k+1)^3}{2k}=\frac{k^2}{2}+\frac{3k}{2}+\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2k}.$$The first two terms will be integers if $k\geq 3$ and $k$ is even, so its floor is $$\frac{k^2}{2}+\frac{3k}{2}+1=\frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2},$$and since $$b_{k+1}\leq \lfloor \frac{(k+1)^3}{2k}\rfloor,$$this case is resolved.

Case 2: $k$ is odd. Then, let $k=2s-1$, so $$b_{k+1}\leq \lfloor \frac{(k+1)^3}{2k}\rfloor =\lfloor \frac{4s^3}{2s-1}\rfloor=\lfloor 2s^2+s+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4s-2}\rfloor=2s^2+s,$$which is what we want. Hence, we have shown the claim.

This clearly shows that $r\leq 1/2$. It also shows that $r=1/2$ is achievable since we can just set $b_n=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}.$

Clearly, $r\geq 0$. Furthermore, $r=0$ achievable by $b_n=1$. It remains to show that $0<r<1/2$ is achievable.

Claim 2: If $0<r<1/2$ is a real number, then $$\frac{\lceil rn^2 \rceil +n}{n^2}$$is decreasing with respect to $n$ when $n$ is a positive integer. This is just showing that $$\frac{\lceil rn^2 \rceil +n}{n^2}>\frac{\lceil r(n+1)^2 \rceil +n+1}{(n+1)^2}.$$Note that we have $$\lceil rn^2 \rceil\geq rn^2$$and $$\lceil r(n+1)^2\rceil < r(n+1)^2+1,$$so it suffices to show that $$\frac{rn^2 +n}{n^2}>\frac{r(n+1)^2+1 +n+1}{(n+1)^2}.$$This is just $$\frac{1}{n}>\frac{n+2}{(n+1)^2}$$$$(n+1)^2>n(n+2),$$which is clearly true.

Note that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\lceil rn^2 \rceil +n}{n^2}=r,$$and furthermore, $$\frac{\lceil rn^2 \rceil +n}{n^2}>r$$for all $n$. Thus, if $r<1/2$, we can first do $b_n= \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ for sufficiently many terms, and then swap over to $$b_n=\frac{\lceil rn^2 \rceil +n}{n^2}$$and do that for the rest of the way to achieve $r$ (this works if we go sufficiently far since it goes from larger to 1/2 to below 1/2 during the transition if we wait sufficiently long, since it heads towards $r<1/2$), so we are done.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by john0512, May 21, 2023, 9:30 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
naonaoaz
329 posts
#31
Y by
Obviously $r \ge 0$, with equality achievable by $b_i = 1$ for all $i$.

Similarly, note that $r \le \frac{1}{2}$. To see this, we can imagine starting with $b_1 = 1$ and greedily picking the largest possible $b_2,b_3,\ldots$. It's clear this greedy strategy will give the largest possible $r$.

Using this greedy method, induction shows that $b_n = {{n+1} \choose 2}$ for all $n \ge 1$. Then taking $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{b_n}{n^2} = \frac{1}{2}$ finishes. Furthermore, this implies $b_n \le {{n+1} \choose 2}$ for any sequence $b_i$.
Claim: All $r \in \left[0,\frac{1}{2}\right]$ are achievable.
Proof: We've already shown $0$ and $\frac{1}{2}$ are achievable. Consider $a_n = \left \lceil{rn^2}\right \rceil+n$. Clearly, $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_n}{n^2} = r$. We claim that
\begin{align*}
        b_n &= {{n+1} \choose 2} \text{ for $n \le N$} \\
        b_n &= \left \lceil{rn^2}\right \rceil+n \text{ else}
    \end{align*}for some sufficiently large $N$ works as a sequence. First, to determine $N$, just take any $n$ such that
\[\frac{1}{1-2r} < \frac{n^2}{n+2} \text{ which implies } \left \lceil{rn^2}\right \rceil+n < \text{max $b_n$} = {{n+1} \choose 2}\]Secondly, it's not hard to verify that, when $n>N$, the sequence $\frac{b_n}{n^2}$ is decreasing as desired. Thus since these two conditions are met, this sequence $b_n$ works, and we're done. $\square$
Remark:
The actually checking of the inequality is omitted as it's not difficult or useful. However, a small note: to actually verify the inequalities, use $\left \lceil{x}\right \rceil \ge x$ and $ x+1 \ge \left \lceil{x}\right \rceil$.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
YaoAOPS
1500 posts
#32
Y by
Note that $b_i = 1$.
We have that for $j > i$ \[ b_{j} \le \left\lfloor \frac{(j)^2}{i^2} \cdot b_j \right\rfloor \]Note that the inequality is the tightest when $j = i + 1$
Consider the maximal possible value of $r$, which occurs when equality holds between $i, j = i + 1$. We claim that this value is $\frac{1}{2}$.
We have that \[ b_{i+1} = \left\lfloor \frac{(i+1)^2}{i^2} \cdot b_i \right\rfloor = b_i + \left\lfloor \frac{2}{i} b_i \right\rfloor \]Thus, if $i \mid 2b_i$, then $b_{i+1} = \frac{i + 2}{i}b_i$.
Since $b_1 = 1$, we can inductively solve to get $b_2 = 3$, $b_3 = 6$, $b_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ and as $n \to \infty$, $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \to \frac{1}{2}$.
Claim: If $r$ is the maximal for a fixed $b_i$, then $\frac{b_i}{i^2} - r \le C_j = \sum_{j=i}^{\infty} \frac{1}{j^2}$
Proof. Take $b_{i+1}$ as maximal, repeat to get a decrease of at most $C_j$. $\blacksquare$
Now, define $b_i$ inductively as maximal values such that $\frac{b_i}{i^2} < \frac{b_{i-1}}{(i-1)^2}$, jumping down to $b_i = \left\lceil i^2 (r + C_i) \right\rceil$ whenever $\frac{b_{i-1}}{(i-1)^2} > \frac{1}{i-1} + r + C_i$.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
cursed_tangent1434
559 posts
#33 • 1 Y
Y by GeoKing
We claim that the only real constants $r$ for which such a sequence of positive integers exist are $0 \le r \le \frac{1}{2}$. We start off with proving the bound.

It is not hard to see that $r \ge 0$ since all the terms of the form $\frac{b_i}{i^2}$ are strictly positive. For the upper bound, we first note that, $b_1=1$. Further, we can show the following result via induction.

Claim : For all positive integers $i \ge 2$,
\[\frac{b_i}{i^2}\le \frac{i+1}{2i}\]

Since $b_1=1$ and $\frac{b_2}{4} < 1$ we have $b_2 <4$ and thus, $b_2 \le 3$ implying $\frac{b_2}{4} \le \frac{3}{4}$ as desired. Now, we assume that for some positive integer $k \ge 2$, $\frac{b_k}{k^2} \le \frac{k+1}{2k}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2} & < \frac{b_k}{k^2} \\
b_{k+1} & < \frac{(k+1)^3}{2k}\\
b_{k+1} & \ge \frac{(k+1)^3-1}{2k}\\
&= \frac{(k+1)^2+(k+1)+1}{2}\\
b_{k+1} & \ge \frac{k^2+3k+2}{2}\\
&= \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2}
\end{align*}using the fact that $b_{k+1} \in \mathbb{N}$. Thus, $b_{k+1} \le \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2}$ from which it follows that, $\frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2} \le \frac{k+2}{2(k+1)}$ completing the induction.

Now, if $r>\frac{1}{2}$, there must exist some $\epsilon >0$ and $k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $i \ge k$, $b_i \ge \frac{1}{2} + \epsilon$. But now, considering $i > \frac{1}{2\epsilon}$ contradicts the above claim, which finishes the proof of the bound.

All that remains now is to provide a construction. When $r=0$ and $r=\frac{1}{2}$ simply consider the sequences $b_i=i$ and $b_i = \frac{i(i+1)}{2}$ respectively. For all $0 < r < \frac{1}{2}$ we can consider the sequence,
\[b_i= \begin{cases}
\frac{i(i+1)}{2} & i < N\\
\lceil ri^2+i \rceil & i \ge N
\end{cases}\]for sufficiently large $N$. To see why this works we let $c_i = \frac{b_i}{i^2}$ for all positive integers $i$, it is first clear that $c_1=1$ and $c_i$ is increasing for $1 \le i <  \frac{3}{1-2r}$. Then, we have two consecutive terms of the form,
\[c_{k-1} = \frac{k}{2(k-1)} \text{ and }  c_k = \frac{\lceil rk^2+k \rceil}{k^2}\]Note that,
\begin{align*}
c_k & = \frac{\lceil rk^2+k \rceil}{k^2} \\
& \le \frac{rk^2+k+1}{k^2}\\
& < \frac{k}{2(k-1)}\\
&= c_{k-1}
\end{align*}for sufficiently large $k$ (so we simply need to select $N$ such that the final inequality holds). Further, for all $i>k$, $c_i$ is also increasing since,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\lceil ri^2+i \rceil}{i^2} & >  \frac{ri^2 +i}{i^2}\\
& = r + \frac{1}{i}\\
& > r + \frac{i+2}{(i+1)^2}\\
& > \frac{r(i+1)^2 + (i+1) + 1}{(i+1)^2}\\
& > \frac{\lceil r(i+1)^2+ (i+1) \rceil}{(i+1)^2}
\end{align*}Thus, the described sequence satisfies all the desired characteristics. Further,
\[\frac{b_n}{n^2} = \frac{\lceil rn^2+n \rceil}{n^2}> r\]So, $r$ is a lower bound of $c_i$. To see why it is the greatest lower bound, say there exists some $\epsilon >0$ and $k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $ i \ge k$ we have $c_i \ge r+ \epsilon$. Then, we have $\frac{\lceil ri^2+i \rceil}{i^2} > r + \epsilon$ so,
\begin{align*}
ri^2+i+1 & > \lceil ri^2+i \rceil > ri^2 + i^2 \epsilon\\
i+1 & > i^2 \epsilon
\end{align*}which is clearly false for sufficiently large $i$. Thus, $r$ is in fact the greatest lower bound of $c_i$ which completes the solution.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by cursed_tangent1434, Jul 4, 2024, 5:48 AM
Reason: typoes
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Ywgh1
138 posts
#34
Y by
USA 2020 TST p1

We claim that $r \in [0,1/2]$.
We start off with the following claim.

Claim : $b_n \leq \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ for all $n$.

Proof: We use induction, base case being $n=1$ is trivial. First assume that $b_{n-1} \leq \frac{n(n-1)}{2}$,
we show that $b_n \leq \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$.

\begin{align*}
b_{n} &<\frac{n(n-1)}{2}\cdot\frac{n^2}{(n-1)^2} \\
&= \frac{n^3-n}{2(n-1)} + \frac{n}{2(n-1)} \\
&< \frac{n(n+1)}{2}+1
\end{align*}As desired. $\blacksquare$

Now as $n \to \infty$ we get that
\[\frac{b_n}{n^2} \leq \frac{1}{2}\].

Now we give a construction of our bound.

Construction: Let $b_n = \left\lceil rn^2 + n\right\rceil$ if $\frac{\left\lceil rn^2 + n\right\rceil}{n^2} < \frac{1}{2}$, otherwise, let $b_n=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ .
Which works, hence we are done.
This post has been edited 5 times. Last edited by Ywgh1, Aug 15, 2024, 7:30 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
ihatemath123
3441 posts
#35
Y by
The answer is $r \in [0, \tfrac{1}{2} ]$.

Claim: We have $b_i \leq \tfrac{i(i+1)}{2}$.
Proof: We prove this with induction, with the base case of $i=1$ being obvious. For $i > 1$, we have
\[b_i < \frac{i^2}{(i-1)^2} \cdot b_{i-1} \leq \frac{i^3}{2(i-1)} < \frac{i^2 + i + 2}{2},\]and since $\tfrac{i^2 + i + 1}{2}$ is not an integer, it follows that $b_i \leq \tfrac{i(i+1)}{2}$, as claimed.

So, we must have $r \leq \tfrac{1}{2}$. We now show that we can obtain every $r$ in this range. Note that the value of $\tfrac{b_i}{i^2}$ decreases by at most $\tfrac{1}{i^2}$ each time we increment $i$ by one. Therefore, if we define \[f(n) := \sum_{j=n}^\infty \frac{1}{j^2},\]we can always make our sequence converge to some real number at least $L_n = \tfrac{b_n}{n^2} - f(n+1)$. Now, we construct our sequence $b_i$ as follows: for each $i$, first, set each $b_i$ to be as large as possible until $L_i$ is greater than $r$ – this must eventually happen since $\lim_{i \to \infty} f(i) = 0$. Let the $i$-value at which this happens be $k$. We continue to increase $i$, making $b_i$ as large as possible – as we do so, the value of $L_i$ increases. We repeat this until $\tfrac{1}{i^2} < (L_k - r)/2$. (Note the $k$ subscript.) Next, instead of picking $b_i$ to be as large as possible, we first set it to its maximum value and then decrease it by $1$ until $L_i$ lies in the range $(r, (r+L_k)/2)$. (This is possible since, by assumption, $\tfrac{1}{i^2} < (L_k - r)/2$.) Now, we reset $k$ to be the current value of $i$ and repeat this process indefinitely. By doing this, $L_i - r$ approaches $0$, and since $\tfrac{b_i}{i^2} - L_i$ also approaches $0$, it follows that $\tfrac{b_i}{i^2}$ approaches $r$, as desired.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Mathandski
727 posts
#36
Y by
Subjective Rating (MOHs) $       $
Attachments:
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Trasher_Cheeser12321
12 posts
#37
Y by
In order to find the maximum possible value for $r$, we need to try maximizing each value in the sequence.

Claim. $b_n$ must be the $n^\text{th}$ triangular number in order for the fraction to be maximized.

Proof. This can be proven using induction with our base cases being $b_1 = 1$ and $b_2 = 1+2 = 3$. With our inductive hypothesis, assume that $b_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$. Using the condition given in the problem, $b_{n+1}$ must satisfy
\[ \frac{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}{n^2} > \frac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2} \]It can be easily verified that the inequality holds for $b_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}$. Now all there is left to show is that the condition doesn't hold up when $b_{n+1} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+1$. This can be shown with
\begin{align*}
\frac{n+1}{2n} &> \frac{\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}+1}{(n+1)^2}\\
\frac{n+1}{2n} &> \frac{n^2+3n+2+2}{2(n+1)^2}\\
(n+1)^3 &> n^3 + 3n^2 + 4n
\end{align*}which is false since the statement simplifies to $1>n$ which is absurd. $\blacksquare$

Since $r$ is maximized when $b_n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$, we have that
\[ r \le \frac{n+1}{2n} \]for all $n$. As $n$ approaches infinity, we can conclude that $r \le \frac{1}{2}$. Since obviously $r\ge 0$, $r$ must lie in the interval $\left[0, \frac{1}{2}\right]$. The construction for any $r$ in this interval is done by defining
\[ b_n = \begin{cases} \frac{n(n+1)}{2} & \text{if } n \le N \\ \bigl{\lceil}rn^2 + n\bigl{\rceil} & \text{if } n > N \end{cases} \]for a sufficiently large $N$ satisfying $\frac{N(N+1)}{2} > \bigl{\lceil}rN^2 + N\bigl{\rceil} $. Lastly, since
\begin{align*}
\frac{\left\lceil rn^2 + n \right\rceil}{n^2} &\ge r + \frac{1}{n} > r + \frac{n+2}{(n+1)^2} = \frac{\left(r(n+1)^2 + (n+1)\right) + 1}{(n+1)^2} > \frac{\left\lceil r(n+1)^2 + (n+1) \right\rceil}{(n+1)^2}
\end{align*}we see that the condition $b_{n+1}>b_n$ still holds even for $n > N$ and the sequence approaches $r$ as $n$ tends to infinity. $\blacksquare$
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by Trasher_Cheeser12321, Dec 26, 2024, 5:49 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
aliz
158 posts
#38
Y by
The answer is $\boxed{0 \le r \le \frac{1}{2}}$. Since $\frac{b_n}{n^2} \ge 0$, $r \ge 0$.

Claim: $b_n \le \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$
Proof: We will prove by induction. This is obvious for $n = 1$. If it holds true for $n = k$ and not $n = k+1$, then \[ \frac{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}{k^2} \ge \frac{b_k}{k^2} > \frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2} \]so $\frac{(k+1)^3}{2k} > b_{k+1}$. Since we assume the claim does not hold for $n = k+1$, $b_{k+1} \ge \frac{k^2+3k+4}{2}$. Plugging this into $b_{k+1}$ and simplifying yields $k < 1$, contradiction.

Therefore $b_{k+1} \le \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2}$, and notice that if the two are equal, then \[ \frac{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}{k^2} > \frac{\frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2}}{(k+1)^2}. \]This simplifies to $1 > 0$ which is obviously true.

Since $\frac{b_k}{k^2} \le \frac{\frac{k(k+1)}{2}}{k^2} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2k}$, $r$ is at max $\frac{1}{2}$. Now consider $0 \le r < 1/2$.

Claim: $\frac{b_n}{n^2} - r \le \frac{1}{n}$.
Proof: Let $b_{n+1}$ be the maximum integer such that $\frac{b_n}{n^2} > \frac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2}$, so $\frac{b_{n+1} + 1}{(n+1)^2} \ge \frac{b_n}{n^2}$. Rearranging, \[ \frac{b_n}{n^2} - \frac{b_{n+1}}{(n+1)^2} \le \frac{1}{(n+1)^2} < \frac{1}{(n)(n+1)} = \frac{1}{n} - \frac{1}{n+1}. \]Noticing the telescoping sum, we put \[ \frac{b_n}{n^2} - r \le \sum_{p=n}^{\infty} \frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{p+1} = \frac{1}{n}. \]
Now consider the construction where $b_1 = 1$ and for $k > 1$, $b_k$ is the minimum positive integer value such that $\frac{b_k}{k^2} - r \ge \frac{1}{k}$. Since $\frac{b_k - 1}{k^2} - r < \frac{1}{k}, \frac{b_k}{k^2} - r < \frac{1}{k} + \frac{1}{k^2}$ so if this sequence exists, it converges to $r$.

Also, \[ \left( \frac{b_{k+1}}{(k+1)^2} - \frac{b_k}{k^2} \right) + \left( \frac{b_k}{k^2} - r \right)  \ge \frac{1}{n} - \left( \frac{1}{n} - \frac{1}{n+1} \right) = \frac{1}{n+1} \]so since a value of $b_{k+1}$ can be found and it must be a positive (bounded from below) integer, we can find a minimum value of $b_{k+1}$. Therefore this creates a valid sequence.

Therefore all values $0 \le r \le \frac{1}{2}$ can be possible infimums and all other values are impossible.
Z K Y
N Quick Reply
G
H
=
a