AoPS Academy
, 
,
, 
, why 
or even expressions of those terms combined as if that would make them defined. I have made this post to answer these questions once and for all, and I politely ask everyone to link this post to threads that are talking about this issue.. It is usually regarded that 
, not because this works numerically but because it is convenient to define it this way. You will see the convenience of defining other undefined things later on in this post.? The issue here is that 
isn't even rigorously defined in this expression. What exactly do we mean by ? Unless the example in question is put in context in a formal manner, then we say that is meaningless.? Suppose that 
. Then we would have 
, absurd. A more rigorous treatment of the idea is that 
does not exist in the first place, although you will see why in a calculus course. So the point is that is undefined.
? An article from brilliant has a good explanation. Alternatively, you can just use a geometric series. Notice that
? Usually this is considered to be an indeterminate form, but I would also wager that this is also undefined.
indeterminate? In analysis (the theory behind calculus and beyond), limits involving an algebraic combination of functions in an independent variable may often be evaluated by replacing these functions by their limits. However, if the expression obtained after this substitution does not provide sufficient information to determine the original limit, then the expression is called an indeterminate form. For example, we could say that is an indeterminate form.
, 
or , obtained by applying the algebraic limit theorem (a theorem in analysis, look this up for details) in the process of attempting to determine a limit, which fails to restrict that limit to one specific value or infinity, and thus does not determine the limit being calculated. This is why it is called indeterminate. Some examples of indeterminate forms are![\[0/0, \infty/\infty, \infty-\infty, \infty \times 0\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/2/6/0/260f97a1cf1ea8722ff97a29b83bac7bfe83e577.png)
etc etc. So what makes something undefined? In the broader scope, something being undefined refers to an expression which is not assigned an interpretation or a value. A function is said to be undefined for points outside its domain. For example, the function 
given by the mapping 
is undefined for 
. On the other hand, 
is undefined because dividing by is not defined in arithmetic by definition. In other words, something is undefined when it is not defined in some mathematical context. is considered both indeterminate and undefined (but in the context of a limit then it is considered in indeterminate form). Additionally, this notion of something being undefined also means that we can define it in some way. To rephrase, this means that technically, we can make something that is undefined to something that is defined as long as we define it. I'll show you what I mean.![\[\overline{\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}\cup \{-\infty,+\infty\}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/9/3/993c78b62ec2c84b5d77daa8e9a8cd6f70fcf904.png)
So instead of treating infinity as an idea, we define infinity (positively and negatively, mind you) as actual numbers in the reals. The advantage of doing this is for two reasons. The first is because we can turn this thing into a totally ordered set. Specifically, we can let 
for each 
which means that via this order topology each subset has an infimum and supremum and 
is therefore compact. While this is nice from an analytic standpoint, extending the reals in this way can allow for interesting arithmetic! In it is perfectly OK to say that,![\begin{align*}
a + \infty = \infty + a & = \infty, & a & \neq -\infty \\
a - \infty = -\infty + a & = -\infty, & a & \neq \infty \\
a \cdot (\pm\infty) = \pm\infty \cdot a & = \pm\infty, & a & \in (0, +\infty] \\
a \cdot (\pm\infty) = \pm\infty \cdot a & = \mp\infty, & a & \in [-\infty, 0) \\
\frac{a}{\pm\infty} & = 0, & a & \in \mathbb{R} \\
\frac{\pm\infty}{a} & = \pm\infty, & a & \in (0, +\infty) \\
\frac{\pm\infty}{a} & = \mp\infty, & a & \in (-\infty, 0).
\end{align*}](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/6/d/8/6d8fc1eca5c791d430a7168cd3b37a02104fa318.png)
So addition, multiplication, and division are all defined nicely. However, notice that we have some indeterminate forms here which are also undefined,![\[\infty-\infty,\frac{\pm\infty}{\pm\infty},\frac{\pm\infty}{0},0\cdot \pm\infty.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/0/b/a0b67076efcc014c78b2023be1151c84b57c1503.png)
So while we define certain things, we also left others undefined/indeterminate in the process! However, in the context of measure theory it is common to define 
as greenturtle3141 noted below. I encourage to reread what he wrote, it's great stuff! As you may notice, though, dividing by is undefined still! Is there a place where it isn't? Kind of. To do this, we can extend the complex numbers! More formally, we can define this extension as![\[\mathbb{C}^*=\mathbb{C}\cup\{\tilde{\infty}\}\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/4/e/84ed3d6ab237df970333b87beaef5311caa46185.png)
which we call the Riemann Sphere (it actually forms a sphere, pretty cool right?). As a note, 
means complex infinity, since we are in the complex plane now. Here's the catch: division by is allowed here! In fact, we have![\[\frac{z}{0}=\tilde{\infty},\frac{z}{\tilde{\infty}}=0.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/6/0/160cb939707708ff4e0930724df2928af11d7fd1.png)
where 
and are left undefined. We also have
Furthermore, we actually have some nice properties with multiplication that we didn't have before. In 
it holds that![\[\tilde{\infty}\times \tilde{\infty}=\tilde{\infty}\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/e/0/8e035b4841d20c5ad671c46355cc667ca01e533b.png)
but 
and 
are left as undefined (unless there is an explicit need to change that somehow). One could define the projectively extended reals as we did with , by defining them as![\[{\widehat {\mathbb {R} }}=\mathbb {R} \cup \{\infty \}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/c/0/4/c044ff37849acad3b8b280b9753539225a1276ca.png)
They behave in a similar way to the Riemann Sphere, with division by also being allowed with the same indeterminate forms (in addition to some other ones).
be an acute triangle and 
its orthocenter. Let 
be a point on the parallel through 
to 
such that 
. Define 
and 
as points on the parallels through 
to 
and through 
to 
similarly. If 
are positioned around the sides of as in the given configuration, prove that are collinear.
be an acute triangle with 
, its orthocenter and 
it's circumcenter. Let be a point on the parallel through to such that 
and and are on different sides of . Denote by 
the intersection of the circumcircle of and 
, where 
is the reflection of over , 
the midpoint of 
, the intersection of 
and the parallel through to 
, the intersection of 
and the perpendicular through to 
and 
a point on such that 
, where 
is the midpoint of 
. Prove that 
lie on a line.
is inscribed in a circle 
. Inscribed in a triangle circle touchs the sides in a point . 
— the circle inscribed in a segment 
circle of , and passing through a point . Let points and 
— the centers of circles and an extra inscribed circle (touching side ) respectively. Prove, that lines 
and 
are parallel.
be cyclic quadrilateral. Let and 
intersect at , and let and 
intersect at 
. Let and are points on and such that 
. Let and be the intersections of 
with the diagonals of . Prove that circumcircles of triangles 
and 
are tangent at a fixed point.
be an odd prime and 
be integers so that the integers 
are divisible by . divides each of .
divides one of them, it divides all of them. Assume that it divides none of them. Then, there exists an inverse for all of them in modulo and then it's some algmanip to get 
a contradiction
divides one of them, it divides all of them. Assume that it divides none of them. Then, there exists an inverse for all of them in modulo and then it's some algmanip to get a contradiction
divides one of them, it divides all of them. Assume that it divides none of them. Then just do some things to get .
be an odd prime and be integers so that the integers . divides each of . divides any of we are done, so from now onwards we assume none of them are divisible by .Define 
such that
and 
.Then notice![\[\dfrac{1}{xy} = \dfrac{c}{a}\mod p\Longleftrightarrow (x\cdot y)^{2025}\equiv -1\mod p\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/b/6/eb6a6acc59325994d74209faa16c9408b6509521.png)
Claim : 
that is 
a contradiction to the fact that was an odd-prime.
, all of them are. So assume on the contrary that none of them are divisible by . So assume none of them are.
.
and 
. Multiplying these, we get,![\[ a^{2023 + 2025} \equiv b^{2023}c^{2025} \implies (a^2)^{2024} \equiv c^2 \cdot (bc)^{2023} \implies bc \cdot (bc)^{2023} \equiv c^2 \cdot (bc)^{2023} \implies b \equiv c \pmod{p}. \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/7/e/2/7e2a5811d0293d90d0803d797abe96dddb3cf6b6.png)
![\[ p\mid b^{2024} + c^{2024} \equiv 2b^{2024} \implies p \mid 2 \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/d/0/9d0ae48aed14e79a9bd3ac70d9e0de65b94a50a9.png)
which is a contradiction and we are done. 
divides all of divides one of , clearly divides all of , so assume divides none of them.
. The condition 
and we also have 
, so multiplying the three equations gives 
, so 
. This implies that 
, so 
, so 
. But 
, so dividing the two gives 
, so 
mod p. Since 
, we have 
. But then since 
, 
, so 
. Now, this means that 
is a multiple of , contradiction since doesn't divide 
and 
.
divides either of , then it divides everything and we're done. Henceforth, assume that 
. We will now work modulo with special powers of existence of inverses of .
, we get that 
. Swing this into 
to get 
. At last, putting this into 
, we get![\[a^{2025} + a^{2023}bc \equiv 0 \iff a^2 + bc \equiv 0 \pmod{p}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/f/3/9f3580a23b4e02a0cc044d1ed98e85e908c8dc66.png)
From here, we wish to eliminate completely modulo . This can be achieved via substituting 
. Putting this in we get![\[a^{2023} - \frac{a^{4046}}{c^{2023}} \equiv 0 \iff a^{2023} \equiv c^{2023} \pmod{p}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/7/6/976fafcba4a1cbc016f9da9b2282e872d622c737.png)
This yields![\[a^{2025} \equiv a^2c^{2023} \equiv -c^{2025} \pmod{p} \implies a^2 + c^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{p}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/f/e/afeed88cffe64ac63caa5078eb428e9dd101702e.png)
Finally, on combining this with 
, we get![\[p \mid c(c-b) \iff c \equiv b \pmod{p}\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/b/3/7/b3750c524d111659d1d05bb4c86672315b106d6a.png)
since 
. Upon putting 
in say , we get immediately get 
which is a contradiction since is odd and we're done. 
divides any one of them, it divides the other two as well. doesn't divide any of the three. Since is an odd prime, it has a primitive root, say 
.
.
where 
.
.
Cancelling 
and the denominator and taking mod 2 leads to a contradiction. Done!
be an odd prime and be integers so that the integers .?, but I suppose a lot of us got tunnel vision and didn't see the error because we already saw it in the test lol 
or 
or 
then divides all of them.
. is odd prime, i.e we would prove 
. we could take inverses.
we get
Multiplying equations , 
and 
we get
.
i.e
Now from we get
and from 1 we get
Let the order of 
mod be k.
i.e 
.
or
Putting this information in equation we get
or 
divides one of 
then it divides all of them, so henceforth assume it doesn't divide any of them. Thus, there exists a valid inverse in modulo for each of 
Then, we have 
and thus, multiplying all of them together, we have 
Thus, 
which gives 
Thus, 
which by putting in the first equation gives 
From the second equation, we get 
so 
so 
a contradiction.
for any 
and it follows for 
.
If divides any one of then 
.
W.L.O.G 
, now since 
and also 
. 
it suffices to disprove the fact that that 
,so FTSOC we assume that is the case.
does not divide any of 
. FTSOC 
, then 
, now since 
, it gives a contradiction. 
.
and 
and since 
similarly symmetrically other in and 
, but from 
we have 
, which implies 
we have 
and from 
we get this is equivalent to 
, but this is not possible as 
.. must divide .
, raise both sides to power 
to get terms 
and done
so all are divisible by 
be the order of 
mod p so
divides any one of , then it divides all the three numbers. Suppose 
. Then, 
but 
, which means that 
, forcing 
. Also, 
and 
which means 
, forcing 
., then and , which means , forcing . Since , we also have that from the earlier proof., then 
and 
, which means 
, forcing , which in turn forces . So, if divides any one of , then it divides all the three numbers.
. For integer 
and prime , we define the order of 
to be the smallest positive integer such that 
.
If is order of , 
and 
, then 
.
Suppose it was possible that 
. Note that if 
, then it will contradict the minimality of . So, 
. Hence, there exists 
and 
such that 
. Now, 
, which means 
, so 
. But since and 
, the minimality of gives us a contradiction. Hence, is impossible, and 
is forced. The proof is complete. ![\[\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^{4046}\equiv1\pmod{p} \ \ \ \ (1)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/3/c/03c40601bceb0fab5a6ffeeeba604aa68badcaad.png)
![\[\left(\frac{b}{c}\right)^{4048}\equiv1\pmod{p} \ \ \ \ (2)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/4/9/949ad0a2ea48a5f0d3962fc499253bb2fbe1ca0b.png)
![\[\left(\frac{c}{a}\right)^{4050}\equiv1\pmod{p} \ \ \ \ (3)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/9/c/59cc2f807076eebdc607ddf85468f6669909c174.png)
Multiplying these equations 
we obtain 
. So, 
.
is 
. So, ![\[\left(\frac{\left(bc\right)^{2023}}{b^{4046}}\right)\equiv\pm1\pmod{p},\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/9/8/598210f0185cbbeab376b8468ac11185c78c7702.png)
which gives ![\[\left(\frac{b}{c}\right)^{4046}\equiv1\pmod{p} \ \ \ \ (4)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/7/5/975c0d72e9f1b8a5055adf740adbd3631ebc3120.png)
It follows that if is the order of 
, , then from equation , we get 
, and from equation 
, we get 
, using the 
in each case.
, so 
. Hence, we have that 
. So, 
.
, we get 
, and since , we have 
, which forces , as is an odd prime. However, if then , and are forced by our initial arguments.
divides any one of 
, then it divides all of them. Assume this to not be the case. Then we get the system of congruences 
Multiplying and , 
but from , 
Substituting in, 
Dividing from this new equation, 
Therefore 
a contradiction. 
Now assume that 
as if one of the three is modulo , all of them must be. Then we find that,
However then from this we may conclude that,
Dividing as 
modulo , we find that,
Now rewriting our conditions we have,
Squaring the first equation we have,
From the first equation we then find 
. Thus we have,
Thus we have from the original equations,
from which we easily see 
and hence are done.
, 
, 
.
From 
, we get that: 
, 
, 
, we have: 
, we get: 
and , we have: 
, 
, which is a contradiction! must divide one of . If divides any one of the numbers, must divide all the numbers individually, and we're done! 
=2023×2024×2025
And from this we get
and we are done
=2023×2024×2025And from this we getand we are done
, then![\[a^{2023}+b^{2023}\equiv 0 \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/3/e/83eb190b5fa85d8dea225dcc29862a75566fb891.png)
![\[\iff b^{2023} \equiv 0 \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/d/b/5dba54e9ecf89a47b19d5689c2329393b87d4596.png)
![\[\iff p\mid b,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/7/b/a7bfece03e925f20b8a45a7d05193d2e9a90f21b.png)
and similarly we can find that . In general, using a similar proof, it can be shown that if 
, then divides each of , , and . FTSOC, assume that divides none of , , or .![\[\iff a^{2023}\equiv -b^{2023} \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/1/8/818923601b1c3bd4663b2ffc84671be9a57925dc.png)
![\[\iff \left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^{2023}\equiv -1 \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/6/8/e68ed1022f52ef7890eea80e85c20f4f99be4790.png)
![\[\iff ord_p\left(\frac{a}{b}\right) \mid 4046 \text{ and } 2\mid ord_p\left(\frac{a}{b}\right),\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/c/9/ec92d4eca021bc856f21fafb2c8557996a5c9459.png)
since we had that 
. Similarly, from the second equation, we get that![\[ord_p\left(\frac{b}{c}\right) \mid 4048 \text{ and } 16\mid ord_p\left(\frac{b}{c}\right).\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/8/9/a8920a410f2a1af044580f4fc60aa872c0ad23c1.png)
is prime, it is well-known that it must have a primitive root. Let said primitive root be and define 
and to be the unique integers such that 
and 
, where 
. Now, notice that if![\[2\mid ord_p\left(\frac{a}{b}\right) \text{ and } ord_p\left(\frac{a}{b}\right) \mid 4046,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/8/8/588717e5e134f22fe7ffd8f045013a3ac830e228.png)
we get that![\[\nu_2\left(ord_p\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)\right)=1,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/b/1/8b16c089c3c49f99785c489259e1351e37128591.png)
which in turn gives that![\[\nu_2(m)=\nu_2(p-1)-1,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/b/4/9/b49456621127ee9da5266bbacdb544b1421ba7da.png)
since the order of mod is 
. Similarly, if![\[16\mid ord_p\left(\frac{b}{c}\right) \text{ and } ord_p\left(\frac{b}{c}\right) \mid 4048,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/6/0/3/603243f29adb37cd296bbe937e2a3e675e5b7431.png)
then we have that![\[\nu_2(n)=\nu_2(p-1)-4.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/c/2/0/c20759f7f4894678a21fbc57af30ccfb244b3a99.png)
![\[\frac{a}{c}\equiv \left(\frac{a}{b}\right)\left(\frac{b}{c}\right)\equiv g^{m+n} \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/2/a/0/2a009851a1f21c5ce1a3d29247fce55cf2c20a78.png)
which means that![\[\nu_2\left(ord_p\left(\frac{a}{c}\right)\right)=\nu_2(p-1)-\nu_2(m+n).\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/c/a/1ca9ab1f825bd116747430272514ff490d684f41.png)
However, since![\[\nu_2(p-1)-1=\nu_2(m)>\nu_2(n)=\nu_2(p-1)-4,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/f/8/0f8960478bd06900144fd543a3c64b96763a27e7.png)
we get that![\[\nu_2(m+n)=\nu_2(p-1)-4,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/f/d/2/fd2ac92a256506f59ac0641161ef1c4fa8fb8f3e.png)
which gives that![\[\nu_2\left(ord_p\left(\frac{a}{c}\right)\right)=\nu_2(p-1)-(\nu_2(p-1)-4)=4.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/3/3/1/331d4ab505bbc625d82d3d0318cfc588f3fbea58.png)
![\[c^{2025}+a^{2025}\equiv 0 \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/b/a/d/bad74ec1ffd101b304144220701bf972c1d043f8.png)
![\[\iff a^{2025}\equiv -c^{2025} \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/d/9/ad9f2857b261e693c9635e8ce64be7b7c8c88d1d.png)
![\[\iff \left(\frac{a}{c}\right)^{2025}\equiv -1 \mod p,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/4/8/7/4878d5a9ad9e8600a3b35ef8ca89e05183c2aeda.png)
![\[\iff ord_p\left(\frac{a}{c}\right) \mid 4050,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/6/b/d/6bd10eec121f089a055db571af01929381a55f99.png)
a contradiction, since 
does not divide 
. Therefore must divide each of , , and , as desired, finishing the problem.
divides one of 
, WLOG 
, we have 
, 
, so then divides all of them.
. We have the following modular congruences:![\[ \left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^{4046} \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/b/d/0bdd25f5d1ea41a0b381219a319f3677e2c899e9.png)
![\[ \left(\frac{b}{c}\right)^{4048} \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/4/2/d/42d5b135d3a6bff64503eebd1a8aec291a293688.png)
![\[ \left(\frac{c}{a}\right)^{4050} \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/0/2/50259c73c26a9290c222b1e1bb611237c452c9a3.png)
Firstly, observe that 
. Since 
, we have 
. Further, 
. From this, we conclude that:![\[ p \mid b^{2024}c + a^2b^{2023} = b^{2023}(bc + a^2) \implies a^2 \equiv -bc \pmod{p} \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/1/b/d1b561b2397fbdc7f8dca95b5ff62e8794e4bae3.png)
since 
.
, which, replacing in our first congruence, gives 
. Replacing this in our second congruence, we have![\[ \frac{b^{4046}}{c^{4046}} \cdot \frac{b^2}{c^2} \equiv 1 \pmod{p} \implies b^2 \equiv c^2 \pmod{p} \implies b^{2024} \equiv c^{2024} \pmod{p} \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/9/b/19b2e18df1dc97f85e66e923205936b9abc48abe.png)
Therefore, 
. Since is odd, we have 
, which gives 
as well, so we are done.
is divisible by would suffice. Assume all of them are invertible on 
. As 
we may say,
We then have 
. Since is invertible we are left with the key result,
Using the above fact, 
which deduces to 
and as 
we can easily show that 
. Now we are left with,
But we had already seen 
and is absurd, contradicting our assumption, hence none of them are invertible as desired.
, then 
.
.
.
However, I quickly saw that 
and 
intersect at the point 
.
,
.
?
?
families, there are 
children respectively. If a random child from any of the families is chosen, what is the probability that the child has 
,
.
lies on diagonal 
.
.
has 
,
,
.
.
and 
Note that we can choose 
such that, 
cause of periodicity of modulo 
.
such that 
as, 
,
then 
divides 
,
divides 
and 
divides 
such that, 
Then by 2nd equation given in the question that is 
we have 
but by 
we have 
which is a contradiction as 
But, due to the order of an integer modulo 
a multiple of 
,
.
,
and 
.
,
.
.
,
.
so 
.
or![\[ \left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^{2025}\equiv -\left(\frac{c}{a}\right)^{2025}\equiv 1\pmod p\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/8/5/d857e5c200fa57c56f8e211d088b14c253888cd7.png)
From the problem we also have 
,
.
and 
.
giving