Stay ahead of learning milestones! Enroll in a class over the summer!

G
Topic
First Poster
Last Poster
k a April Highlights and 2025 AoPS Online Class Information
jlacosta   0
Apr 2, 2025
Spring is in full swing and summer is right around the corner, what are your plans? At AoPS Online our schedule has new classes starting now through July, so be sure to keep your skills sharp and be prepared for the Fall school year! Check out the schedule of upcoming classes below.

WOOT early bird pricing is in effect, don’t miss out! If you took MathWOOT Level 2 last year, no worries, it is all new problems this year! Our Worldwide Online Olympiad Training program is for high school level competitors. AoPS designed these courses to help our top students get the deep focus they need to succeed in their specific competition goals. Check out the details at this link for all our WOOT programs in math, computer science, chemistry, and physics.

Looking for summer camps in math and language arts? Be sure to check out the video-based summer camps offered at the Virtual Campus that are 2- to 4-weeks in duration. There are middle and high school competition math camps as well as Math Beasts camps that review key topics coupled with fun explorations covering areas such as graph theory (Math Beasts Camp 6), cryptography (Math Beasts Camp 7-8), and topology (Math Beasts Camp 8-9)!

Be sure to mark your calendars for the following events:
[list][*]April 3rd (Webinar), 4pm PT/7:00pm ET, Learning with AoPS: Perspectives from a Parent, Math Camp Instructor, and University Professor
[*]April 8th (Math Jam), 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, 2025 MATHCOUNTS State Discussion
April 9th (Webinar), 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Learn about Video-based Summer Camps at the Virtual Campus
[*]April 10th (Math Jam), 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, 2025 MathILy and MathILy-Er Math Jam: Multibackwards Numbers
[*]April 22nd (Webinar), 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Competitive Programming at AoPS (USACO).[/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, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Aug 26

Calculus
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
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
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
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
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15

Physics 1: Mechanics
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
Apr 2, 2025
0 replies
Dividing Pairs
Jackson0423   3
N 6 minutes ago by Ye3L101L201L401L701L100
Source: Own
Let \( a \) and \( b \) be positive integers.
Suppose that \( a \) is a divisor of \( b^2 + 1 \) and \( b \) is a divisor of \( a^2 + 1 \).
Find all such pairs \( (a, b) \).
3 replies
Jackson0423
Apr 13, 2025
Ye3L101L201L401L701L100
6 minutes ago
Number Theory Chain!
JetFire008   59
N 10 minutes ago by jason02
I will post a question and someone has to answer it. Then they have to post a question and someone else will answer it and so on. We can only post questions related to Number Theory and each problem should be more difficult than the previous. Let's start!

Question 1
59 replies
JetFire008
Apr 7, 2025
jason02
10 minutes ago
Four Complex numbers forming a quadrilateral
Kunihiko_Chikaya   1
N 30 minutes ago by Mathzeus1024
Let $a,\ b$ be real numbers. Four solutions on the complex plane of the quartic equation in $z\ ;$ $z^4+az^2+b=0$ form the four vertices of a quadrilateral. Find the condition such that the area of the quadrilateral is less than 1, and also sketch the domain of the set of the points $(a,\ b)$ satisfying the condition.
1 reply
+1 w
Kunihiko_Chikaya
Sep 20, 2016
Mathzeus1024
30 minutes ago
Interesting inequality
sqing   1
N an hour ago by Mathzeus1024
Let $ a,b> 0 $ and $ a+b+ab=1. $ Prove that
$$\frac{1}{1+a^2} + \frac{1}{1+b^2}  +a+b\leq \frac{5}{\sqrt{2}}-1 $$
1 reply
sqing
Today at 3:35 AM
Mathzeus1024
an hour ago
No more topics!
number theory and combinatoric sets of integers relations
trying_to_solve_br   39
N Mar 2, 2025 by HamstPan38825
Source: IMO 2021 P6
Let $m\ge 2$ be an integer, $A$ a finite set of integers (not necessarily positive) and $B_1,B_2,...,B_m$ subsets of $A$. Suppose that, for every $k=1,2,...,m$, the sum of the elements of $B_k$ is $m^k$. Prove that $A$ contains at least $\dfrac{m}{2}$ elements.
39 replies
trying_to_solve_br
Jul 20, 2021
HamstPan38825
Mar 2, 2025
number theory and combinatoric sets of integers relations
G H J
Source: IMO 2021 P6
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
trying_to_solve_br
191 posts
#1 • 7 Y
Y by centslordm, fattypiggy123, megarnie, jhu08, quirtt, PHSH, kiyoras_2001
Let $m\ge 2$ be an integer, $A$ a finite set of integers (not necessarily positive) and $B_1,B_2,...,B_m$ subsets of $A$. Suppose that, for every $k=1,2,...,m$, the sum of the elements of $B_k$ is $m^k$. Prove that $A$ contains at least $\dfrac{m}{2}$ elements.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by trying_to_solve_br, Jul 20, 2021, 8:49 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
ABCDE
1963 posts
#2 • 9 Y
Y by centslordm, trumpeter, TheStrayCat, Mindstormer, USJL, p_square, jhu08, PRMOisTheHardestExam, awesomeming327.
Seems like Jumpy snuck onto the PSC and applied a move to Problem 1 :maybe:

See Theorem 1 here.

I went to a talk the author of the paper above gave about some of his work and thought this result was cute, so I put this problem on a mock IMO I made for the 2020 USA IMO team. I also sent this mock IMO to the 2021 team, so let's see how they do...
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
kvanta
113 posts
#3 • 4 Y
Y by centslordm, pavel kozlov, jhu08, PRMOisTheHardestExam
Seems like I posted on the wrong P6 thread, so I'm copying this over here.

First of all, here is the key idea for the solution of this problem: You need to have some experience with linear algebra (and have some intuition about it). More precisely: Suppose $|A|=k$. Let's view the $B_i$ as vectors $v_i$ in $\{ 0, 1 \} ^k$. If $k$ would be small, then we would be able to find a linear combination of $v_i$ with small integer coefficients. But then we would get a contradiction with the fact that there is a linear combination of numbers $m, m^2, ..., m^m$ with small integer coefficients.

Now, the solution: Lemma: Suppose that $v_1, ..., v_m$ are vectors in $\{ 0, 1 \}^k$ where $k<m/2$. Then there exist integer $a_1, ..., a_m$, not all zero, such that $a_1v_1 + ... + a_m v_m = 0$ and all $|a_i| < m$.

Proof of the lemma: For a vector $v$ denote $v_1, v_2, ..., v_k$ its coordinates. Then for each $(c_1, ..., c_m)$ consider the ugly sum $(c_1 v_{11} + ... c_m v_{m1}) + (c_1 v_{11} + ... c_m v_{m1})m^2 + ... + (c_1 v_{11} + ... c_m v_{m1}) m^{2k-2}$. It is not that ugly actually! Anyway, each such sum is at least $0$ and less or equal to $m(m-1)(1+m^2...+m^{2k-2}) = m(m-1) \cdot \frac{m^{2k}-1}{m^2-1} < m^m$ and we have $m^m$ different ways to pick $(c_1, ..., c_m)$. Then for some two of those ways, say $(c_1, ...., c_m)$ and $(c_1',...,c_m')$ the ugly-sum will be the same. Let $a_i = c_i - c_i'$. Then we will be done, cause if the ugly-sum is equal to zero then each of the things in parentheses must be zero (cause each thing in parentheses is between $-m^2$ and $m^2$ and we have a linear combination of powers of $m^2$ that is zero). Sorry for not writing down all the algebra, but I hope it is clear.

Now, let's use the lemma to solve the problem. Suppose $|A| =k$ and let $v_i$ be the vector in $\{ 0, 1 \}^k$ such that $v_{ij} = 1$ if the $j-th$ biggest element of $A$ is in $B_i$, and $v_{ij} = 0$ otherwise. Suppose that $k < m/2$. Apply the lemma above to $v_i$ and find the corresponding $a_i$. But then if we multiply elements of $B_1$ by $a_1$, elements of $B_2$ by $a_2$ ... and add the numbers we will get that $a_1 m + a_2 m^2 + ... a_m m^m = 0$ where $a_i$ are not all zero and $-m < a_i < m$. This is impossible. Contradiction. So done.
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by kvanta, Jul 20, 2021, 9:58 PM
Reason: small editing
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
zschess
92 posts
#4 • 22 Y
Y by kukuriku, khina, pavel kozlov, arvind_r, wateringanddrowned, gvole, microsoft_office_word, jhu08, WallyWalrus, Illuzion, hakN, rcorreaa, Master_of_Aops, Wizard0001, electrovector, Realgauss1, PRMOisTheHardestExam, SHZhang, Assassino9931, math_comb01, mathleticguyyy, kiyoras_2001
My solution
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
USJL
540 posts
#5 • 5 Y
Y by steppewolf, Hamel, jhu08, PRMOisTheHardestExam, snap7822
I happened to get the main idea at the very first moment because I've seen something related to the lemma. I will first write up my solution and then lay out the detailed motivation behind it.

Also this is the only problem I enjoy in Day 2... :(
plus is this problem misclassified again? Feel like this is classified to N but it should've been C.

Solution

Motivation
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by USJL, Jul 22, 2021, 3:58 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
hyx
192 posts
#6 • 2 Y
Y by jhu08, PRMOisTheHardestExam
This technic is really common in China,so I think it is not difficult for Chinese team to solve it.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Hachiri_Tomoko
22 posts
#7 • 2 Y
Y by jhu08, PRMOisTheHardestExam
Looks a bit easy for IMO 6. I guess the $m/2$ can be improved to $m/2+cm/\log m$. It would be interesting to see whether this can be improved further...
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
kukuriku
6 posts
#8 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Is there a solution that is not based on linear algebra?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Loppukilpailija
155 posts
#10 • 3 Y
Y by pavel kozlov, jhu08, PRMOisTheHardestExam
kvanta wrote:
Lemma: Suppose that $v_1, ..., v_m$ are vectors in $\{ 0, 1 \}^k$ where $k<m/2$. Then there exist integer $a_1, ..., a_m$, not all zero, such that $a_1v_1 + ... + a_m v_m = 0$ and all $|a_i| < m$.

This is how I solved it as well. The result follows directly by applying Siegel's lemma, a somewhat well-known techinque in transcendetal number theory (but the proof is just an application of the pigeonhole principle). In the Nordic 2019 IMO camp there was a lecture where Siegel's lemma was discussed.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
ABCDE
1963 posts
#11 • 16 Y
Y by test20, Hachiri_Tomoko, holahello, USJL, tree_3, pipitchaya.s4869, turmax2005, trumpeter, Aliaksei, jhu08, megarnie, centslordm, PRMOisTheHardestExam, mathleticguyyy, khina, sabkx
We in fact have $|A|\ge\left(\frac23-o(1)\right)m$. Assume that $m$ is sufficiently large. As in the solutions above, let $|A|=n$ and consider the indicator vectors $v_1,\ldots,v_n\in\{0,1\}^m$. Previously, we argued that all nonnegative multiples of $m$ less than $m^{m+1}$ can be expressed as $v=c_1v_1+\cdots+c_nv_n$ for nonnegative integers $c_1,\ldots,c_n$ less than $m$, where each coordinate of $v$ is a nonnegative integer less than $m^2$. The key idea in this better bound is that most nonnegative multiples of $m$ less than $m^{m+1}$ can be expressed as $v=c_1v_1+\cdots+c_nv_n$ for nonnegative integers $c_1,\ldots,c_n$ less than $m$, where each coordinate of $v$ lies in some interval of length $O(m^{3/2})$ by applying concentration inequalities.

Let $C_1,\ldots,C_n$ be i.i.d. random variables distributed as $C$, a uniform random element of $\{0,1,\ldots,m-1\}$. Note that the $i$th coordinate of $V=C_1v_1+\cdots+C_nv_n$ is the sum of $k$ i.i.d. copies of $C$, where $k\le m$ is the number of sets among $B_1,\ldots,B_m$ that $i$ lies in. Since the range of $C$ is bounded by $m$, we have by the Azuma-Hoeffding inequality that the probability that the $i$th coordinate of $V$ deviates from its expectation by more than $m^{3/2}\log m\ge\lambda=2\sqrt{km^2\log m}$ is at most $2\exp\left(-\frac{\lambda^2}{2km^2}\right)=\frac2{m^2}$. Union bounding over all coordinates, the probability that any coordinate of $V$ deviates from its expectation by more than $m^{3/2}\log m$ is at most $\frac2m$.

It follows that at least $m^m-2m^{m-1}$ nonnegative multiples of $m$ less than $m^{m+1}$ can be expressed as $v=c_1v_1+\cdots+c_nv_n$ for nonnegative integers $c_1,\ldots,c_n$ less than $m$, where each coordinate of $v$ is an integer constrained to be in some interval of length $2m^{3/2}\log m$ centered at the expectation of the corresponding coordinate of $V$. Thus, we have that $(2m^{3/2}\log m+1)^n\ge m^m-2m^{m-1}$, from which it easily follows that $n\ge\left(\frac23-o(1)\right)m$, as desired.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Hachiri_Tomoko
22 posts
#12 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Awesome! Probabilistic methods always come in handy.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
VicKmath7
1388 posts
#13 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Is the solution in #4 correct? Because it's the simplest one here I think.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
square_root_of_3
78 posts
#14 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Let $k$ denote the number of elements of $A$. Suppose $2k<m$.

Lemma. If $2k<m$ and $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_m$ are vectors in $\{0,1\}^k$, then there exist integers $a_1, \ldots, a_m$ not all equal to zero such that $|a_i|\leq 2k$ and $$\sum_{i=1}^m a_iv_i=0.$$Proof
Now, let $x_1, \ldots, x_k$ be the elements of $A$, and let $v_j$ be the vector adjoined to the subset $B_j$ for each $j\leq m$. Finally, let $(a_1, \ldots, a_m)$ be the integer $m$-tuple satisfying the lemma applied to $v_1,\ldots, v_k$. Note that the dot product of $(x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ and $v_j$ equals $m^j$. Then the dot product of $(x_1,\ldots, x_k)$ and $0=\sum a_j v_j$ equals $\sum a_jm^j$ which cannot be zero due to the bounds on $|a_j|$ (take the largest $j$ such that $a_j$ is nonzero, and then the remaining nonzero $a_i$ are too small to reach zero). Hence, we've reached a contradiction.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pavel kozlov
616 posts
#15 • 2 Y
Y by Loppukilpailija, jhu08
Loppukilpailija wrote:
kvanta wrote:
Lemma: Suppose that $v_1, ..., v_m$ are vectors in $\{ 0, 1 \}^k$ where $k<m/2$. Then there exist integer $a_1, ..., a_m$, not all zero, such that $a_1v_1 + ... + a_m v_m = 0$ and all $|a_i| < m$.

This is how I solved it as well. The result follows directly by applying Siegel's lemma, a somewhat well-known techinque in transcendetal number theory (but the proof is just an application of the pigeonhole principle). In the Nordic 2019 IMO camp there was a lecture where Siegel's lemma was discussed.

Nice observation. Also by refinement of Siegel's lemma made by Bombieri and Vaaler in 1983 (theorem 1.3 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05941.pdf) one can prove that $|a_i|\leq k^{k/(2(m-k)}$. That helps to prove that $k>2m/3$ unconditionally.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Justanaccount
196 posts
#16 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
I wonder if this problem is classified as A or NT in the shortlist.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pavel kozlov
616 posts
#17 • 2 Y
Y by jhu08, test20
Justanaccount wrote:
I wonder if this problem is classified as A or NT in the shortlist.

What exactly makes you wonder?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Eyed
1065 posts
#18 • 5 Y
Y by smartmonkey999, jhu08, shivprateek, Elainedelia, signifance
Solved with Michael Gao and Kevin Wu

Let the elements of $A$ be $a_{1}, a_{2}, \ldots a_{n}$. Observe that for some number $0 \leq T \leq m^{m+1} - m$, where $m | T$, we can take integers $c_{1}, c_{2}, \ldots c_{m}$ such that $0 \leq c_{i} < m$, and
\[T = c_{1}m + c_{2}m^{2} + \ldots + c_{m}m^{m}\]This is true by dividing both sides by $m$, then expressing $T$ in base $m$.

Now, we can express $T$ as the sum of elements in $A$, where duplicates are allowed. Observe that for each element $a_{i}\in A$, $a_{i}$ will be included at most $m(m-1)$ times (for each $c_{j}$, $a_{i}$ will be included at most $c_{j}$ times, and $c_{j} \leq m-1$ for $m$ values of $j$0. Now, observe that there are $m(m-1) + 1$ ways to choose the total number of duplicates of element $a_{i}$, so the total number of distinct sums is at least
\[(m(m-1) + 1)^{|A|}\]However, there are $m^{m}$ values of $T$, so we get
\[(m^{2})^{|A|} \geq (m(m-1) + 1)^{|A|} \geq m^{m} \Rightarrow m^{2|A|} \geq m^{m} \Rightarrow |A|\geq \frac{m}{2}\]
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
JingheZhang
179 posts
#19 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
hyx wrote:
This technic is really common in China,so I think it is not difficult for Chinese team to solve it.

Someone told me that all six Chinese team member solved question 1,4,5,6.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
AwesomeYRY
579 posts
#20 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Solved with Elliott Liu. Also got 3 very cryptic hints from Jeffrey Chen (stuff like "linear algebra" and "base m")

We double count the number of ways to express numbers as repeat-sums of $B_k$ and repeat-sums of $a_k$

Note that we can express all multiples of $m$ in the range $[0,m^{m+1}-m]$ as pseudosums of $B_k$. Basically if,
\[S_{B}(m-1) = \{\sum_{k=1}^{m} e_k B_k:  \forall k, e_k\in [0,m-1]\}\]Then, we have $S_{B}(m-1)$ exactly covers all multiples of $m$ in $[0,m^{m+1}-m]$, of which there are $m^m$.

However, this set of pseudosums can all be written as sums of elements of $A$ with repeats of at most $m^2-m$.
\[S_A(m^2-m) = \{\sum_{k=1}^{|A|}d_k a_k: \forall k, d_k\in [0,m^2-m]\}\]
This gives us
\[(m^2-m+1)^{|A|} \geq S_{A}(m^2) \geq S_{B}(m-1) =m^m\]Thus, $|A|\geq \frac{m}{2}$ and we're done.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Aliaksei
3 posts
#21 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
pavel kozlov wrote:
Nice observation. Also by refinement of Siegel's lemma made by Bombieri and Vaaler in 1983 (theorem 1.3 here: arxiv/pdf/1707.05941.pdf) one can prove that |a_i| > k^{k/(2(m-k)}. That helps to prove that k>2m/3 unconditionally.

Could you please elaborate on how to apply Siegel's lemma to solve this problem? I currently cannot see, how to use it, since the RHS to our system of equations is the vector (m, m^2, ..., m^m), not (0, 0, ..., 0), as required by Siegel's lemma.
I tried to add a "fictive" variable a_{k+1} = 1 to a_1, ..., a_k, so that we have equalities ...a_1 + ... + ...a_k - m^i a_{k+1} = 0 for each i, but the determinant of MM^{T} does not seem to be well-bounded, where M is a matrix of ones and zeros with the last column equal to (m, m^2, ...).

(no latex, because it is my first post here, and the website does not allow to insert "images" and links).
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by Aliaksei, Jul 26, 2021, 12:57 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pavel kozlov
616 posts
#22 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Aliaksei wrote:

Could you please elaborate on how to apply Siegel's lemma to solve this problem?

Please read solution of kvanta in post #3
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Aliaksei
3 posts
#23 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
pavel kozlov wrote:
Aliaksei wrote:

Could you please elaborate on how to apply Siegel's lemma to solve this problem?

Please read solution of kvanta in post #3

Somehow overlooked it. Thank you!

However, I fail to repeat the way you obtain the bound k > 2m/3.

As far as I understand, the refinement of Siegel's lemma suggests us to consider a matrix M of dimension k х m, consisting of 0's and 1's. We want to find a = (a_1, a_2, ..., a_m) such that Ma = (0, ..., 0). Then we consider a matrix M M^{T}, which has dimension k x k, and where each entry is bounded by m.

I only see how to estimate det (MM^T) by (m\sqrt{k})^k, which gives bound max |a_i| <= (m\sqrt{k})^{k/2(m-k)}, from where I can only deduce the inequality k > (4/7 - o(1))m, which is a weaker bound.

Could you please elaborate on how to obtain the bound k > 2m/3 with Siegel's?

(Still, no latex, since new users cannot post images)
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
PRMOisTheHardestExam
409 posts
#25 • 2 Y
Y by pavel kozlov, jhu08
thinker123 wrote:
BTW, to be honest this was wayyy too easy for IMO P6. Does anyone else feel this way?
Ah yes, problems really feel easy after reading the solutions ;)
Click to reveal hidden text
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pavel kozlov
616 posts
#26 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Aliaksei wrote:

However, I fail to repeat the way you obtain the bound k > 2m/3.

just look at square matrix $M$ of size $k$ formed by vectors $v_i$. Here $det(M\cdot M^T)\leq k^{k/2}$ and so on...
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Aliaksei
3 posts
#27 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
pavel kozlov wrote:
Aliaksei wrote:

However, I fail to repeat the way you obtain the bound k > 2m/3.

just look at square matrix M of size k formed by vectors v_i. Here det MM^T <= k^{k/2} and so on...

Siegel's lemma is not applicable to square matrices.

Based on your bound k^{k/2(m-k)}, it seems to me that you apply Siegel's lemma to the matrix M of dimension k х m. But I see no way to estimate det MM^T better than (mk^{1/2})^k for such M.
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
#28 • 2 Y
Y by jhu08, sabkx
If \(A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}\) has \(n\) elements then we are given each \(m^k\) may be expressed in the form \[m^k=\varepsilon_{k1}a_1+\varepsilon_{k2}a_2+\cdots+\varepsilon_{kn}a_n\quad\text{where}\quad0\le\varepsilon_i\le1.\]
Consider the \(m^m\) nonnegative multiples of \(m\) less than \(m^{m+1}\). Each \(mj<m^{m+1}\) may be represented in base \(m\) as \[mj=d_m\cdot m^m+d_{m-1}\cdot m^{m-1}+\cdots+d_1\cdot m\quad\text{where}\quad0\le d_i\le m-1.\]
Now consider \[w_j:=\sum_{i=1}^md_i\varepsilon_{ij}\le m(m-1),\]defined so that \[mj=w_1a_1+w_2a_2+\cdots+w_na_n\quad\text{where}\quad0\le w_i\le m(m-1).\]
Expressions of the above form may describe at most \((m^2-m+1)^n\) distinct numbers, so we have the inequality \[m^m\le(m^2-m+1)^n<m^{2n}.\]from which it is clear \(n\ge m/2\).
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
vlj
1 post
#29 • 1 Y
Y by jhu08
Solution (this should be quite short and simple):
For A consisting of p elements, where p is prime, consider the characteristic vectors of subsets as 0-1 vectors in the vector space F_p^p (each coordinate of the length-p vector is modulo p) and we can see that all p-ary linear combinations of the characteristic vectors of the subsets are different as they have different (weighted) sums. Therefore p^(number of subets) <= p^p and thus number of subsets is at most p. In other words, for m prime, A contains at least m elements. To complete the proof, take p as the largest prime that is at most m (there is one at least m/2, small cases can be covered separately), and note monotonicity since we might as well increase the number of subsets from p to m, and we might as well have coefficients for subsets in {0,1,...,m-1} instead of its subset {0,1,...,p-1}.

Or actually why not look at the module Z_m^m, coefficients modulo m, think of the set {0,1,...,m-1} and we have a similar proof that m^(number of subsets) <= m^m and thus number of subsets at most m. So size of A is at least m (looking at vectors of length |A| with entries modulo |A|). Am I missing something here? Is there a counterexample?
This post has been edited 4 times. Last edited by vlj, Aug 3, 2021, 3:23 PM
Reason: more specific
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
dgrozev
2462 posts
#31 • 1 Y
Y by khina
A better estimate can be proven. The set $A$ contains at least $ \displaystyle \frac{2m}{3}$ elements. Or even slightly sharper: It contains at least $ \displaystyle \left(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{c}{\log m} \right)m$ elements, where $c>0$ is some absolute constant.

The problem boils down to prove the following pure linear algebra claim.
Claim. Let $ v_1,v_2,\dots,v_m$ be $ n$ dimensional binary vectors (their coordinates are only $0$'s and $1$'s ) and $ n<\frac{2}{3}m$. Then, for some $k, 2\le k\le m$ the vector $ v_k$ can be represented as
$$ \displaystyle v_k=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \alpha_i v_i\,;\, |\alpha_i|<m,i=1,2,\dots,k-1 \qquad(1)$$The proof of this claim and more detailed discussion can be found in my blog. Here, in order to sketch the main idea, I'll provide a proof for the particular case when the first $n$ vectors $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n$ are linearly independent and thus are basis vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We denote by $\det(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n)$ the determinant which columns are the vectors $v_1,\dots,v_n$ in this order. Obviously $\left|\det(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n)\right|\ge 1$ since it is a non-zero integer. We can write
$$v_{n+1}=\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i v_i, \alpha_i\in \mathbb{R} $$If $|\alpha_i|<m,i=1,\dots,n$ we are done, so suppose $|\alpha_k|\ge m$ for some $k,1\le k\le n.$ Cramer's rule yields
$$|\alpha_k|=\frac{\left|\det(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{k-1},v_{n+1},v_{k+1},\dots,v_n) \right|}{\left|\det(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n) \right| } \ge m$$hence
$${\left|\det(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{k-1},v_{n+1},v_{k+1},\dots,v_n) \right|}\ge m.$$Note that the vectors
$$v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{k-1},v_{n+1},v_{k+1},\dots,v_n$$are also linearly independent, so $v_{n+2}$ can be written as some linear combination of them. If some of those coefficients has absolute value at least $m$ we again apply the same trick and get some permutation of those vectors with determinant in absolute value at least $m^2.$ So, proceeding in this way for $v_{n+1},v_{n+2},\dots,v_m$ either we get a representation as in $(1)$ or we find a permutation of binary vectors with determinant in absolute value at least $m^{(m-n)}$. The latter case is impossible if $n<2m/3.$ Indeed, the determinant of any $n\times n$ matrix that consists only of $0$'s and $1$'s can have an absolute value at most $n^{n/2}.$ (see here) It yields
$$n^{n/2}\ge m^{(m-n)}\ge n^{(m-n)}$$hence $n\ge 2m/3$ which contradicts the imposed constraint of our claim.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by dgrozev, Sep 19, 2021, 6:02 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
TheKagas
141 posts
#32
Y by
Could someone explain to me why immediately they see this they think of it as a linear algebra problem? is it because of Siegel's motto? Maybe knowing him my question answers itself but I don't know him
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
squareman
966 posts
#33 • 4 Y
Y by centslordm, rama1728, Catsaway, ike.chen
Solved with rama1728.

Say $|A| = N$ and $A = \{a_1,a_2, \dots , a_n\}.$ Let $S$ be the set of (at most) $(m^2-m+1)^N$ integers that can be written as
$$c_1a_1 + c_2a_2 + \dots + c_{N}a_N$$Where $c_1,c_2, \dots c_N$ are integers between $0$ and $m^2-m$ inclusive.

We claim all nonnegative multiples of $m$ less than $m^{m+1}$ are in $S.$ Each such integer has sum of its digits in base $m$ at most $m(m-1),$ and its units digits is $0.$ So it equals the sum of the sums of the elements of at most $m(m-1)$ (not necessarily distinct) subsets taken from $\{B_1,B_2, \dots B_m\},$ each of which encompasses distinct elements in $S,$ so the desired linear combination exists.

There are $m^m$ of these multiples, so $(m^2-m+1)^N \ge m^{m} \implies N \ge \frac{m}{2}.$ $\square$
This post has been edited 5 times. Last edited by squareman, Jan 10, 2022, 12:41 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
megarnie
5596 posts
#34 • 2 Y
Y by Sross314, math31415926535
2000th post!

Let $|A|=n$, and treat the $B_i$ as vectors $v_i$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, where $v_{ij}=1$ if the $j$th element of set $A$ is in $B_i$ and $v_{ij}=0$ otherwise. Henceforth suppose FTSOC that $n<\frac{m}{2}$.

Claim: There exist integers $a_1, a_2\ldots, a_m$ so that $a_1v_1+a_2v_2+\ldots+a_mv_m=0$ and $|a_i|<m$ for any $i$.
Proof: We have a sequence $b_i$, where $1\le i\le m$, and all the elements (non necessarily distinct) are integers from $0$ to $m-1$, inclusive. Consider the sum\[(b_1 v_{11}+b_2 v_{21}+\ldots+b_m v_{m1})+(b_1 v_{12}+b_2 v_{22}+\ldots+b_m v_{m2})m^2+\ldots+(b_1 v_{1n}+b_2 v_{2n}+\ldots +b_m v_{mn})m^{2n-2}\]This sum is less than or equal to $m(m-1)\left(\frac{m^{2n}-1}{m^2-1}\right)=m\frac{m^{2n}-1}{m+1}< m^{2n}-1<m^m$.
This sum is also greater than or equal to $0$.

Since there are $m^m$ ways to make sequence $b_i$, for some such distinct sequences $b_i$ and $b'_i$, the sum will be equal for both of them. We can see that\[b_1v_{11}+b_2v_{21}+\ldots+b_mv_{m1}=b'_1v_{11}+b'_2v_{21}+\ldots+b'_mv_{m1},\]and so on (because they are less than or equal to $m(m-1)<m^2$).

So a valid sequence $a_i$ is just $b_i-b'_i$. In fact the minimum value is $0-(m-1)=-m+1$ and the maximum value is $m-1$. This implies $-m<a_i<m$. $\blacksquare$

Multiply each element in $B_i$ by $a_i$ and we get $a_1 m+a_2m^2+\ldots+a_m m^m=0$. This is a contradiction as it implies $m\mid a_1\implies |a_1|\ge m$.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
XaXuser
6 posts
#35 • 1 Y
Y by Mango247
let A={a_{1},....,a_{n}} where n=|A|
denote by t(Z) the transposite of Z=(z_{1},...,z_{m})
X=(a_{1},....,a_{n}) and Y_{k} for 0<=k<=m such that X.t(Y_{k})=m^k
let M=(t(Y_{1}),....,t(Y_{m})) and Y=(m,.....,m^m)
then we have X.M=Y
S={Z=(z_{1},.....,z_{m})/ 0<=max{z_{i} / 1<=i<=m} <=m-1}
D={Σx_{i}.m^i / for all i in[|1,m|] 0<=x_{i}<=m-1}
C={M.Z / Z in S}
define φ(t(Z))=Y.t(Z)=X.M.t(Z) from S to D
then φ is injective ( uniqueness of the writing in base of m)
thus m^m<=|Im(φ)|<=|C|
but :
M.Z as a vector it has for every coordinate m(m-1)+1 choice ( z_{i} 's range in [|0,m-1|] and M contains 0 or 1 as a coordinate so the range of any coordinate of M.Z is
[|0,m(m-1)|] which is m(m-1)+1choice)
so m^m<=(m(m-1)+1)^n<=m^(2n)
therefore n>=m/2 qed
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
JAnatolGT_00
559 posts
#36
Y by
Assume by opposite that $A=\left \{ a_1,a_2,...,a_n\right \}$ for $n<\frac m2$. Let $s_i=m^i$ denotes sum of elements of $B_i$. Note that all $m^m$ numbers of type $\sum_{k=1}^m  s_k \alpha_k$ (for $\alpha_i \in \left \{ 0,1,...,m-1\right \}$) are different, because there is unique representation of number in $m-\text{base}$ system. On the other hand, all this numbers can be represented as $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k\beta_k$ for $\beta_k\in \left \{ 0,1,...,m(m-1)\right \}$, so there are at most $(m^2-m+1)^n<m^{2n}<m^m$ distinct numbers between them, contradiction.
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by JAnatolGT_00, Sep 21, 2022, 4:21 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
YaoAOPS
1530 posts
#37
Y by
Let $n = |A|$. Represent $B_i$ as vectors in ${\mathbb Z}^n$.

Claim: If we have $m \ge 2c$ vectors $a_1, \dots, a_m$ in ${\mathbb Z}^c$, then some nontrivial linear combination of $a_i$ with coefficients of absolute magnitude less than $m$ sums to $0$.
Proof. Note that for each $i = 1, \dots, m - c$ it follows that $a_i, a_{m-c+1}, \dots a_m$ has a nontrivial solution in ${\mathbb F}_2^m$, which by scaling gives $m$ nontrivial solutions.
As such, we get at least $m^(m-c)$ nontrivial solutions in ${\mathbb F}_m^n$ over all vectors.
However, the multiset $\mathcal L = \{\sum e_ia_i \mid 0 \le e_i < m \}$ has at most $m^c$ elements that get mapped to $0$ through embedding in ${\mathbb F}_m^n$.
Since, $m^(m-c) \ge m^c$, it follows that either the zero vector is in $\mathcal L$, in which case we are done, or that two elements in $\mathcal L$ are equal, in which case subtracting them gives the desired result. $\blacksquare$
Now, for any $-m < e_i < m$, we have that $\sum e_ia_i$ has a sum of $\sum e_i m^i$, which is only $0$ if each $e_i$ is $0$.
By the lemma, this can only hold if $n \ge \frac{m}{2}$.
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by YaoAOPS, Nov 29, 2023, 2:57 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
GrantStar
819 posts
#38 • 1 Y
Y by Aryan_Agarwal
Let $S=\{s_1,s_2,\dots,s_l\}$ have $l$ elements, and let the vector $S=[s_1,\dots,s_l]$. Let the vector $b_i=[a_{i,1},a_{i,2},\dots,a_{i,l}$ with $a_{i,j}=1$ if $_j$ is used in the sum for $b_i$ to be $m^i$ and $0$ if it is not used in that sum.
Now, consider $\sum_{i=1}^m a_i(S\cdot b_i)$ where $0\leq a_i\leq m-1$ for all $i$. Note that this simply is a base $m$ representation, and all $m^m$ multiples of $m$ between $0$ and $m^{m+1}-m$ can be expressed this way. However, looking at it from each $s_i$ individually, we get that each $s_i$ appears anywhere between $0$ and $m(m-1)$ times. Thus, this sum takes at most $(m(m-1)+1)^l$ distinct values. Then, combine this with above to get $m^{2l}>(m^2-m+1)^l\geq m^m$ which finishes.

Remark: Is this alg, combo, or nt lmao
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
awesomeming327.
1702 posts
#39
Y by
Let $A$ be $\{a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n\}$. For each $1\le i\le m$, let $m^i=a_1\varepsilon_{i1}+a_2\varepsilon_{i2}+\dots+a_n\varepsilon_{in}$ where $\varepsilon_{ij}\in \{0,1\}$ for all $(i,j)\in \{1,2,\dots,m\}\times \{1,2,\dots,n\}$. We can represent all integers from $0\le k\le m^m-1$ as
\[k=\frac{1}{m}\left(b_1m+b_2m^2+\dots+b_mm^m\right)\]Where $0\le b_i\le m-1$. If we substitute in the representation of $m^i$ as a sum of elements in $A$ then we are left with
\[k=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{n}{a_i(b_1\varepsilon_{1i}+b_2\varepsilon_{2i}+\dots+b_m\varepsilon_{mi})}\]Note that $k$ takes $m^m$ different values, so there must be $m^m$ different values representable by the right hand side through different choices of the coefficient $b_1\varepsilon_{1i}+b_2\varepsilon_{2i}+\dots+b_m\varepsilon_{mi}$. Note that this coefficient is between $0$ and $m(m-1)$ therefore there are at most $m^2-m+1<m^2$ ways to represent each coefficient. There are $n$ coefficients, so the number of different numbers the RHS can produce is less than $m^{2n}$ so $n>\tfrac{m}{2}$ as desired.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Pyramix
419 posts
#40
Y by
Let $|A|=n$ and the elements be $A=\{a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n\}$.

Claim: Every non-negative integer multiple $mt$ of $m$ less than $m^{m+1}$ can be written as:
\[mt=t_1a_1+t_2a_2+\cdots+t_na_n\]where $0\leq t_j\leq m^2-m$ for each $1\leq j\leq n$.
Proof. (Constructive) Note that since $mt\leq m^{m+1}$, we have $mt=(b_mb_{m-1}\ldots b_10)_m$ in base $m$ where each $0\leq b_i\leq m-1$ for $1\leq i\leq m$.
So, we may write
\[mt = b_mm^m + b_{m-1}m^{m-1}+\cdots+b_1m+0 \]\[= b_m(\text{sum of elements of }B_m)+b_{m-1}(\text{sum of elements of }B_{m-1})+\cdots+b_1(\text{sum of elements of }B_1)\]Expanding out, we get that we can write $mt=t_1a_1+t_2a_2+\cdots+t_na_n$. The fact that $t_j\leq m^2-m$ follows from the fact that any element of $A$ can appear in at most $m$ sets from $B_1, B_2, \ldots, B_m$, and the coefficients $b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_m$ are at most $m-1$, which means the final coefficient of that element is at most $m(m-1)$. The claim is therefore true. $\blacksquare$

Note that $(t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_n)\in\{0,1,\ldots,m^2-m\}^n$, which means there are at most $(m^2-m+1)^n$ distinct sums possible which can be written as
\[\text{sum}=t_1a_1+t_2a_2+\cdots+t_na_n\]However, we have given a construction that there are at least $m^m$ distinct sums possible as there are $m^m$ non-negative integer multiples of $m$ less than $m^{m+1}$.
This means $(m^2-m+1)^n \geq m^m$ and hence $n\geq \frac m2$. $\blacksquare$
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
thdnder
194 posts
#41
Y by
Let $A = \{a_1 < a_2 < \dots a_k\}$. Our problem condition implies that for all $1 \le i \le m$, there exist $\varepsilon_{(i, 1)}, \varepsilon_{(i, 2)}, \dots, \varepsilon_{(i, k)} \in \{0, 1\}$ such that $a_1\varepsilon_{(i, 1)} + a_2\varepsilon_{(i, 2)} + \dots + a_k\varepsilon_{(i, k)} = m^i$. Take any nonnegative integer $M$ between $0, m^{m+1} - 1$ that is divisible by $m$. We can write $M = b_sm^s + b_{s-1}m^{s-1} + \dots + b_1m^1$ for some positive integer $s$ and some nonnegative integers $b_1, b_2, \dots, b_s \le m-1$. Thus, we get $M = \sum_{i=1}^{k} a_i(b_s\varepsilon_{(s, i)} + b_{s-1}\varepsilon_{(s-1, i)} + \dots + b_1\varepsilon_{(1, i)})$ and note that $b_s\varepsilon_{(s, i)} + b_{s-1}\varepsilon_{(s-1, i)} + \dots + b_1\varepsilon_{(1, i)} \le (m-1)s \le (m-1)m$, so we can write any nonnegative integer $M$ that is divisible by $m$ into a form $a_1x_1 + a_2x_2 + \dots + a_kx_k$ where $x_i$ are nonnegative integers that are not exceed $m(m-1)$. There are exactly $m^m$ nonnegative integers that are divisible by $m$ between $0$ and $m^{m+1}-1$, and $x_i$ can take at most $m(m-1) + 1$ values, we derive $m^m \le (m(m-1) + 1)^k < m^{2k}$, thus $\frac{m}{2} \le k$, as wanted. $\blacksquare$
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by thdnder, Apr 24, 2024, 9:18 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
pi271828
3367 posts
#43 • 1 Y
Y by peace09
Let $A = \{ a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k \}$ and define

\[
\epsilon_{i, j} =
\begin{cases*}
1 & $a_j \in B_i$ \\
0 & $a_j \not\in B_i$
\end{cases*}
\]We can therefore model \begin{align*} S_i = \sum_{x \in B_i} x = \epsilon_{i, 1} a_1 + \epsilon_{i, 2} a_2 + \cdots + \epsilon_{i, k} a_k = m^i \end{align*}By using base $m$, one can choose a unique tuple $\{ C_1, C_2, \dots, C_m \}$ and $0 \le C_i \le m-1$ such that $\sum S_iC_i$ can generate any number from $m$ to $m^{m+1} - 1$. We let \begin{align*} C'_j = \sum_{i} C_i\epsilon_{i, j} \end{align*}such that \begin{align*} C'_1a_1 + C'_2a_2 \cdots + C'_ka_k \end{align*}can generate any value between $m$ and $m^{m+1}-1$. Therefore the number of tuples of $(C'_1, C'_2, \dots, C'_k)$ must be at least $m^{m+1} - m$. There are $m^2-m$ possibilities for each value of $C'_i$ so we have $m^{2k} > (m^2 - m)^k \ge m^{m+1} - m \ge m^m$ so $k > \tfrac{m}{2}$ and we are done.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
HamstPan38825
8857 posts
#44
Y by
what the heck is this

Set $|A| = k$, and let $\mathbf B_i = [b_{1i}, b_{2i}, \dots, b_{ki}]$ be a vector for each $i$ such that $b_{ji} =1$ if $B_i$ contains the element $j$ and $1$ otherwise. We define the norm $|\mathbf B_i| = b_{1i}a_1 + b_{2i} a_2 + \cdots + b_{ki} a_k$ where $a_1, \dots, a_k$ are the elements of $A$ in that order. Then, the condition implies that for each positive integer $1 \leq n < m^{m+1}$, there exist digits $d_1, d_2, \dots, d_m \in \{0, 1, \dots, m-1\}$ such that \[n = |d_1 \mathbf B_1 + d_2 \mathbf B_2 + \cdots + d_m \mathbf B_m| = |r_1 \mathbf e_1 + r_2 \mathbf e_2 + \cdots + r_k \mathbf e_k|\]for digits $r_1, r_2, \dots, r_k \in \{0, 1, \dots, m^2 - 1\}$, where $\mathbf e_1, \dots, \mathbf e_k$ are the standard basis vectors. We have the upper bound on the $r-i$ because the entries of $\mathbf B_i$ are at most $1$. These vectors may span a space of size at most $(m^2)^k$, hence $(m^2)^k \geq m^m$, i.e. $k \geq \frac m2$.
Z K Y
N Quick Reply
G
H
=
a