ka April Highlights and 2025 AoPS Online Class Information
jlacosta0
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)!
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
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
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
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
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
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
Let in triangle .
Let ,, and be the feet of the internal angle bisectors of ,, and respectively.
Let be the incenter of triangle , and let be the foot of the perpendicular from to line .
Prove that if the quadrilateral is cyclic, then the center of its circumscribed circle lies on segment .
Find all polynomials of one variable with integer coefficients such that if and are natural numbers such that is a perfect square, then is also a perfect square.
Source: ELMO 2019 Problem 5, 2019 ELMO Shortlist N3
Let be a nonempty set of positive integers such that, for any (not necessarily distinct) integers and in , the number is also in . Show that the set of primes that do not divide any element of is finite.
Let denote the given proposition. Let . gives Putting this in the original equation, we get Call this .
Now, if , we get and for all . Now if for some , we get for all , so is identically , contradiction! Hence we get the solution So consider the case when . gives for all . Let , so . Then, gives For all . If we let , then can take all values except and . Thus for all such . If , then taking to be non-zero and switching them we get . Thus is non-constant on non-zero values, say . Then for with , we get . If , then , contradiction! So , bu then we get , contradiction! Therefore , and we get for non-zero , but this clearly holds when one of them is as well. Thus, if we define , we get that is additive. Now putting back in , we get for all . Thus is both additive and multiplicative, and it is well known that the only functions satisfying this are the zero function and identity. If is identically , then is constant, but from we see that the only constant function satisfying the equation is identically , which is impossible since . Thus is identity, and so for all . Putting this in , we get the value of as , so the only solution in this case is
The answer is only and for all , both of which works. We'll now prove that there are no other solutions to the above functional equation.
Let be the assertion of and to the given functional equation. gives us . Thus, we can rewrite as Claim 01. for some constant , or for all . Proof. and gives us Suppose that .
If , then we have . However, , a contradiction.
Else, for all , which implies the result.
Therefore, we must have , which implies the conclusion by setting .Claim 02.. Proof. gives us gives us Therefore, we conclude that which therefore implies or .
Suppose , then write for some constant . It is immediate to get and therefore . Then, we have However, However, for any , a contradiction.
Claim 03.. Proof. As , we have which therefore forces .
Therefore, we just need to find all functions such that ,, and Note that which implies for any . Thus, we have Writing , we get that is multiplicative and additive, and therefore for all , which implies .
Motivational Remark. Claim 01 is straightforward. To prove Claim 02, we want to try to use the "linearity" property of Claim 01 and somehow force it using multiplicative condition on the problem to maybe cancel things out. Because we already used to prove the linearity structure in Claim 01, using again at might be useless. To force multiplicativity, we might consider plugging such that -- apparently is a good choice. Now, by picking and -- we could simplify all in forms of and from our first claim. Now, we get that either or . The former case gives us a weird structure: being constant -- and apparently this has to be a solution for . Therefore, we must somehow use to eliminate this case. Playing with its structure for a while, we can get that as long as , then the condition forces if
Let denote the proposition that If from the original equation. Replace with . If is not identically zero, then selecting such that and varying still results in being identically zero. Contradiction, hence one solution that works isNow suppose With distinct equations and unknowns, we solve by substitution and find that
and and Replace with
Now compare vs
Expanding and simplifying, Let
This is Cauchy's equation, and we now prove that is bounded over a range. From and Then, replace with for some constant. Substituting, and the other solution, which works, is
Let denote the assertion of and into the functional equation. Now we use to rewrite the equation: . Let's denote and . Also, let's denote If , then . Using we have . Now if we look at we get: If we assume that there exists a , such that , then substituting into and letting be any real number we get that , so we reach a contradiction. This however also implies that , so we've proven the Claim.
Note that obviously is obviously a solution, so we can assume that from now on. Now we can calculate by substituting into : Case 1
:
We have that . However, , so . If , then becomes , which obviously isn't a solution. If , then we end up in the same situation as in , so we'll consider the other two values. If , then becomes and we get that for all integers . But then if : The only other option is . Then becomes , so by induction and for all integers . However, by we reach a contradiction because:
If , then and we have: Case 2
. From we get that However, if , then , contradiction, so we have in this case.
Case 3
. By substituting into we get: Also . Now we find ,,, and : Assume that . Then , contradiction . But now , but above we assumed that , so here.
Case 4
. Then from the formula for we get that . Also becomes . We use the same strategy as in : Note that implies that , so and . Now we calculate , and : We know that , so . But then and by we have that . Now we reach a contradiction by: However then , so here.
. We implement the same strategy as above. We can transform : Note that . By induction, implies that . Now we have that: Now the functional equation becomes . We proceed with the following claims: If , then . Assume the contrary, that is, . Then implies that: since . This is obviously a contradiction, so we've proven the Claim.
is injective If and , then for any integer using . Choose such a so that . Then there exist real numbers and such that , (that's because the quadratic has a non-negative discriminant because ). However, now we have: By Claim 2 it follows that at least one from the numbers and is equal to (WLOG ), but then , contradiction with the assumption.
Now if we notice that combining and we have that , but we showed that is injective, so . It's easy to see that this is indeed also a solution: Finally, all solutions are and
This one was proposed by me. The story behind this problem is quite interesting, I think Basically, I was in 9th grade when I wrote down this random functional equation, and I was unable to solve it then. I tried it a couple of weeks, after which I gave up on it and decided I need more practice with functional equations.
One year passed, then I suddenly remembered about the problem, after randomly seeing one of the sheets containing my failed attempts to solve it. It took me 5 hours to take it to the end and bam, I had the problem from A to Z.
3 more years passed, and I wasn't anymore in highschool, so I decided that, maybe, I could do something with this functional equation
Let denote the assertion . Note that is the only constant solution.
Claim 1. Proof. If , then implies . If , then yields contradiction. So now implies . Claim 2. Proof. If , then implies and implies . So , a contradiction.
Now assume and is non constant. implies which compared with implies where .
Claim 2. function is additive Proof. Multiply by and compare with to get . Symmetry shows since is non constant. So indeed is additive.
easily implies , and so is linear. Checking we get , which works.
As usual let denote the given assertion.
Setting we know that
If the condition rewrites as and and assuming has a nonzero value we get that there is a nonzero number such that , and together with multiplicativity this gives . It is easy to see that the only constant solution is . Assume from now on that the function is not constant.
Now setting we now know that . Thus . And now let . If we can easily see that for natural inputs the function has the form by and substituting this in we get that as long as the function is constant. So now assume thus .
Now from we get that . (in other words is Cauchy) Implying and by substituting to in the initial relation we also get that is multiplicative and thus positive over positives and thus is either or and substituting we get that the only working solutions are and
The only solutions are and . These work. Now we show that they are the only solutions. Let be the given assertion.
, so . Now, this implies that Claim: If , then is constant.
Proof: gives , so implies . Now if for some , then , so . Otherwise, if is injective at , then for all , absurd.
Henceforth assume .
Claim: There exists a real number with .
Proof: Suppose otherwise. Then for all reals . Additionally, must be greater than or equal to , implying that since ,. Taking gives
Claim: is in the image of .
Proof: Now, with the in the claim above, let for some real number (this is possible as )
gives that , so .
Claim:
Proof: Let for some real number ., so .
.
Now gives that , so .
, so .
Claim: .
Proof: Suppose . Hence , so .
, so . Then .
.
But this implies that , so .
Case 1: .
Then gives that , implying that .
. However, gives that , implying that , so for each . But then, since , we have , so is even.
Now comparing and gives that , implying that is constant over all reals . Since and , we have for all reals .
implies that , so if for some (), then gives that , contradiction.
Case 2: .
We also have .
For each , setting gives that for all with , so it must be true for all (as it is obvious when or equals zero). Hence if , we get .
Now from the simplified , we find Therefore .
Now is multiplicative and additive, so it is linear and , so .
The answer is and , which can both easily be seen to work. Now, we will show that they are the only solutions.
Suppose that , then we will show that . Let denote the assertion. Note that and Note that if we had , then , so , and since is not identically zero, it follows that . But then , contradiction. Similarly if , then , but then , contradiction. So, and . Now, note that since , it follows that Therefore, we have that so Let and ; then and , and Assume for the sake of contradiction that . Then, let for some function . Then, we have that so for all . Now, for each , let be the set of real numbers with . The above equality readily implies that for all , where . Thus, for all Now, note that for all , we have that from one of our previous results that for all . Therefore, for all , we have that by ,Note that since ,. Also, , since that would imply that , so ,, so , but then this would imply , so , which would mean that for all ,so is equivalent to some constant , but then , implying , but we assumed is not identically , a contradiction. Furthermore, is impossible since we assumed (the contradiction assumption). Therefore, if , then either or . If , then make , then the LHS (of ) is for some constant and the RHS (of ) is for constants . Thus, for sufficiently large, if , the absolute value of the LHS is greater than the absolute value of the RHS and so cannot be equal. If , then make , then if , we have the LHS of is for some constant and the RHS of is for some constants . Thus, for sufficiently large in , if , the absolute value of the LHS is greater than the absolute value of the RHS and so cannot be equal. Thus, we must have , so is identical to on . But this must be true for all , so is identical to . But as discussed earlier, the only constant solution to this FE is , which we have taken aside in the very beginning. So, we have a contradiction and so , so for some , and so for all Furthermore, note that by and since , by ,so by ,so , implying that , and . Combining this with yields that for all . Now, from , we have that for all . Therefore, we can turn the original functional equation into Let denote the assertion to this equation. Then, note that and by ,so subtracting the first from the second yields so for all . Note that this implies that for all , since if , we can pick and in the above equation, and if , then the result is true since . Therefore, we can further rewrite the original FE as Therefore, if we let for all , then we have that and for all . Note that since on , on . Now, note that so since is Cauchy, it follows that on for some constant , since being Cauchy and being bounded on some nontrivial interval implies linear. Since , it follows that , so on , and so on , as desired.
Thus, if , then for all . These obviously both work, so we're done.
Wow I actually unironically like this problem for once sometimes functional equations are actually OP
So we claim (as everyone else did) that the solutions are: Let denote the given assertion as always. Verification because trivial and burdensome :P
When , both sides of are zero, so we’re done.
When , the LHS is , whilst the RHS is , as desired.
So now we begin by proving some major facts about .
Step 1: Eliminating the term will immediately give you , so we actually have . Hence reduces down to: We’ll be using this as our main statement from now on and forget there used to be an term in the equation.
Remark 1: I almost got badly reverse-trolled because of trauma from BMOSL 2022/A4, thinking that the term was actually going to be extremely useful somehow in getting a really short solution; it was actually
Step 1.25: If , then
Well then from Step 1, so we can eliminate the double and get . Now consider for some . Then , so by varying , we get that for all ,, contradiction and end of proof.
Step 2: Obtaining for all or another condition
So this is the more interesting part. We are going to pull out another analysis-flavoured argument on this part
First in interest of readability later let for integers ; the next part is going to be very funny. Consider ; then note: So let’s determine the value of . Notice that we actually must have if (let’s assume so for now) by induction. Then we must have by : So let’s begin comparing; notice that if then the LHS is not constant, at all, whilst the RHS is stoically constant. So in fact we must seek for . If then , i.e. . Further we then must have for all real , so ; unfortunately this does not satisfy the original equation. So we must have , and our desired objective is reached.
Here comes the entire crux of the problem: Step 3: , and only satisfies .
So with the original equation, we actually have , so the original statement becomes It suffices to show that iff . First notice that we have if : so and thus . We can thus rewrite again as .
So assume and . Using , we have , and so , or . However since , as well, contradiction.
Step 4: injective
Assume . Choose positive integer so big that there are two real numbers with and , which is possible by thinking about the discriminant of . Now we must have , so WLOGging , we must have , or , as desired.
Step 4.01:
So we use the final form of to deduce that , done.
Remark: The end is essentially what you do in IMO 2017/2 actually.
Taking , we have , so we can rewrite the original equation as the assertion :
If then this reduces to and . If there is some with then: contradiction, so for all which satisfies the equation.
Otherwise, we'll assume . Let .
Now we compare:
which results in: for all . Set , then .
So if then is constant over . Say for all , then implies, for ,. If then implies for all , impossible. So , but then is constant over all of and there are no solutions.
We have to then have , then if , but clearly true for as well. Let , then , while rewrites as . Well-known result that we must have or now, so testing linear we get which fits.