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 be a regular polygon, and let be its set of vertices. Each point in is colored red, white, or blue. A subset of is patriotic if it contains an equal number of points of each color, and a side of is dazzling if its endpoints are of different colors.
Suppose that is patriotic and the number of dazzling edges of is even. Prove that there exists a line, not passing through any point in , dividing into two nonempty patriotic subsets.
I keep seeing a certain type of problem in UIL Number Sense, though I can't figure out how to do it (I aim to do it in my head in about 7-8 seconds).
The problem is x^((p+1)/2) mod p, where p is prime.
For example 11^15 mod 29
I know it technically doesn't work this way, but using fermats little theorem (on √x^(p+1)) always gives either the number itself, x, or the modular inverse, p-x.
By using the theorem i mean √x^28 mod 29 = 1, and then youre left with √x^2 mod 29 or x, but then its + or -.
I was wondering if there is a way to figure out whether its + or -, a slow or fast way if its slow maybe its possible to speed it up.
Consider five points on a circle. For every three of them, we draw the perpendicular from the centroid of the triangle they determine to the line through the remaining two points. Prove that the ten lines thus formed are concurrent.
We divide both sides by ...we wil check the case in which a=b=0 after.
So we get
so
we know that is always positive.....
so must be 0.. but there are no integers and for which
but we forgot that a and b can be 0. checking if we find it true so that is 1 solution.Also we can have 1 of a and b be 0 and the other a random integer. So if we have we get whih we already have....the same thing will happen when a=0 and b is a random integer.
Now check all other cases fo which
we get when we substitute s0 therefore the only solution is
We also check wth 1 of or b=0 and the other a radom integer in which case we get (for b=0) whih only occurs when a=c=0...the samewill happen with a=0 and b another random integer...
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by basketball9, Apr 4, 2010, 2:14 PM
It is easy to determine that and must all be even by considering the possible parities and working in .
Let . We find . We may continue this process for an infinite amount of time, and find that each of and must be divisible by an infinite amount of s, so by infinite descent there are no nontrivial solutions to this. Thus, the only solution is .
Y byCircleGeometryGang, sabkx, Adventure10, Mango247
basketball9 wrote:
We divide both sides by ....
[1] So we get
[2] so
[1] a) The third term should be .
b) While this equation would have been mathematically correct (see [1] a above), it is misleading,
because the direct next step after dividing by , but befoe reordering terms, would be .
[2] If you type it out horizontally, it has to have grouping symbols around the denominator such as
Otherwise, type out the fractions in a vertical style and avoid the needed use of grouping symbols:
(This post is being neutral towards the correctness of your overall method.)
@basketball: I don't see how that shows that c needs to be 0. As long as c<ab, the right hand side is still positive.
xpmath's solution still works, because the right side will always be 0 mod 4, so all of the terms on the left side need to be 0 mod 2 as well (because a perfect square is only 0 or 1 mod 4, of course), and you can still perform the infinite descent. The coefficient of the right hand side does grow larger, but it is still always 0 mod 4.
I also do not understand Basketball9's logic.
@harekrishna: xpmath got that 2a_1=a, 2b_1=b, 2c_1=c
so we get:
4(a_1)^2+4(b_1)^2+4(c_1)^2=4(a_1)(b_1)
Dividing through by 4, we get:
(a_1)^2+(b_1)^2+(c_1)^2=(a_1)(b_1)
Which is correcy.
Y bymaXplanK, CircleGeometryGang, Adventure10, Mango247, and 3 other users
Rearrange this as . By looking at this mod 4, it can easily be seen that must be even. It is well-known that if , then ,, or . Since is odd and no prime divides 1, we must have that all prime factors of are congruent to 1 modulo 4. Hence, the product of the prime factors of must be conrguent to 1 modulo 4. But , so we have a contradiction. Hence, there are no nontrivial solutions.
Suppose that not all of are zero. Let be the greatest nonnegative integer such that . Let . Then . If , taking the equation mod 4 trivially shows that are all even, contradicting the maximality of . If , taking the equation mod 4 again shows that are all even, again contradicting the maximality of . Hence, our equation has only the trivial solution.
Sorry for bringing this back up but could someone explain what infinite descent means? I understand how the first part of the solution but not the descent part. Also if someone could pm me maybe a link to somewhere that explains the concept well.
It's not really a fancy concept or anything. We start with this equation:
We find that are even and we let . We find .
Using another argument, we can show that are even. So let .
Then we sub this into the equation and find that are even.
And we can repeat this argument an infinite number of times to get that are all even and it would imply that have an infinite number of factors of 2. But this is impossible, so solutions can't exist.
We find that . But since is not a qr mod any number 3 mod 4. and must both be even. In particular (a-1)(a+1) = 2n*(2n+2). So 16 divides . But is not a qr mod , so there are not solutions to the equation. Where did I miss the 0,0,0 trivial solution?
We find that . But since is not a qr mod any number 3 mod 4. and must both be even.
This statement is the first place where your solution breaks, and it feels really fishy to me. In particular, I have no idea how non-QR-ness of two integers imply that they both must be even. (Also keep in mind that any two non-QRs mod a prime must multiply to a QR.)
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by djmathman, Mar 13, 2018, 9:05 PM
If were odd, then it is the product of and both odd. In particular, one of these is mod and must be divisible by a prime mod . This prime divides in turn so mod . So is a qr mod some prime congruent to mod , which is not possible so is even.
Is this correct?
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by AllenWang314, Mar 14, 2018, 3:22 AM
It is easy to determine that and must all be even by considering the possible parities and working in .
Let . We find . We may continue this process for an infinite amount of time, and find that each of and must be divisible by an infinite amount of s, so by infinite descent there are no nontrivial solutions to this. Thus, the only solution is .
Yup, that's what I did, except that a_1^2+b_1^2+c_1^2=4a_1^2b_1^2, which again is 0 mod 4 on RHS, so LHS must be 0 mod 2 for each of a_1, b_1, and c_1 to have their sum of their squares by 0 mod 4. Also, a bit of an explanation. If both a and b are odd, then the RHS is 1 mod 4, and LHS is 1 (a^2) + 1 (b^2) + c^2 mod 4, must be 1 mod 4, absurd, because this implies c^2 must be 3 mod 4. Now if at least of one of a and b is even, then RHS is 0 mod 4, LHS is 0 mod 4 + b^2 + c^2, or b^2+c^2 must be 0 mod 4, absurd (2+2, 1+3 all impossible) unless both b and c are 0 mod 2. Now a and b must both be 0 mod 2, meaning RHS is even and c must also be even for even + even + even = even.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by huashiliao2020, Apr 14, 2023, 4:16 AM
Write the given equation as By Fermat Christmas, divisors of the RHS must be or 1 mod . On the other hand, the factors on the LHS are either multiples of or mod , unless . Indeed this is the sole solution.
Take mod . This is either or . But the second one requires and to be both odd, contradiction. The first one falls to infinite descent and has solution .
It's clear that and can't be both odd at the same time, because . Now if both and are at least , so will have a prime divisor , and by Fermat's Christmas Theorem will divide both and which is impossible. And now by bashing the small values of and we get the only solution to be:
Note that perfect squares are or . is not possible as this lead both and are . So,
Thus, and ,, are even.
Let ,, and substitute in the original equation. Again ,, are even. Let ,, and we find that ,, are also even.
If we repeat this argument infinitely many times, we see that ,, can be divided by infinitely many times, which is only possible when .
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by surpidism., May 20, 2023, 5:56 AM
If or then all three must be 0. If then , which has only solution .
Now, take .
Clearly, is not possible unless . Also, . (i.e., ).
Note that . So, if an odd prime , then . This means . It follows that if is even, then all divisors of are . So, , a contradiction. It follows that must be odd. Similarly, must also be odd.
But then , a contradiction.
Therefore, the only integer solution to the given equation is .
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by Pyramix, May 20, 2023, 1:35 PM Reason: Unnecessary bounds removed.
Rearranging, we find
Fermat's Christmas Theorem tells us all factors of the LHS with magnitude greater than 1 must be 1 or 2 modulo 4, contradiction. Thus , giving the only solution .
Simplifying our expression, we get If is odd, then But, if then so is even. Now, if we have that so Hence, Now, is odd, so is even. Thus, one of or is and the other is But, these are divisors of and all divisors of are so this is impossible. Thus, there are no solutions, except for when since then there are no prime factors and when
(a,b,c)=(0,0,0) clearly works,otherwise
"Let O be odd and E be even. The following combinations (a,b,c) – (O,E,E), (E,O,E), (E,E,O), (O,O,E), (O,E,O), (E,O,O), (O,O,O), (E,E,E) easily yield contradictions modulo 4."