Given a triangle inscribed in a circle , let the altitudes concur at the orthocenter . Let be the circumcenter of triangle , and let be the circumcenter of triangle . Let and be the two intersection points of the circles centered at and . Prove that and are isogonal lines with respect to .
Several positive integers are written in a row. Iteratively, Alice chooses two adjacent numbers and such that and is to the left of , and replaces the pair by either or . Prove that she can perform only finitely many such iterations.
Let be a triangle such that . Let the excircle opposite to A be tangent to the lines , and at points , and , respectively, and let be its centre. Let be a point on the side . The circumcircles of the triangles and intersect for the second time at . Let be the foot of the perpendicular from to the line . Prove that the points , and are collinear.
(The excircle of a triangle opposite to is the circle that is tangent to the line segment , to the ray beyond , and to the ray beyond .)
Let be a positive integer. Geoff and Ceri play a game in which they start by writing the numbers on a board. They then take turns to make a move, starting with Geoff. Each move consists of choosing a pair of integers , where and is one of the integers on the board, and then erasing every integer on the board such that . The game continues until the board is empty. The player who erases the last integer on the board loses.
Determine all values of for which Geoff can ensure that he wins, no matter how Ceri plays.
Can anyone check my solution, pls
Let
Suppose there exist such that . Let
By induction, we have: . Fix , let , we have (contrdiction)
So that, is injective
Suppose there exist such that
Let
Put in :
Put in :
So that:
Since is injective, we have contradiction.
Therefore, , we have . From , we have: , we have and give us is surjective.
Fix . Then there exist such that
Therefore, all solution to this problem are:
Can anyone check my solution, pls
Let
Suppose there exist such that . Let
By induction, we have: . Fix , let , we have (contrdiction)
So that, is injective
Suppose there exist such that
Let
Put in :
Put in :
So that:
Since is injective, we have contradiction.
Therefore, , we have . From , we have: , we have and give us is surjective.
Fix . Then there exist such that
Therefore, all solution to this problem are:
why is surjective? there are injective and strictly increasing functions that aren't surjective (note that strictly increasing implies injective), like x/(x+1)?
Can anyone check my solution, pls
Let
Suppose there exist such that . Let
By induction, we have: . Fix , let , we have (contrdiction)
So that, is injective
Suppose there exist such that
Let
Put in :
Put in :
So that:
Since is injective, we have contradiction.
Therefore, , we have . From , we have: , we have and give us is surjective.
Fix . Then there exist such that
Therefore, all solution to this problem are:
why is surjective? there are injective and strictly increasing functions that aren't surjective (note that strictly increasing implies injective), like x/(x+1)?
Anyway,
1. You can prove injective by using this sub
instead.
2. You can prove surjectivity using the following: Claim 1: Proof
Let be the infimum of , i.e. is the greatest real such that for all , which must exist. Since is strictly decreasing, , i.e. the limit exists. Hence, must hold for arbitrarily small , i.e. .
Claim 2: is continuous Proof
We use the fact that is strictly decreasing. We have and hence is continuous.
Claim 3: Proof
Suppose that for some . Then, contradiction since is injective. Hence, since is strictly decreasing, we must have .
Alternative proof by ja.
Notice that , hence takes on arbitrarily large values and the conclusion follows.
These 3 claims imply is surjective.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by mashumaro, May 2, 2025, 2:05 PM
Anyway,
1. You can prove injective by using this sub
instead.
2. You can prove surjectivity using the following: Claim 1: Proof
Let be the infimum of , i.e. is the greatest real such that for all , which must exist. Since is strictly decreasing, , i.e. the limit exists. Hence, must hold for arbitrarily small , i.e. .
Claim 2: is continuous Proof
We use the fact that is strictly decreasing. We have and hence is continuous.
Claim 3: Proof
Suppose that for some . Then, contradiction since is injective. Hence, since is strictly decreasing, we must have .
These 3 claims imply is surjective.
Thank you for spotting my mistake.
I tried to fix it but failed
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by luutrongphuc, May 2, 2025, 12:20 PM
Denote the assertion of the given F.E. (New color pog) Claim 1: is injective. Proof: Suppose FTSOC there existed with then from we get that and thus for all and so gives but here now we can let to get that which is of course a contradiction, therefore is injective as desired. Claim 2: is strictly decreasing. Proof: Suppose FTSOC there existed with then from we get that are cancelling everything and using Claim 1 and thus a contradiction, meaning is indeed strictly decreasing as can't happen. Claim 3: for all sequences for all . Proof: Notice gives and inductive here using the jump gives that for all and obviously taking is sufficient to prove the claim (the more relevant part is to see how it decreases at a slow but sure pace, which we will use next). Claim 4: is continuos. Proof: Fix and consider for all then by and setting makes it clear why this claim holds true, as the inside of LHS becomes closer and closer to while on the RHS we can see how the whole thing is closer to so by epsilon-delta definition the claim is true to the right. Now to check its continuos to the left again fix a constant the same sequence but in addition we instead consider all for which for some constant and thus and the fact that will still become arbitrarily small eventually will give from that is also continuos to the left, finish the claim from epsilon-delta definition. Claim 5: is unbounded. Proof: Suppose was bounded then on for taking and a fixed gives that however is injective so this can't happen, thus proving the claim. Claim 6: is surjective and for all . Proof: is surjective follows from Claims 2,3,4,5 (mainly continuity carrying lol) and now from and our surjectivity we have that for all as desired. The finish: Now fix some then taking the identity on Claim 3 for some large enough we have that now if then we have that so and now setting would give that so and thus combining all this gives for all thus we are done .