Difference between revisions of "2000 PMWC Problems/Problem T8"
m (→See Also) |
(→Solution) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Solution== | ==Solution== | ||
+ | Given that <math>k</math>, <math>n</math>, and <math>m</math> are positive integers, it is obvious that none of them can be 1, because that would immediately make the quantity <math>\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m}</math> too large. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | What about having one of them equal <math>2</math>? We can actually prove through casework that at least one of the integers must be equal to <math>2</math> by considering what would happen if none of <math>k</math>, <math>n</math>, or <math>m</math> were equal to <math>2</math>. If this was true, then the smallest <math>k</math>, <math>n</math>, or <math>m</math> could be would be <math>3</math>. If all three were equal to <math>3</math>, then we would have <math>\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3} = 1</math>, which is too large. However, the next largest value for the sum <math>\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m}</math> would be <math>\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4} = \frac{11}{12}</math>, which is too small. Thus there are no possibilities that have no <math>2</math>s, meaning we can set any one of the variables <math>k</math>, <math>n</math>, or <math>m</math> equal to <math>2</math> and continue solving. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Let's say we choose <math>k</math> to equal <math>2</math>. Then we have <math>\frac{9}{20}<\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m}<\frac{1}{2}</math>. Obviously we can't have another <math>2</math>, but what if we had a <math>3</math>? It turns out that we can prove that we must have a <math>3</math> in much the same way we proved that there must be a <math>2</math>. If we assume that there is no <math>3</math>, the largest value of <math>\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m}</math> would be <math>\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4} = \frac{1}{2}</math>, which is too large. Just as last time, the next largest possibility, <math>\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5} = \frac{9}{20}</math>, is too small. Thus, there are no possibilities that have no <math>3</math>s, meaning one of the remaining variables must be <math>3</math>. If we randomly select <math>n</math> to equal <math>3</math>, we are left with the equation <math>\frac{9}{20} - \frac{1}{3} < \frac{1}{m} < \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{3}</math>, which means <math>\frac{7}{60} < \frac{1}{m} < \frac{1}{6}</math>. This inequality shows that <math>m</math> can be equal to <math>7</math> or <math>8</math>. The problem asks for the least possible value of <math>k+n+m</math>, so we say that <math>m = 7</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | To conclude, we have <math>\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m} = \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{7} = \frac{21}{42}+\frac{14}{42}+\frac{6}{42} = \frac{41}{42}</math>, which is indeed greater than <math>\frac{19}{20}</math> and less than <math>1</math>. This configuration, <math>(2,3,7)</math> is one of two that satisfies the given conditions, the other being <math>(2,3,8)</math>. Of these two solutions, <math>(2,3,7)</math> has the lower sum, meaning our answer is <math>2 + 3 + 7 = \boxed{12}</math> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Back to test: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2000_PMWC_Problems | Back to test: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2000_PMWC_Problems |
Latest revision as of 10:54, 24 December 2019
Problem
There are positive integers , , such that . What is the smallest possible value of ?
Solution
Given that , , and are positive integers, it is obvious that none of them can be 1, because that would immediately make the quantity too large.
What about having one of them equal ? We can actually prove through casework that at least one of the integers must be equal to by considering what would happen if none of , , or were equal to . If this was true, then the smallest , , or could be would be . If all three were equal to , then we would have , which is too large. However, the next largest value for the sum would be , which is too small. Thus there are no possibilities that have no s, meaning we can set any one of the variables , , or equal to and continue solving.
Let's say we choose to equal . Then we have . Obviously we can't have another , but what if we had a ? It turns out that we can prove that we must have a in much the same way we proved that there must be a . If we assume that there is no , the largest value of would be , which is too large. Just as last time, the next largest possibility, , is too small. Thus, there are no possibilities that have no s, meaning one of the remaining variables must be . If we randomly select to equal , we are left with the equation , which means . This inequality shows that can be equal to or . The problem asks for the least possible value of , so we say that .
To conclude, we have , which is indeed greater than and less than . This configuration, is one of two that satisfies the given conditions, the other being . Of these two solutions, has the lower sum, meaning our answer is
See Also
Back to test: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2000_PMWC_Problems