Difference between revisions of "2018 USAMO Problems/Problem 2"
(A correct solution that I came up with today.) |
(→Solution: add newbox) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
− | We now know that <math>h(x)=kx</math> for all <math>0<x<\frac13</math>. Since <math>h(-x)=-h(x)</math> for <math>|x|<\frac13</math>, we obtain <math>h(x)=kx</math> for all <math>|x|<\frac13</math>. For <math>x\in\left(\frac13,\frac23\right)</math>, we have <math>h(x)+h\left(-\frac x2\right)+h\left(-\frac x2\right)=0</math>, and thus <math>h(x)=kx</math> as well. So <math>h(x)=kx</math> for all <math>x</math> in the domain. It remains to work backwards to find <math>f(x)</math>. | + | We now know that <math>h(x)=kx</math> for all <math>0<x<\frac13</math>. Since <math>h(-x)=-h(x)</math> for <math>|x|<\frac13</math>, we obtain <math>h(x)=kx</math> for all <math>|x|<\frac13</math>. For <math>x\in\left(\frac13,\frac23\right)</math>, we have <math>h(x)+h\left(-\frac x2\right)+h\left(-\frac x2\right)=0</math>, and thus <math>h(x)=kx</math> as well. So <math>h(x)=kx</math> for all <math>x</math> in the domain. Since <math>h(x)</math> is bounded by <math>-\frac13</math> and <math>\frac23</math>, we have <math>-\frac12\le k\le1</math>. It remains to work backwards to find <math>f(x)</math>. |
− | \begin{align*} | + | <cmath>\begin{align*} |
h(x) &= kx \\ | h(x) &= kx \\ | ||
g(x) &= kx+\frac{1-k}3 \\ | g(x) &= kx+\frac{1-k}3 \\ | ||
− | f(x) &= \frac k{1+x}+\frac{1-k}3 | + | f(x) &= \frac k{1+x}+\frac{1-k}3\quad\left(-\frac12\le k\le1\right). |
− | \end{align*} | + | \end{align*}</cmath> |
+ | - wzs26843545602 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{USAMO newbox|year=2018|num-b=1|num-a=3}} |
Latest revision as of 09:40, 27 August 2023
Problem 2
Find all functions such that
for all with
Solution
Obviously, the output of lies in the interval . Define as . Then for any such that , we have . We can transform and similarly:
Let , , . We can see that the above expression is equal to . That is, for any such that , .
(To motivate this, one can start by writing , , , and normalizing such that .)
For convenience, we define as , so that for any such that , we have
Obviously, . If , then and thus . Furthermore, if are in the domain and , then and thus .
At this point, we should realize that should be of the form . We first prove this for some rational numbers. If is a positive integer and is a real number such that , then we can repeatedly apply to obtain . Let , then for any rational number where are positive integers, we have .
Next, we prove it for all real numbers in the interval . For the sake of contradiction, assume that there is some such that . Let , then obviously . The idea is to "amplify" this error until it becomes so big as to contradict the bounds on the output of . Let , so that and . Pick any rational , so that All numbers and sums are safely inside the bounds of . Thus but picking any rational number gives us , and since , we have as well, but since , this means that , giving us the desired contradiction.
We now know that for all . Since for , we obtain for all . For , we have , and thus as well. So for all in the domain. Since is bounded by and , we have . It remains to work backwards to find .
- wzs26843545602
2018 USAMO (Problems • Resources) | ||
Preceded by Problem 1 |
Followed by Problem 3 | |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | ||
All USAMO Problems and Solutions |