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 10:40, 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 |