Difference between revisions of "1969 IMO Problems/Problem 1"
(Created page with 'The equation was<math>z = n^4 + a</math> ,you can put <math> a = 4 m^4 </math> for all natural numbers m. So you will get <math> z = n^4 + 4 m^4 = n^4+4m^4 +4n^2 m^2 - 4n^2 m^2</…') |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | ==Problem== | |
+ | Prove that there are infinitely many natural numbers <math>a</math> with the following property: the number <math>z = n^4 + a</math> is not prime for any natural number <math>n</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Solution== | ||
+ | Suppose that <math>a = 4k^4</math> for some <math>k</math>. We will prove that <math>a</math> satisfies the property outlined above. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The polynomial <math>n^4 + 4k^4</math> can be factored as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <cmath>n^4 + 4k^4</cmath> | ||
+ | <cmath> = n^4 + 4n^2k^2 + 4k^4 - 4n^2k^2</cmath> | ||
+ | <cmath> = (n^2 + 2k^2)^2 - (2nk)^2</cmath> | ||
+ | <cmath> = (n^2 + 2k^2 - 2nk)(n^2 + 2k^2 + 2nk)</cmath> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Both factors are positive, because if the left one is negative, then the right one would also negative, which is clearly false. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is also simple to prove that <math>n^2 + 2k^2 - 2nk > 1</math> when <math>k > 1</math>. Thus, for all <math>k > 1</math>, <math>4k^4</math> is a valid value of <math>a</math>, completing the proof. <math>\square</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ~mathboy100 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{alternate solutions}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | == See Also == {{IMO box|year=1969|before=First question|num-a=2}} |
Latest revision as of 18:44, 10 August 2024
Problem
Prove that there are infinitely many natural numbers with the following property: the number is not prime for any natural number .
Solution
Suppose that for some . We will prove that satisfies the property outlined above.
The polynomial can be factored as follows:
Both factors are positive, because if the left one is negative, then the right one would also negative, which is clearly false.
It is also simple to prove that when . Thus, for all , is a valid value of , completing the proof.
~mathboy100
Alternate solutions are always welcome. If you have a different, elegant solution to this problem, please add it to this page.
See Also
1969 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by First question |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 2 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |