Difference between revisions of "1985 IMO Problems/Problem 6"
(Created page with "For every real number <math>x_1</math>, construct the sequence <math>x_1,x_2,\ldots</math> by setting <math>x_{n+1}=x_n \left(x_n + \frac{1}{n}\right)</math> for each <math>n \ge...") |
(→Problem) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | For every real number <math>x_1</math>, construct the sequence <math>x_1,x_2,\ldots</math> by setting <math>x_{n+1}=x_n \left(x_n + \frac{1}{n}\right)</math> for each <math>n \geq 1</math>. Prove that there exists exactly one value of <math>x_1</math> for which <math>0<x_n<x_{n+1}<1</math> for | + | ==Problem== |
+ | For every real number <math>x_1</math>, construct the sequence <math>x_1,x_2,\ldots</math> by setting <math>x_{n+1}=x_n \left(x_n + \frac{1}{n}\right)</math> for each <math>n \geq 1</math>. Prove that there exists exactly one value of <math>x_<x_n<x_{n+1}<1</math> for every <math>n</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Solution 1== | ||
+ | By recursive substitution, one can write <math>x_n=P_n(x_1)</math> , where <math>P_n</math> is a polynomial with non-negative coefficients and zero constant term. Thus, <math>P_n(0)=0</math>, <math>P_n</math> is strictly increasing in <math>[0,+\infty)</math> , and <math>\displaystyle \lim_{x_1 \rightarrow + \infty} P_n(x_1)=+\infty</math>. We can therefore define the inverse <math>P_n^{-1}</math> of <math>P_n</math> on <math>[0,+\infty)</math>. It follows that <math>x_1=P_n^{-1}(x_n)</math>, <math>P_n^{-1}(0)=0</math>, <math>P_n^{-1}</math> is strictly increasing in <math>[0,+\infty)</math>, and <math>\displaystyle \lim_{x_1 \rightarrow + \infty} P_n^{-1}(x_1) =+\infty</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Denote by <math>\displaystyle a_n=P_n^{-1}(1-\frac{1}{n})</math> and <math>b_n=P_n^{-1}(1)</math>. By the monotonicity of <math>P_n^{-1}</math> we have <math>a_n<b_n</math> for each <math>n</math>. Note that: | ||
+ | |||
+ | (a) <math>\displaystyle x_n<x_{n+1} \Leftrightarrow x_n>1-\frac{1}{n} \Leftrightarrow P_n^{-1}(x_n)>P_n^{-1}(1-\frac{1}{n}) \Leftrightarrow x_1>a_n</math>; | ||
+ | (b) <math>\displaystyle x_n<1 \Leftrightarrow P_n^{-1}(x_n)<P_n^{-1}(1) \Leftrightarrow x_1<b_n</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, <math>0<x_n<x_{n+1}<1,\forall n</math> holds if and only if <math>a_n<x_1<b_n,\forall n</math>, or <math>\displaystyle x_1 \in \bigcap_{n=1}^{+\infty}(a_n,b_n)</math>. We need to show that <math>\displaystyle \bigcap_{n=1}^{+\infty}(a_n,b_n)</math> is a singleton. We have: | ||
+ | |||
+ | (c) if <math>x_1=a_n</math>, then <math>x_n=1-\frac{1}{n}</math>, which implies that <math>x_{n+1}=1-\frac{1}{n}<1-\frac{1}{n+1}=P_{n+1}(a_{n+1})</math>, and <math>x_1<a_{n+1}</math>. It follows that <math>a_n<a_{n+1},\forall n</math>; and | ||
+ | (d) if <math>x_1=b_n</math>, then <math>x_n=1</math>, which implies that <math>x_{n+1}=1+\frac{1}{n}>1=P_{n+1}(b_{n+1})</math>, and <math>x_1>b_{n+1}</math>. It follows that <math>b_n>b_{n+1},\forall n</math>; and | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, <math>a_n<a_{n+1}<b_{n+1}<b_n, \forall n</math>. Therefore, the two sequences <math>\{a_n\}_{n=1}^{+\infty}</math> and <math>\{b_n\}_{n=1}^{+\infty}</math> converge, and their limits <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> satisfy <math>a \leq b</math>. Hence, <math>\displaystyle \bigcap_{n=1}^{+\infty}(a_n,b_n)=[a,b]</math> is non-empty, which demonstrates the existence of <math>x_1</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Now, suppose that <math>a \leq x_1 \leq x_1' \leq b</math>. We have <math>x_{n+1}'-x_{n+1} = (x_n'-x_n)(x_n'+x_n+\frac{1}{n}) \geq (x_n'-x_n)(2-\frac{1}{n}) \geq (x_n'-x_n)</math> for each <math>n</math>, so that <math>x_n'-x_n \geq x_1'-x_1</math> for each <math>n</math>. However, <math>1-\frac{1}{n}<x_n \leq x_n'<1</math>, so that <math>0 \leq x_n'-x_n<\frac{1}{n}</math>, which implies that <math>\displaystyle \lim_{n \rightarrow +\infty}(x_n'-x_n)=0</math>. Therefore, <math>x_1' \leq x_1</math>, proving unicity. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This solution was posted and copyrighted by DAFR. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [https://aops.com/community/p2751173] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Solution 2== | ||
+ | For each <math>n \ge 1</math> let <math>I_n</math> be the interval of real numbers <math>0 \textless x \textless 1</math> such that if <math>x=x_1</math>, we will have <math>x_n \textless x_{n+1} \textless 1</math>. (That is, the values of <math>x_1</math> which make <math>x_{n+1}</math> "work"). We must prove these intervals intersect at one point. | ||
+ | |||
+ | First, I prove they intersect. Notice that as <math>x_1</math> increases, <math>x_n</math> and <math>x_{n+1}</math> do too. So if <math>I_n=(a_n,b_n)</math> it is easy to see <math>a_n=x_1</math> will give <math>x_n=x_{n+1}=1-1/n</math> and <math>b_n=x_1</math> will give <math>x_{n+1}=1</math> (the "extremal" values <math>x_{n+1}</math> can take are given by the extremal values <math>x_1</math> can take). | ||
+ | |||
+ | But if <math>a_n=x_1</math> we see that <math>x_{n+1} \textless 1-1/(n+1)</math> and so <math>x_{n+1} \textgreater x_{n+2}</math> and similarly <math>x_1=b_n</math> gives <math>x_{n+1}=1</math> which gives a <math>x_{n+2}</math> too big. So basically when <math>x_1</math> only barely works for <math>x_{n+1}</math>, it won't work for <math>x_{n+2}</math>. So <math>I_{n+1}</math> is a subset of <math>I_n</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | So we have an infinite sequence of open intervals, each contained inside the previous one. Therefore their intersection must contain at least one number. This guarantees the existence of <math>x_1</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | But, we must prove that <math>x_1</math> can't take two different values. Suppose it could. Suppose <math>x_1=a,b</math> both work. Let <math>x_i</math> be the sequence generated by <math>a</math> and <math>x_i'</math> the sequence generated by <math>b</math>, and let <math>l_i=x_i'-x_i</math> (wlog <math>a \textless b</math>). Then we see <math>l_{n+1}=l_n(2x_n+l_n+1/n) \textgreater l_n</math> for <math>n \ge 2</math> since <math>2x_n \textgreater 1</math> since <math>x_n \textgreater 1-1/n \ge 1/2</math>. So there exists a constant <math>C</math> such that <math>x_k' \ge x_k+C</math> for <math>k \ge 2</math>. But since <math>x_k, x_k' \in (1-1/k, 1)</math>, this is impossible. So we're done. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This solution was posted and copyrighted by JuanOrtiz. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [https://aops.com/community/p3492644] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Solution 3== | ||
+ | Consider, now, the following observations: | ||
+ | |||
+ | (a) If, at any point, <math>x_{n+1}\le x_n</math>, then from here we know that | ||
+ | <cmath>x_n\le 1-\frac{1}{n},\quad x_{n+1}\le 1-\frac{1}{n} < 1-\frac{1}{n+1}\to x_{n+2}<x_{n+1}, \cdots x_m\le 1-\frac{1}{n} < 1-\frac{1}{m}\to x_{m+1}<x_m, \forall m>n</cmath>and therefore the sequence <math>\{x_n\}</math> will be monotonically decreasing after one point. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (b) If some <math>x</math> does satisfy <math>0<x_n<x_{n+1}<1</math> for all <math>n</math>, then <math>1-\frac{1}{n}<x_n<1</math> for all <math>n</math>, and therefore by Squeeze's theorem <math>\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n = 1</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (c) If <math>x_n\ge 1</math> for some <math>n</math>, then <math>x_{n+1}=x_n(x_n+\frac 1n)>x_n^2\ge 1</math> and so <math>x_{n+m}>(x_{m+1})^{2^{m-1}}</math> which then gives <math>\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=+\infty</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | (d) If <math>x_1=0</math>, then for each <math>n</math>, <math>x_n=0</math>. If <math>x_1\to\infty</math> then for each <math>n</math> (fixed), <math>x_n\to\infty</math>. Thus, we can denote a mapping <math>f_n:\mathbb{R}^{\ge 0}\to \mathbb{R}^{\ge 0}</math> that maps <math>x_1</math> to <math>x_n</math>, which is continuous and monotonically increasing, with <math>\lim_{x\to +\infty} f_n(x)=+\infty</math> so <math>f_n</math> is bijective. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Let's first show uniqueness. Suppose that <math>\{x_n\}</math> and <math>\{y_n\}</math> are both such sequences. We have <math>\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}y_n=1</math> and suppose that <math>y_1>x_1</math>. Then for all <math>n</math>, | ||
+ | <cmath>\frac{y_{n+1}}{x_{n+1}} = \frac{y_n(y_n+\frac 1n)}{x_n(x_n+\frac 1n)}>\frac{y_n}{x_n}</cmath> so inductively, <math>\frac{y_{n+1}}{x_{n+1}}>(\frac{y_{1}}{x_{1}})^n</math> with <math>\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{y_{n+1}}{x_{n+1}}=+\infty</math>. | ||
+ | However, <math>\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}y_n=1</math> gives <math>\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{y_{n+1}}{x_{n+1}}=\frac{1}{1}=1</math>, contradiction. | ||
+ | Hence, the <math>x_1</math> that satisfies this must be unique. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Next, let's show existence. We have seen from above that, <math>y_1>x_1</math> implies <math>y_n>x_n</math>, and that if <math>x_n>1</math> for some <math>n</math> then <math>\{x_n\}</math> is monotonically increasing after some point. Suppose no such <math>x_1</math> exists. Let | ||
+ | \[ | ||
+ | A=\{x_1: \exists n: x_{n+1}<x_n\}\qquad B=\{x_1: \exists n: x_n>1\} | ||
+ | \]then if <math>x\in A</math>, <math>y\in A</math> for all <math>y<x</math> and similarly <math>x\in B</math>, <math>y\in B</math> for all <math>y>B</math>. Notice also an wasy fact that <math>1\in B</math>, so <math>A</math> is bounded. Define, now, <math>c=glb(A)</math>. As we assumed <math>A\cup B=\mathbb{R}^+</math>, this <math>c</math> implies that <math>x_1<c\to x_1\in A</math> and <math>x_1>c\to x_1\in B</math>. It remains to ask whether <math>c\in A</math> or <math>c\in B</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If <math>c\in A</math>, then for this <math>x_1:=c</math>, <math>x_n\le 1-\frac{1}{n}</math> and so <math>x_{n+1}<1-\frac{1}{n+1}</math>. Let <math>y_{n+1}</math> be such that <math>x_{n+1}<y_{n+1}<1</math>. By above, there's exactly one <math>y_1</math> with <math>f_{n+1}(y_1)<y_{n+1}</math>, and notice that <math>y_1>x_1=c</math> by the monotonicity of <math>f_{n+1}</math>. This means that there exists <math>y_1>c\in A</math>, contradicting the definition of glb. A similar contradiction (but opposite direction) can also be established for the case <math>c\in B</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Hence <math>c</math> is neither in <math>A</math> or <math>B</math>, means that <math>x_1=c</math> should satisfy the problem condition. Q.E.D. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This solution was posted and copyrighted by Anzoteh. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [https://aops.com/community/p18824436] | ||
+ | |||
+ | == See Also == {{IMO box|year=1985|num-b=5|after=Last Question}} |
Latest revision as of 17:40, 15 October 2024
Contents
[hide]Problem
For every real number , construct the sequence
by setting
for each
. Prove that there exists exactly one value of
for every
.
Solution 1
By recursive substitution, one can write , where
is a polynomial with non-negative coefficients and zero constant term. Thus,
,
is strictly increasing in
, and
. We can therefore define the inverse
of
on
. It follows that
,
,
is strictly increasing in
, and
.
Denote by and
. By the monotonicity of
we have
for each
. Note that:
(a) ;
(b)
.
Thus, holds if and only if
, or
. We need to show that
is a singleton. We have:
(c) if , then
, which implies that
, and
. It follows that
; and
(d) if
, then
, which implies that
, and
. It follows that
; and
Thus, . Therefore, the two sequences
and
converge, and their limits
and
satisfy
. Hence,
is non-empty, which demonstrates the existence of
.
Now, suppose that . We have
for each
, so that
for each
. However,
, so that
, which implies that
. Therefore,
, proving unicity.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by DAFR. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [1]
Solution 2
For each let
be the interval of real numbers
such that if
, we will have
. (That is, the values of
which make
"work"). We must prove these intervals intersect at one point.
First, I prove they intersect. Notice that as increases,
and
do too. So if
it is easy to see
will give
and
will give
(the "extremal" values
can take are given by the extremal values
can take).
But if we see that
and so
and similarly
gives
which gives a
too big. So basically when
only barely works for
, it won't work for
. So
is a subset of
.
So we have an infinite sequence of open intervals, each contained inside the previous one. Therefore their intersection must contain at least one number. This guarantees the existence of .
But, we must prove that can't take two different values. Suppose it could. Suppose
both work. Let
be the sequence generated by
and
the sequence generated by
, and let
(wlog
). Then we see
for
since
since
. So there exists a constant
such that
for
. But since
, this is impossible. So we're done.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by JuanOrtiz. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [2]
Solution 3
Consider, now, the following observations:
(a) If, at any point, , then from here we know that
and therefore the sequence
will be monotonically decreasing after one point.
(b) If some does satisfy
for all
, then
for all
, and therefore by Squeeze's theorem
.
(c) If for some
, then
and so
which then gives
.
(d) If , then for each
,
. If
then for each
(fixed),
. Thus, we can denote a mapping
that maps
to
, which is continuous and monotonically increasing, with
so
is bijective.
Let's first show uniqueness. Suppose that and
are both such sequences. We have
and suppose that
. Then for all
,
so inductively,
with
.
However,
gives
, contradiction.
Hence, the
that satisfies this must be unique.
Next, let's show existence. We have seen from above that, implies
, and that if
for some
then
is monotonically increasing after some point. Suppose no such
exists. Let
\[
A=\{x_1: \exists n: x_{n+1}<x_n\}\qquad B=\{x_1: \exists n: x_n>1\}
\]then if
,
for all
and similarly
,
for all
. Notice also an wasy fact that
, so
is bounded. Define, now,
. As we assumed
, this
implies that
and
. It remains to ask whether
or
.
If , then for this
,
and so
. Let
be such that
. By above, there's exactly one
with
, and notice that
by the monotonicity of
. This means that there exists
, contradicting the definition of glb. A similar contradiction (but opposite direction) can also be established for the case
.
Hence is neither in
or
, means that
should satisfy the problem condition. Q.E.D.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by Anzoteh. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [3]
See Also
1985 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 5 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Last Question |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |