Difference between revisions of "1994 USAMO Problems/Problem 1"
(Reconstructed from page template) |
Johnhankock (talk | contribs) (→Solution) |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
So, <math>k_{n+1}\geq d(s_n)</math> and all intervals between <math>s_n</math> and <math>s_{n+1}</math> will contain at least one perfect square. | So, <math>k_{n+1}\geq d(s_n)</math> and all intervals between <math>s_n</math> and <math>s_{n+1}</math> will contain at least one perfect square. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Solution 2== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We see that by increasing <math>n</math> by some amount, we simply shift our interval by a finite amount. It suffices to consider the case <math>n=1</math> (since this can be inducted across all positive integers). Let <math>k_1=x</math>. We want the smallest interval, so we have <math>[x, 2x+2]</math>. Simple induction reveals that the ration of consecutive squares grows slower than our linear bound. We now consider sufficiently small <math>x</math> (where <math>\frac{(n+1)^2}{n^2}<2</math>). This first happens at <math>n=3</math>. By simple casework, our answer is as desired <math>\blacksquare</math>. | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== |
Revision as of 13:24, 22 August 2018
Contents
[hide]Problem
Let , be positive integers, no two consecutive, and let
, for
. Prove that, for each positive integer
, the interval
, contains at least one perfect square.
Solution
We want to show that the distance between and
is greater than the distance between
and the next perfect square following
.
Given , where no
are consecutive, we can put a lower bound on
. This occurs when all
:
Rearranging, . So,
, and the distance between
and
is
.
Also, let be the distance between
and the next perfect square following
. Let's look at the function
for all positive integers
.
When is a perfect square, it is easy to see that
.
Proof: Choose
.
.
When is not a perfect square,
.
Proof: Choose
with
.
.
So, for all
and
for all
.
Now, it suffices to show that for all
.
So, and all intervals between
and
will contain at least one perfect square.
Solution 2
We see that by increasing by some amount, we simply shift our interval by a finite amount. It suffices to consider the case
(since this can be inducted across all positive integers). Let
. We want the smallest interval, so we have
. Simple induction reveals that the ration of consecutive squares grows slower than our linear bound. We now consider sufficiently small
(where
). This first happens at
. By simple casework, our answer is as desired
.
See Also
1994 USAMO (Problems • Resources) | ||
Preceded by First Problem |
Followed by Problem 2 | |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 | ||
All USAMO Problems and Solutions |
The problems on this page are copyrighted by the Mathematical Association of America's American Mathematics Competitions.