Difference between revisions of "1987 IMO Problems/Problem 4"
(→Solution 2) |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Solution by Sawa Pavlov: | Solution by Sawa Pavlov: | ||
− | Let <math>N</math> be the set of non-negative integers. Put <math>A = N - f(N)</math> (the set of all <math>n</math> such that we cannot find <math>m</math> with <math>f(m) = n</math>). Put <math>B = f(A)</math>. | + | Let <math>\mathbb{N}</math> be the set of non-negative integers. Put <math>A = \mathbb{N} - f(\mathbb{N})</math> (the set of all <math>n</math> such that we cannot find <math>m</math> with <math>f(m) = n</math>). Put <math>B = f(A)</math>. |
− | Note that <math>f</math> is injective because if <math>f(n) = f(m)</math>, then <math>f(f(n)) = f(f(m))</math> so <math>m = n</math>. We claim that <math>B = f(N) - f(f(N))</math>. Obviously <math>B</math> is a subset of <math>f(N)</math> and if <math>k</math> belongs to <math>B</math>, then it does not belong to <math>f(f(N))</math> since <math>f</math> is injective. Similarly, a member of <math>f(f(N))</math> cannot belong to <math>B</math>. | + | Note that <math>f</math> is injective because if <math>f(n) = f(m)</math>, then <math>f(f(n)) = f(f(m))</math> so <math>m = n</math>. We claim that <math>B = f(\mathbb{N}) - f(f(\mathbb{N}))</math>. Obviously <math>B</math> is a subset of <math>f(\mathbb{N})</math> and if <math>k</math> belongs to <math>B</math>, then it does not belong to <math>f(f(\mathbb{N}))</math> since <math>f</math> is injective. Similarly, a member of <math>f(f(\mathbb{N}))</math> cannot belong to <math>B</math>. |
− | Clearly <math>A</math> and <math>B</math> are disjoint. They have union <math>N - f(f(N))</math> which is <math>\{0, 1, 2, \ldots , 1986\}</math>. But since <math>f</math> is injective they have the same number of elements, which is impossible since <math>\{0, 1, \ldots , 1986\}</math> has an odd number of elements. | + | Clearly <math>A</math> and <math>B</math> are disjoint. They have union <math>\mathbb{N} - f(f(\mathbb{N}))</math> which is <math>\{0, 1, 2, \ldots , 1986\}</math>. But since <math>f</math> is injective they have the same number of elements, which is impossible since <math>\{0, 1, \ldots , 1986\}</math> has an odd number of elements. |
==Solution 3 == | ==Solution 3 == |
Revision as of 09:56, 27 May 2023
Contents
[hide]Problem
Prove that there is no function from the set of non-negative integers into itself such that
for every
.
Solution 1
We prove that if for all
, where
is a fixed positive integer, then
must be even. If
, then we may take
.
Suppose with
. Then by an easy induction on
we find
,
. We show this leads to a contradiction. Suppose
, so
for some
. Then
. But
, so
. Contradiction. So we must have
, so
for some
. But now
. But
, so
. Contradiction.
So if , then
and
have different residues
. Suppose they have
and
respectively. Then the same induction shows that all sufficiently large
have
, and that all sufficiently large
have
. Hence if
has a different residue
, then
cannot have residue
or
. For if
had residue
, then the same argument would show that all sufficiently large numbers with residue
had
. Thus the residues form pairs, so that if a number is congruent to a particular residue, then
of the number is congruent to the pair of the residue. But this is impossible for
odd.
Solution 2
Solution by Sawa Pavlov:
Let be the set of non-negative integers. Put
(the set of all
such that we cannot find
with
). Put
.
Note that is injective because if
, then
so
. We claim that
. Obviously
is a subset of
and if
belongs to
, then it does not belong to
since
is injective. Similarly, a member of
cannot belong to
.
Clearly and
are disjoint. They have union
which is
. But since
is injective they have the same number of elements, which is impossible since
has an odd number of elements.
Solution 3
Consider the function defined by
. Notice that we have
, so that
whenever
, and hence
is well defined.
Now, we observe that satisfies the identity
, for
. Thus,
is an invertible function on a finite set of odd size, and hence must have a fixed point, say
. Identifying
with its canonical representative in
, we therefore get
for some non-negative integer
.
However, we then have , while
(where we use the identity
derived above, along with
. However, these two equations imply that
, which is a contradiction since
is an integer. Thus, such an
cannot exist.
Note: The main step in the proof above is that the function can be shown to have a fixed point. This step works even if 1987 is replaced with any other odd number larger than 1. However, for any even number
,
satisfies the condition
.
--Mahamaya 21:15, 21 May 2012 (EDT)
1987 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 3 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 5 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |