Difference between revisions of "1968 IMO Problems/Problem 2"
Mathboy100 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<math> \blacksquare</math> | <math> \blacksquare</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Remarks (added by pf02, August 2024)== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Solutions 2 and 3 are not satisfactory. In fact, they can | ||
+ | not be called solutions, since they make statements which | ||
+ | are not proven. Specifically: | ||
+ | |||
+ | In Solution 2, the author writes "It is pretty obvious that <math>x</math> | ||
+ | cannot be three digits or more, because then <math>x^2 - 10x - 22</math> is | ||
+ | way too big." This is intuitively true, but not obvious at all. | ||
+ | As a crucial step in the solution, it should be proven. Later, | ||
+ | the author states | ||
+ | |||
+ | "<math>(10a + b + 2)(10a + b - 12) \ge \cdots = 100(a^2 - a) + 24</math>. | ||
+ | It is therefore clear that <math>a</math> must be either <math>0</math> or <math>1</math>". | ||
+ | |||
+ | First, the last term should be <math>-24</math> instead of <math>24</math>. Either | ||
+ | way, the conclusion about <math>a</math> is not clear at all. As a second | ||
+ | crucial step in the solution, it should be proven. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In Solution 3, the notation and writing are very confusing. | ||
+ | However, a diligent reader can make sense of them. But in | ||
+ | this solution as well, there are statements which beg for | ||
+ | a proof. The first such statement is | ||
+ | |||
+ | "<math>a^2 \not\equiv 2 (mod\ 3), a^2 \not\equiv 2 (mod\ 5), a^2 \not\equiv 5 (mod\ 7)</math> | ||
+ | which means <math>3, 5, 7</math> don't divide <math>(x - 5)^2 - 47 = y</math>". | ||
+ | |||
+ | Neither the modulo statements, nor the conclusion are obvious; | ||
+ | proofs should be given. The second one is | ||
+ | |||
+ | "<math>2^a + 47 = (x - 5)^2</math>. It is easy to see that <math>a</math> has one | ||
+ | solution and that is <math>2</math>. (Prove it by contradiction.)" | ||
+ | |||
+ | (The author means "the equation has a unique solution for <math>a</math>".) | ||
+ | The conclusion about the uniqueness of <math>a</math> is not easy to see, | ||
+ | and as a crucial step in the solution, it should be proven. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Below, I will give corrected, complete, and somewhat simplified | ||
+ | versions of these two solutions. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Solution 2 (corrected and complete)== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | TO BE CONTINUED. I AM SAVING UNFINISHED TEXT SO I DON'T LOSE WORK DONE SO FAR. | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
{{IMO box|year=1968|num-b=1|num-a=3}} | {{IMO box|year=1968|num-b=1|num-a=3}} | ||
− | |||
[[Category:Olympiad Number Theory Problems]] | [[Category:Olympiad Number Theory Problems]] |
Revision as of 12:36, 20 August 2024
Contents
Problem
Find all natural numbers such that the product of their digits (in decimal notation) is equal to .
Solution 1
Let the decimal expansion of be , where are base-10 digits. We then have that . However, the product of the digits of is , with equality only when is a one-digit integer. Therefore the product of the digits of is always at most , with equality only when is a base-10 digit. This implies that , so . Every natural number from 1 to 12 satisfies this inequality, so we only need to check these possibilities. It is easy to rule out 1 through 11, since for those values. However, , which is the product of the digits of 12. Therefore is the only natural number with the desired properties.
Solution 2(SFFT)
It is pretty obvious that cannot be three digits or more, because then is way too big.
Write where and are digits satisfying . Then, we can use SFFT: We have It is therefore clear that must be either or . We can then split into two cases:
We have or , which is only satisfied when or .
We have . This is only satisfied when , or . Therefore, , and so
~mathboy100
Solution 3
Let,
Now note that, if is a prime such that then .
That means,
But, which means don't divivde
So, and
It is easy to see that has one solution and that is ( Prove it by contradiction)
So,
Remarks (added by pf02, August 2024)
Solutions 2 and 3 are not satisfactory. In fact, they can not be called solutions, since they make statements which are not proven. Specifically:
In Solution 2, the author writes "It is pretty obvious that cannot be three digits or more, because then is way too big." This is intuitively true, but not obvious at all. As a crucial step in the solution, it should be proven. Later, the author states
". It is therefore clear that must be either or ".
First, the last term should be instead of . Either way, the conclusion about is not clear at all. As a second crucial step in the solution, it should be proven.
In Solution 3, the notation and writing are very confusing. However, a diligent reader can make sense of them. But in this solution as well, there are statements which beg for a proof. The first such statement is
" which means don't divide ".
Neither the modulo statements, nor the conclusion are obvious; proofs should be given. The second one is
". It is easy to see that has one solution and that is . (Prove it by contradiction.)"
(The author means "the equation has a unique solution for ".) The conclusion about the uniqueness of is not easy to see, and as a crucial step in the solution, it should be proven.
Below, I will give corrected, complete, and somewhat simplified versions of these two solutions.
Solution 2 (corrected and complete)
TO BE CONTINUED. I AM SAVING UNFINISHED TEXT SO I DON'T LOSE WORK DONE SO FAR.
See Also
1968 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 1 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 3 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |