Difference between revisions of "2023 AIME I Problems/Problem 7"
m (→Solution) |
m (→Solution) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Solution== | ==Solution== | ||
− | <math>\textbf{Case 0:} {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 0</math>. | + | <math>\textbf{Case 0: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 0</math>. |
We have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 0</math>. This violates the condition that <math>n</math> is extra-distinct. | We have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 0</math>. This violates the condition that <math>n</math> is extra-distinct. | ||
Therefore, this case has no solution. | Therefore, this case has no solution. | ||
− | <math>\textbf{Case 1:} {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 1</math>. | + | <math>\textbf{Case 1: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 1</math>. |
We have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 1</math>. This violates the condition that <math>n</math> is extra-distinct. | We have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 1</math>. This violates the condition that <math>n</math> is extra-distinct. | ||
Therefore, this case has no solution. | Therefore, this case has no solution. | ||
− | + | <math>\textbf{Case 2: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 2</math>. | |
− | We have < | + | We have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 3 \right) = 2</math>. This violates the condition that <math>n</math> is extra-distinct. |
Therefore, this case has no solution. | Therefore, this case has no solution. | ||
− | < | + | <math>\textbf{Case 3: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 3</math>. |
− | The condition < | + | The condition <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 3</math> implies <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 1</math>, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 3 \right) = 0</math>. |
− | Because < | + | Because <math>n</math> is extra-distinct, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, l \right)</math> for <math>l \in \left\{ 2, 3, 4 \right\}</math> is a permutation of <math>\left\{ 0, 1 ,2 \right\}</math>. |
− | Thus, < | + | Thus, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) = 2</math>. |
− | However, < | + | However, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) = 2</math> conflicts <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 1</math>. |
Therefore, this case has no solution. | Therefore, this case has no solution. | ||
− | < | + | <math>\textbf{Case 4: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 4</math>. |
− | The condition < | + | The condition <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 4</math> implies <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 0</math> and <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 3 \right) = 1</math>. |
− | Because < | + | Because <math>n</math> is extra-distinct, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, l \right)</math> for <math>l \in \left\{ 2, 3, 4 , 5 \right\}</math> is a permutation of <math>\left\{ 0, 1 ,2 , 3 \right\}</math>. |
− | Because < | + | Because <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 0</math>, we must have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) = 2</math>. Hence, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 5 \right) = 3</math>. |
− | Hence, < | + | Hence, <math>n \equiv -2 \pmod{{\rm lcm} \left( 4, 5 , 6 \right)}</math>. |
− | Hence, < | + | Hence, <math>n \equiv - 2 \pmod{60}</math>. |
− | We have < | + | We have <math>1000 = 60 \cdot 16 + 40</math>. |
− | Therefore, the number extra-distinct < | + | Therefore, the number extra-distinct <math>n</math> in this case is 16. |
− | < | + | <math>\textbf{Case 5: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 5</math>. |
− | The condition < | + | The condition <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 5</math> implies <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 2 \right) = 1</math> and <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 3 \right) = 2</math>. |
− | Because < | + | Because <math>n</math> is extra-distinct, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right)</math> and <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 5 \right)</math> are two distinct numbers in <math>\left\{ 0, 3, 4 \right\}</math>. |
− | Because < | + | Because <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) \leq 3</math> and <math>n</math> is odd, we have <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) = 3</math>. |
− | Hence, < | + | Hence, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 5 \right) = 0</math> or 4. |
− | < | + | <math>\textbf{Case 5.1: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 5</math>, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) = 3</math>, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 5 \right) = 0</math>. |
− | We have < | + | We have <math>n \equiv 35 \pmod{60}</math>. |
− | We have < | + | We have <math>1000 = 60 \cdot 16 + 40</math>. |
− | Therefore, the number extra-distinct < | + | Therefore, the number extra-distinct <math>n</math> in this subcase is 17. |
− | < | + | <math>\textbf{Case 5.2: } {\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 6 \right) = 5</math>, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 4 \right) = 3</math>, <math>{\rm Rem} \ \left( n, 5 \right) = 4</math>. |
− | < | + | <math>n \equiv - 1 \pmod{60}</math>. |
− | We have < | + | We have <math>1000 = 60 \cdot 16 + 40</math>. |
− | Therefore, the number extra-distinct < | + | Therefore, the number extra-distinct <math>n</math> in this subcase is 16. |
− | Putting all cases together, the total number of extra-distinct < | + | Putting all cases together, the total number of extra-distinct <math>n</math> is <math>16 + 17 + 16 = \boxed{\textbf{(049) }}</math>. |
~Steven Chen (Professor Chen Education Palace, www.professorchenedu.com) | ~Steven Chen (Professor Chen Education Palace, www.professorchenedu.com) |
Revision as of 16:08, 8 February 2023
Unofficial problem statement: Find the number of positive integers from 1 to 1000 that have different mods in mod 2,3,4,5, and 6.
Unofficial Solution: We realize that any such number (mod 2) and (mod 4) must have the same parity, and its values (mod 3) and (mod 6) must have a absolute value difference of 3. Thus the only possibilities for the sequence of mods are 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,0,5 and 0,1,2,3,4. Using CRT and summing we get 049.
Solution
.
We have . This violates the condition that is extra-distinct. Therefore, this case has no solution.
.
We have . This violates the condition that is extra-distinct. Therefore, this case has no solution.
.
We have . This violates the condition that is extra-distinct. Therefore, this case has no solution.
.
The condition implies , .
Because is extra-distinct, for is a permutation of . Thus, .
However, conflicts . Therefore, this case has no solution.
.
The condition implies and .
Because is extra-distinct, for is a permutation of .
Because , we must have . Hence, .
Hence, . Hence, .
We have . Therefore, the number extra-distinct in this case is 16.
.
The condition implies and .
Because is extra-distinct, and are two distinct numbers in . Because and is odd, we have . Hence, or 4.
, , .
We have .
We have . Therefore, the number extra-distinct in this subcase is 17.
, , .
.
We have . Therefore, the number extra-distinct in this subcase is 16.
Putting all cases together, the total number of extra-distinct is .
~Steven Chen (Professor Chen Education Palace, www.professorchenedu.com)