2022 IMO Problems/Problem 5
Problem
Find all triples of positive integers with
prime and
Video solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AII0ldyDww [Video contains solutions to all day 2 problems]
Solution
Case 1:
- Since
is indivisible by
, then
must also be indivisible by
.
- If
, then
is divisible by
, so
must be a divisor of
, but
obviously has no solutions and we ruled out
already. For
, let's show that there are no solutions using simple inequalities.
- If
, then
and
by throwing away the remaining (non-negative) terms of binomial theorem. For any solution,
, which is impossible for
. That leaves us with
and
, but
for any integer
(proof by induction), so there are no solutions.
- If
, RHS is at most
and LHS is at least
(again from binomial theorem), which gives no solutions as well.
Case 2:
- Since
is divisible by
, then
must also be divisible by
.
- In addition, RHS is at most
, so
. We may write
, where
.
- Since
is a divisor of
and
it must also be a divisor of
, so
and
. We're looking for solutions of
.
- Let's factorise
: if
with
odd and
, it's
- Since
and
contain an odd number of odd terms (remember the assumption
aka
), they're odd. Also,
modulo
, so
and each following term is even but indivisible by
. The highest power of
dividing
is therefore
where
is the highest power dividing
.
- In comparison,
has factors
,
etc (up to
), and
other even factors, so it's divisible at least by
. Since
for
, the only possible solutions have
or
.
- If
, we reuse the inequalities
and
to show that there are no solutions for
.
- Finally,
isn't a factorial,
and
.
Case 3:
Just like in case 2, is divisible by
so
must also be divisible by
. However,
and
are also both divisible by
, so remainders modulo
tell us that no solutions exist.
Conclusion:
The only solutions are .
Solution 2
I considered the cases:
1) If \(a\) is even, then it must:
1.a) \(b \neq 1\) and \(p > 2\) 1.b) \(b!\) is even and \(p = 2\)
2) If \(a\) is odd, then it must:
2.a) \(b \neq 1\) and \(p = 2\) 2.b) \(b!\) is even and \(p > 2\)
Examining 1.a), we end up with an equation of the form \(a^p = p+1\), which has no integer solutions.
In case 1.b), \(b!\) can take values: 2, 6, 24, 120, 720, ..., so \(b!+2\) takes values: 4, 8, 26, 122, 722, .... We observe that the only perfect square is 4 among the possible cases, as for \(b \geq 5\), the result ends in 2, which is not a perfect square. Therefore, we have the triple \((2,2,2)\).
Case 2.a) yields \(a^2 = 3\), which is rejected.
Examining the last case 2.b), we have for \(b!\) the values: 2, 6, 24, 120, 720, 5040,
i) \(b! = 2\), then \(a^p = 2+p\), which is rejected. ii) \(b! = 6\), then \(a^p = 6+p\), also does not give integer solutions. iii) \(b! = 24\), then \(a^p = 24+p\), giving a solution for \(p=3\). Thus, we have the triple \((3,4,3)\). iv) \(b \geq 5\): \(a^3 = b! + 3\), so \(a\) must end in 3 or 7, which does not give solutions. \(a^5 = b! + 5\), so \(a\) must end in 5, also not giving solutions. \(a^7 = b! + 7\), so \(a\) must end in 3, again not giving solutions. \(a^{11} = b! + 11\), no \(a \in \mathbb{Z^+}\) satisfies this. \(a^{19} = b! + 19\), similarly, no solutions. Other prime exponents reduce to these, as their last digit is one of \(\{1,3,7,9\}\)
The analysis of the last case is incomplete, which is why I wasn't initially sure about the number of triples. Therefore, with this approach (which is not strictly documented), we find the triples: \((2,2,2), (3,4,3)\).
Solution 3(Unfinished)
Consider . Then,
must have a factor of
. Since
and
,
. But
is prime so
can only be
or the set of prime numbers. If
, then
which is impossible since
is a positive integer and so is
. Therefore,
must be the set of prime numbers specifically
. This means
. We can rearrange this to solve this Diophantine Equation:
with
being a prime number. Wilson's Theorem states that if
is a prime number, then
. This motivates us to consider different cases.
Case 1: where
is a prime
This means . Note that
is always even. Thus,
is odd. Let
. Here, we clearly see that
. Here, we only consider
. Note that
does indeed lead a solution of
so we have found our first solution triple.
Now, we go back to our original equation: ,
is a prime. Note that
. Consider
. Then,
. It is immediately obvious that
is the only solution which yields a solution of
. We will prove that is the second and last solution triple.
Case 1.1:
Then, . Since
is a prime, we have
. Note that if
, then this inequality will obviously not hold as all terms are strictly less than
. If
, then
. Using the same trick and dividing by
, we get a similar contradiction. Therefore, if
, we have no solution.
Case 1.2:
Note that will lead a contradiction in the modular arithmetic. Note that
. We have
. Notice
. It is immediately obvious that only
will hold solutions(If
, we can use a similar trick as above to prove that nothing will work). But note that
which means
. It is now obvious that
\implies
. Recall that
. Thus,
. We now have
or
. Notice this just comes from
as
. But if
, and because
, it must be that
. Therefore, we have
which already tells us that
is the only solution, but we have already found this solution. Next, we move on to the case where
. One thing we found was that
which came from
. We will use this later. First, we consider if
is prime. If it is, we can apply Fermat's Little Theorem to get
. But this tells us that if
, then
considering if
is prime. Note that if
, this is impossible because Case 1.2 specifically considers
. Therefore, we have that
is actually bigger than at least one prime and we know one of them is
. Recall
. We have
. We also have
. Recall that if this was true,
. Therefore, we can write
. Thus,
. Because
, this tells us that
. Now, we recall that
. We note that
. Note that
. We are assuming that if there exists a solution to Case 1.2, there should exist a solution to this new inequality and thus, there should exist a solution to when
. We see that
. Note that
because it divides
and we are considering if equality holds, then
. But this is obviously not true! Therefore, if
is prime and
, there exists no solutions. Now, we go to
is composite. Recall that
itself is a prime.
. (I have not finished proving this case.)
Case 1.3: is anything but
where
is a prime
Recall that we have . Notice that
will lead to a contradiction because
is composite. Therefore,
where
is a constant of anything but
. Let
be a prime that divides
. Thus,
. Therefore, we know that
for
. We also know that
or
. If we consider
, because
is a prime,
is a prime number. In other words, we have just proven that if there exists a prime
that divides
where
, then there also may exist a prime
that also divides
. But because
,
. Therefore, at least one of
where
, must be a prime number. Now, we have
. Let us consider the highest power of prime
in
. We need to find
. By Legendre's Formula,
. We just need to find that
. If
is a multiple of
, this will not hold true simply be plugging in. Even if
, because the sum is finite, it would imply
which goes back to the case where
is a multiple of
. Therefore, the only condition for which this can hold is if
which contradicts the part where
must divide
because
is not prime. We now have to prove that this case doesn't hold even if
. In this case,
is not necessarily prime. We can apply Fermat's Little Theorem if we assume
is a prime. Then,
. This tells us that
which tells us that
is another prime that divides it. Therefore, there are two primes that divide
and those are
and
if
is a prime. We conclude that either
or
has more than one prime factor. If we consider
, we can apply Legendre's again and see that it gives us the same result. If we have
has at least two distinct prime factors and two of them are
and
. This can only occur if
(The other case will lead to a - 1 being composite which is not what we assumed). But we already considered this case. Therefore, we don't have a new solution here. Now, onto when
is not prime.(I have not finished proving this case.)
Case 2:
If we go back to the original equation of , then we see
and thus
. Therefore,
. Fermat's Little Theorem states that
where
is a prime. We have that exact same case here and thus this cannot hold.
Case 3: ,
If , the same story as Case 2 would apply so we can discard that case. Let's consider a stronger inequality:
or
(Note: If a = p, we would get our original two triples so we can discard this case)
Case 3.1:
This shows that . We will show this holds for all integers
. This is our base case. We will prove this by induction. We want to show that if
holds true for all integers
, then it must hold for all integers such that
. We have
. By our inductive statement,
. Thus, we wish to prove
. Remember, our base case was
and thus for the inductive case,
which means
which satisfies this inequality. Therefore, we have proved this case.
We have shown that if , then
. Then, it is obvious that
. Since
. We see that this only holds true for
. But we have shown above that no prime above
will satisfy the original equation. Therefore, this inequality doesn't hold.
Case 3.2:
The same story applies as Case 3.1 but in this case . This will mean
and so on. We note that
will not work based on our proof for Case 2. Thus, we just need to check
as the previous case led to a solution and unique solution of
. Note that
. In fact, we will show this only holds when
. We will prove this by contradiction. Assume
for
. We have
. Dividing by
gives
. Note that we can write this as
. If
, the
is tending towards
by limits and the
is tending towards
by limits as
approaches infinity. Therefore, we can check
and see none of them hold. Thus our initial assumption was wrong and thus
only holds for
and
aren't solutions to the original equation. Therefore, this final case doesn't have a solution either.
Putting all the cases together, the two solutions are .
~ilikemath247365
See Also
2022 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 4 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 6 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |