This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
Math
Appears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3
2×3
2^{34}
234
a_{i-1}
ai−1
\frac{2}{3}
32
\sqrt{2}
2
\sum_{i=1}^3
∑i=13
\sin \theta
sinθ
\boxed{123}
123
Comments
Let's call Sk=a0+a1+...+ak and suppose
kSk>ak+1∀m≤k
Then we have
k⋅Sk+Sk>k⋅ak+1+k⋅Sk⇔kSk>k+1Sk+1⇔k+1Sk+1<kSk<k−1Sk−1<...<S1=a0+a1
Hence, we prove by induction
2(a0+a1)>a0+a1+a2⇔a0+a1>a2kak+1<Sk<k(a0+a1)⇔ak+1<(a0+a1)
Because a0+a1 is a sum of integer number, there must be a unique number in the sequence for which aq+1≥a0+a1 and aq<a0+a1. We now show that q is the required number.
We have alredy proved that
qSq≤aq+1
by contraddiction! Thus we have only to show that
aq<qSq⇔q⋅aq−aq<Sq−aq⇔aq<q−1Sq−1
And because
Sq−1(q−1)+aq(q−1)<Sq−1+Sq−1(q−1)⇔qSq<q−1Sq−1⇔qSq<q−1Sq−1<q−2Sq−2<...<S1=a0+a1
Excactly as done beofre we must have aq<a0+a1. That is true.
And we are done.
In recent years, they have made question 1 (and sometimes 4) pretty easy and direct to approach, so that all of the participants (who come from a wide range of ability level) have something to do, and have a chance of geting a HM.
Update: letting a0=x and a1=y, we find that in order for ak<ka0+a1+⋯+ak, we must have ak<x+y. However, since x+y is finite, and the sequence is strictly increasing, we must have that there is a maximum k that satisfies this condition.
So let k be the maximum such that it still satisfies the condition. Thus, ak+1≥x+y. However, ka0+a1+⋯+ak<kx+y+(x+y)+⋯+(x+y)=x+y. Thus, ka0+a1+⋯+ak<ak+1.
This seems really sketchy though. Something seems wrong... one of my inequalities was strict when forming the right inequality, but the inequality in the problem is not strict...
EDIT: found out why mine was strict and the problem's wasn't. As long as the maximum k satisfies k≥2, then the upper bound inequality is strict, just like my result. However, the special case of the maximum k is k=1 yields a non-strict inequality.
TO DO: prove uniqueness of satisfying both inequalities.
I realize that I have to tighten the bound for each ak<x+y to something more strict, or something like that in order to prove the uniqueness of that one k that satisfies both inequalities. I feel like I'm almost there, but just can't get over the last little bump. I need to somehow use the ak<ak+1 to my advantage...
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Let's call Sk=a0+a1+...+ak and suppose kSk>ak+1∀m≤k Then we have k⋅Sk+Sk>k⋅ak+1+k⋅Sk⇔kSk>k+1Sk+1⇔k+1Sk+1<kSk<k−1Sk−1<...<S1=a0+a1 Hence, we prove by induction 2(a0+a1)>a0+a1+a2⇔a0+a1>a2kak+1<Sk<k(a0+a1)⇔ak+1<(a0+a1) Because a0+a1 is a sum of integer number, there must be a unique number in the sequence for which aq+1≥a0+a1 and aq<a0+a1. We now show that q is the required number. We have alredy proved that qSq≤aq+1 by contraddiction! Thus we have only to show that aq<qSq⇔q⋅aq−aq<Sq−aq⇔aq<q−1Sq−1 And because Sq−1(q−1)+aq(q−1)<Sq−1+Sq−1(q−1)⇔qSq<q−1Sq−1⇔qSq<q−1Sq−1<q−2Sq−2<...<S1=a0+a1 Excactly as done beofre we must have aq<a0+a1. That is true. And we are done.
Log in to reply
Beautiful solution
Question 1 was way easier than I expected it to be. Bummed that there were no proper number theory problems.
Log in to reply
In recent years, they have made question 1 (and sometimes 4) pretty easy and direct to approach, so that all of the participants (who come from a wide range of ability level) have something to do, and have a chance of geting a HM.
This was indeed very nice, but also pretty easy, even for an IMO P1. I have posted my solution in AoPS.
http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=3542324&#p3542324
Here's a conjecture:
The last possible n that satisfies an<na0+a1+⋯+an also satisfies na0+a1+⋯+an≤an+1. This is just a guess though.
These later posts will be what I have came up with.
Log in to reply
Update: letting a0=x and a1=y, we find that in order for ak<ka0+a1+⋯+ak, we must have ak<x+y. However, since x+y is finite, and the sequence is strictly increasing, we must have that there is a maximum k that satisfies this condition.
So let k be the maximum such that it still satisfies the condition. Thus, ak+1≥x+y. However, ka0+a1+⋯+ak<kx+y+(x+y)+⋯+(x+y)=x+y. Thus, ka0+a1+⋯+ak<ak+1.
This seems really sketchy though. Something seems wrong... one of my inequalities was strict when forming the right inequality, but the inequality in the problem is not strict...
EDIT: found out why mine was strict and the problem's wasn't. As long as the maximum k satisfies k≥2, then the upper bound inequality is strict, just like my result. However, the special case of the maximum k is k=1 yields a non-strict inequality.
TO DO: prove uniqueness of satisfying both inequalities.
Log in to reply
I realize that I have to tighten the bound for each ak<x+y to something more strict, or something like that in order to prove the uniqueness of that one k that satisfies both inequalities. I feel like I'm almost there, but just can't get over the last little bump. I need to somehow use the ak<ak+1 to my advantage...