Consider the set S = { 1 , 2 , 3 , ⋯ , 1 0 1 } , and let S k be the sum of the product of every k element subset of S (also called the k th symmetric sum of S ). Find the remainder when ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k is divided by 1 0 1 .
This problem is posed by Daniel C .
Details and assumptions
You may use the fact that 101 is prime.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Great generalisation, so we didn't needed Wilson or that 101 is prime after all.
Oops, my generalisation is slightly off. I'll re-write it here.
For set S = { a 1 , a 2 , … , a n } , where a is a real number,
k = 1 ∑ n S k = ( a 1 + 1 ) ( a 2 + 1 ) ( a 3 + 1 ) … ( a n + 1 ) − 1
Log in to reply
We know that ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k ≡ 1 0 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) . Could you find a method to find the residue mod 101 of a particular S i , say S 3 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) ?
Log in to reply
May I clarify whether set S must strictly be { 1 , 2 , 3 , … , 1 0 1 } or can the elements in the set change?
Log in to reply
@Jing Hao Pang – Consider S = { 1 , 2 , … , 1 0 1 }
wow!!!
Motivation: We see all possible k products in the problem, which reminds us of Vieta's formulae . So let us try to think in terms of polynomial.
Now consider a monic polynomial p ( x ) of degree 1 0 1 whose roots are 1 , 2 , 3 , . . . , 1 0 1 . Clearly,
p ( x ) = ∏ i = 1 i = 1 0 1 ( x − i )
We also see that in the expanded form, we can write p ( x ) as:
p ( x ) = ∑ k = 0 1 0 1 a k x 1 0 1 − k
and a 0 = 1
Using Vieta's relations for p ( x ) , we get,
a k = ( − 1 ) k S k
Also, using expanded form of p ( x ) , we get,
p ( − 1 ) = − 1 − ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k
∴ ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k = − 1 − p ( − 1 )
Using product form of p ( x ) , we find that,
p ( − 1 ) = ( − 2 ) × ( − 3 ) × . . . × ( − 1 0 2 ) = − 1 0 2 !
Hence, we get,
∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k = 1 0 2 ! − 1
This shows that we need to subtract 1 0 0 from ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k so that resulting number would be divisible by 1 0 1 .
Hence the required remainder is: 1 0 0
wht is mod101
Log in to reply
What is the meaning of your question? Do you not know meaning of mod or is there some other issue?
Let f ( x ) = ( x + 1 ) ( x + 2 ) . . . ( x + 1 0 1 ) . We note that f ( 1 ) is the sum of coefficient of the polynomial. Also, note that the required sum is equal to the sum of coefficients of f ( x ) minus 1 . (Indeed, it is easy to see this by expanding the polynomial or Vieta's formula.) Let S be the required sum. Then, S = f ( 1 ) − 1 = 1 0 2 ! − 1 ≡ − 1 ≡ 1 0 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) .
We know that ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k ≡ 1 0 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) . Could you find a method to find the residue mod 101 of a particular S i , say S 3 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) ?
Log in to reply
Yes. For p prime we get the set 1 , 2 , . . . , p , and for 1 ≤ i < p we get S i ≡ 0 ( m o d p ) . It remains to evaluate S p − 1 ≡ ( p − 1 ) ! ≡ − 1 ( m o d p ) .
Log in to reply
PS: Can you show why S i ≡ 0 ( m o d p ) for 1 ≤ i < p ??? :)
Log in to reply
@Arkan Megraoui – You can read the solution of Mark Liu, OR use the following idea: In Z p [ x ] (the set of polymomials with coefficients in Z p ) the polynomial x p − x has (distinct) roots 1 , 2 , … , p then x p − x = ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) . . . ( x − p ) , where f ( x ) = g ( x ) means that the polynomials f ( x ) and g ( x ) have their corresponding coefficients congruent modulo p .
We know the order of 2 must divide 100. We can check by hand that none of 2 , 2 2 , 2 5 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 0 , 2 5 0 are congruent to 1. Therefore 2 is a primitive root and 2 k ≆ 1 for 1 ≤ k < 1 0 0
Now note that
2
k
S
k
≡
S
k
since multiplying by 2 is a permutation.
So
S
k
(
2
k
−
1
)
≡
0
and when
k
<
1
0
0
then
2
k
≆
1
hence
S
k
≡
0
for
k
<
1
0
0
Then S 1 0 0 = − 1 by Wilson's theorem, and the result follows.
Motivation: I saw that multiplying the first symmetric sum by 2 (or any other element) just permutes every term and therefore leaves the sum fixed. This implies that the first symmetric sum is 0. Then I extended the argument. And actually the 2 is irrelevant if we appeal to the existence of a primitive root, it just so happens that the primitive is 2 in this case.
Log in to reply
Since your solution is different from the others, could you explain in more details the second paragraph of your solution?
Log in to reply
Okay let's do a smaller case. Suppose we are doing this question for mod 5 and we have found that 2 is again, a primitive root. Let's calculate S 2 = 1 ∗ 2 + 1 ∗ 3 + 1 ∗ 4 + 2 ∗ 3 + 2 ∗ 2 + 2 ∗ 3 + 2 ∗ 4 + 3 ∗ 4 Note that if we listed every element out the elements {1, 2, 3, 4} and then multiplied each one by 2, we would get {2, 4, 1, 3} which is the same set! And since the symmetric sums depend only on the definition of the set, we can multiply the set by 2 and then take the symmetric sum again and get the same result. S 2 = ( 2 ∗ 1 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 2 ) + ( 2 ∗ 1 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 3 ) + ( 2 ∗ 1 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 4 ) + ( 2 ∗ 2 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 3 ) + ( 2 ∗ 2 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 2 ) + ( 2 ∗ 2 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 3 ) + ( 2 ∗ 2 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 4 ) + ( 2 ∗ 3 ) ∗ ( 2 ∗ 4 ) ≡ 2 2 ( S 2 ) Is it any clearer?
Log in to reply
@Mark Liu – Nice solution Mark, thanks for your explanation!
In fact, note that for $p$ prime, ∑ k = 1 p S k ≡ ∑ k = 1 p − 1 S k ( m o d p ) .
At first the notations are really scary, so it is good to work with smaller cases first. Suppose we have a smaller set called N = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } If so by defination we get that;
N 1 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
N 2 = 1 ∗ 2 + 1 ∗ 3 + 1 ∗ 4 + 2 ∗ 3 + 2 ∗ 4 + 3 ∗ 4
N 3 = 1 ∗ 2 ∗ 3 + 1 ∗ 2 ∗ 4 + 1 ∗ 3 ∗ 4 + 2 ∗ 3 ∗ 4
N 4 = 1 ∗ 2 ∗ 3 ∗ 4
So looking at this, we see that N k somehow relates to Vieta's theorem. At which N k repersents the x n − k coefficient of the monic polynomial with roots 1 to n .
More generally if the set is X = { a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n − 1 , a n } Then;
X 1 = a 1 + a 2 + . . . + a n − 1 + a n
X 2 = a 1 ∗ a 2 + a 1 + a 3 + . . . + a n − 2 ∗ a n − 1 + a n − 1 ∗ a n
. . .
X k = a 1 ∗ a 2 ∗ . . . ∗ a k + a 1 ∗ a 2 ∗ . . . ∗ a k + 1 + . . . + a n − k + 1 ∗ . . . ∗ a n
. . .
X n = a 1 ∗ a 2 . . . ∗ a n
So we can conclude that,
( x − a 1 ) ( x − a 2 ) . . . ( x − a n ) = x n + ( − 1 ) 1 X 1 x n − 1 + ( − 1 ) 2 X 2 x n − 2 + . . . . + ( − 1 ) n − 1 X n − 1 x + ( − 1 ) n X n
by Vieta's theorem.
So we have the set S = { 1 , 2 , 3 . . . , 1 0 1 } , applying this to the polynomial we just found,
( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) . . . ( x − 1 0 1 ) = x 1 0 1 − S 1 x 1 0 0 + . . . + S 1 0 0 x − S 1 0 1
So to find k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k we let x = − 1
( − 1 − 1 ) ( − 1 − 2 ) . . . ( − 1 − 1 0 1 ) = ( − 1 ) 1 0 1 − S 1 ( − 1 ) 1 0 0 + . . . S 1 0 0 ( − 1 ) − S 1 0 1
⇒ − 1 0 2 ! = − 1 − S 1 − S 2 − . . . − S 1 0 0 − S 1 0 1
⇒ 1 0 2 ! = 1 + S 1 + S 2 + . . . + S 1 0 0 + S 1 0 1
⇒ k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k = 1 0 2 ! − 1
If so, we know that 1 0 2 ! ≡ 0 m o d 1 0 1
Therefore,
1 0 2 ! − 1 ≡ − 1 m o d 1 0 1
or 1 0 2 ! − 1 ≡ 1 0 0 m o d 1 0 1
Hence k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k ≡ 1 0 0 m o d 1 0 1
What is mod 101 ?
Log in to reply
Remainder when you divide by 101. For example, 5 ≡ 4 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) , and 1 1 3 ≡ 8 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) . For the more interesting properties of modular arithmetic, I highly recommend the first chapter of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" by the great Gauss. ; )
We use the fact that symmetric sums are very close to polynomials. For example to solve a quadratic equation, one might use that ( x − a ) ( x − b ) = x 2 − ( a + b ) x + a b to relate the roots with the coefficients of the equation. Here a + b is the first symmetric sum and a b the second symmetric sum. Let's move one dimension up to see the pattern ( x + x 1 ) ( x + x 2 ) ( x + x 3 ) = x 3 + x 2 ⋅ S 1 + x ⋅ S 2 + S 3 where S 1 = x 1 + x 2 + x 3 S 2 = x 1 x 2 + x 2 x 3 + x 3 x 1 and S 3 = x 1 x 2 x 3 . It's straightforward to generalize this to any dimension as i = 1 ∏ n ( x + x i ) = i = 0 ∑ n x n − i ⋅ S i where we used S 0 = 1 for convenience.
To get back to the original problem, notice that when we put n = 1 0 1 , x = 1 and x i = i we get almost the sum in the question. k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k = k = 1 ∏ 1 0 1 ( 1 + k ) − 1 . But the product collapses because it also contains k = 1 0 0 and 1 + 1 0 0 ≡ 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) and so the answer is − 1 or, more neatly, 1 0 0 .
Consider the polynomial P ( X ) = ( X + 1 ) ( X + 2 ) ⋯ ( X + 1 0 1 ) = X 1 0 1 + S 1 X 1 0 0 + ⋯ + S 1 0 1 Pluggin in P ( 1 ) , we get 1 + S 1 + ⋯ + S 1 0 1 = 1 0 2 ! ≡ 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) , so the answer is 1 0 0
The fact that 101 is prime is irrelevant. If we add 1 to the sum, we get the sum of all products of all subsets of S, which factors cleanly into ∏ x ∈ S ( 1 + x ) (we see easily that each subset's product occurs exactly once when this is expanded). This is divisible by 101 since 100 is in S. Therefore the original sum is congruent to -1 mod 101, i.e. 100.
Symmetric sums remind me of Vieta's formulas, which express the symmetric sums in terms of the coefficients of a polynomial. So, let
f ( x ) = ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) … ( x − 1 0 1 ) . (1)
Expanding, we get f ( x ) = x 1 0 1 − ( 1 + 2 + … + 1 0 1 ) x 1 0 0 + … − 1 ⋅ 2 ⋯ 1 0 1 = x 1 0 1 − S 1 x 1 0 0 + S 2 x 9 9 − … + S 1 0 0 x − S 1 0 1 .
Great! We have an expression containing every symmetric sum. Now, we want to set x equal to some number, to get the summation we want. The only problem, however, is that the signs of the sums are alternating. Luckily, we can fix this by setting x = − 1 :
f ( − 1 ) = ( − 1 ) 1 0 1 − S 1 ( − 1 ) 1 0 0 + S 2 ( − 1 ) 9 9 − … + S 1 0 0 ( − 1 ) − S 1 0 1 = − 1 − S 1 − S 2 − … − S 1 0 0 − S 1 0 1 = − 1 − k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k .
(It is a well-known fact that for positive integers n , ( − 1 ) n = 1 if n is even, and ( − 1 ) n = − 1 if n is odd. So, the powers of − 1 also alternate, which motivated this step.)
But we also know that
f ( − 1 ) ≡ 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) ,
since in equation ( 1 ) , f ( − 1 ) is a product of integers which contains the term − 1 0 1 . Thus − 1 − k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k ≡ 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) so k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k ≡ 1 0 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) .
Remark: Note that we never used the fact that 1 0 1 is prime; we can easily generalize this solution for any positive integer n , instead of 1 0 1 .
Another remark, after reading Zi Song's solution: To avoid having to plug in x = − 1 , we could use the polynomial f ( x ) = ( x + 1 ) ( x + 2 ) … ( x + 1 0 1 ) instead. Cool solution, Zi Song!
We can prove that, ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) … ( x − 1 0 1 ) = x 1 0 1 − S 1 x 1 0 0 + S 2 x 9 9 − S 3 x 9 8 + … + S 1 0 0 x − S 1 0 1 . Now put x = − 1 in the above identity we get, S 1 + S 2 + … + S 1 0 1 = 2 ∗ 3 ∗ … ∗ 1 0 2 − 1 . Now ∑ k = 1 1 0 1 S k ( m o d 1 0 1 ) = − 1 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) = 1 0 0
Consider the polynomial f ( x ) with the elements of S as roots. This polynomial is f ( x ) = ( x − 1 ) ( x − 2 ) ⋯ ( x − 1 0 1 ) = x 1 0 1 + a 1 x 1 0 0 + ⋯ + a 1 0 1 where the a 1 , a 2 , ⋯ , a 1 0 1 are constants.
By Vieta's formulas, the answer is − a 1 + a 2 − a 3 + ⋯ − a 1 0 1 However, notice that f ( − 1 ) = − 1 + a 1 − a 2 + a 3 − ⋯ + a 1 0 1 so the answer is − f ( − 1 ) − 1 = − ( − 1 − 1 ) ( − 1 − 2 ) ⋯ ( − 1 − 1 0 1 ) − 1 = 1 0 2 ! − 1 Finally, 1 0 2 ! − 1 ≡ − 1 ≡ 1 0 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 )
Motivation: Symmetric sums reminds me of Vieta's, and f ( − 1 being alternating signs on the coefficients is a handy trick to know.
Oops typo missed a right parenthesis on f ( − 1 ) .
We have that S 1 + S 2 + . . . + S 1 0 1 = ( 1 + 1 ) ( 1 + 2 ) ( 1 + 3 ) . . . ( 1 + 1 0 1 ) − 1 = = 1 0 2 ! − 1 ≡ − 1 ≡ 1 0 0 m o d 1 0 1 .
If we observe S1 ≡ 0(mod 101) , similarly S2 ≡ 0(mod 101) but only S100≡ -1(mod 101) since the product of the subset {1,2,3,4,…100} is ≡ -1(mod 101)
On careful observation we see that the values of Sk are the coefficients of the equation::
(x+1)(x+2)(x+3)........(x+101)
so to get the value of the summation part we put 1 (one) in the above expression and subtract 1(as the first term contains only x^101)
So we get (102! - 1) % 101
101 divides 102! but not 1 so we get the modulus as -1 (or the +ve mod as 100 (ANSWER ==100))
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Full Solution
Note that:
k = 1 ∑ 1 0 1 S k = ( 1 + 1 ) ( 2 + 1 ) ( 3 + 1 ) … ( 1 0 0 + 1 ) ( 1 0 1 + 1 ) − 1
≡ 0 − 1 ( m o d 1 0 1 ) ≡ 1 0 0 ( m o d 1 0 1 )
Therefore 1 0 0 is the answer.
Motivation and thought process
Since this is a huge expression, I immediately thought of factorising the expression. Instead of having numbers in set S , I decided to replace them with S = { a 1 , a 2 , … , a 1 0 1 } .
At first I wasn't sure how to begin factorising, so I decided to try simpler versions of the summation:
S = { a 1 , a 2 } , k = 1 ∑ 2 S k = a 1 + a 2 + a 1 a 2 = ( a 1 + 1 ) ( a 2 + 1 ) − 1
S = { a 1 , a 2 , a 3 } , k = 1 ∑ 3 S k = a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + a 1 a 2 + a 2 a 3 + a 3 a 1 + a 1 a 2 a 3
= ( a 1 + 1 ) ( a 2 + 1 ) ( a 3 + 1 ) − 1
Why can it be factorised in such a way? This question can be answered using the degrees of the terms. For example, if we wanted the sum of all the terms with degree 2 ( S 2 ), we simply choose two a values, let's say a 1 and a 2 , and choose 1 s for all other terms, obtaining a degree 2 term. Repeating for every single pair of a values and taking the sum, we end up with S 2 . This can be repeated for every degree. Since the summation does not have 1 , we put a − 1 at the end of the product.
Thus, returning back to the question, it is now clear that the summation can be factorised into
( a 1 + 1 ) ( a 2 + 1 ) ( a 3 + 1 ) . . . ( a 1 0 1 + 1 ) − 1
Subbing a 1 = 1 , a 2 = 2 , etc., we get
( 1 + 1 ) ( 2 + 1 ) ( 3 + 1 ) … ( 1 0 0 + 1 ) ( 1 0 1 + 1 ) − 1 .
Generalisation
For set S = { a 1 , a 2 , … , a n } , k = a 1 ∑ a n S k = ( a 1 + 1 ) ( a 2 + 1 ) ( a 3 + 1 ) . . . ( a n + 1 ) − 1