Given a fixed positive integer n , if m is a positive integer that satisfied ( n − 1 m ) > ( n m − 1 ) And n → ∞ lim n m m a x = c a + b for square-free integer b and the smallest value of a and c (Just as usual, the simplest form). What is the value of a + b + c ?
This question is not original but modified.
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.
Your solution is good! Use limit from the beginning seems reduce some work.
Log in to reply
Thanks! The reason I found this solution is because I found the other solution a bit messy and somehow did not continue with it.
This question is taken from William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition 2016. Modified.
( m − n + 1 ) ! ( n − 1 ) ! m ! ( m − n + 1 ) ( m − n ) m m 2 − 3 m n + n 2 + m − n > ( m − n − 1 ) ! n ! ( m − 1 ) ! > n 1 < 0 Try to write m in terms of n , it can help us to calculate the limit. Hence, m 2 − ( 3 n − 1 ) m + n 2 − n < 0 2 3 n − 1 − 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 < m < 2 3 n − 1 + 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 Initially, I thought I have to consider how to make m an integer, but then I knew that when n goes infinity, the value of m will approach the maximum value 2 3 n − 1 + 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 , so the maximum of m when n goes infinity will be n → ∞ lim m m a x ∼ n → ∞ lim 2 3 n − 1 + 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 Divided by n , n → ∞ lim n m = n → ∞ lim 2 3 − n 1 + 5 − n 2 + n 2 1 = 2 3 + 5 So the answer will be 3 + 5 + 2 = 1 0 .
Additional Insight: The final value is 2 . 6 1 8 which is the golden ratio added 1! Wow!
Note that n → ∞ lim m m a x = n → ∞ lim 2 3 n − 1 + 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 doesn't really mean anything (sure, both are infinite, so it's technically true, but the rest of the proof wouldn't follow). I think you either mean m m a x ∼ 2 3 n − 1 + 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 or perhaps the more apparent statement that 0 < 2 3 n − 1 + 5 n 2 − 2 n + 1 − m m a x ≤ 1 Either would be sufficient for the rest of your proof.
Either way, overall a nice solution. Aside from the above issue, my solution would nearly be a word-for-word copy of yours.
Log in to reply
Well, I have spot the issues , but don't know how to write it properly, thanks for your explanation, I will try to modify my solution.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
( n − 1 m ) > ( n m − 1 )
( n − 1 m ) = ( n − 1 ) ! ( m − n + 1 ) ! m !
( n m − 1 ) = n ! ( m − n − 1 ) ! ( m − 1 ) !
( n − 1 ) ! ( m − n + 1 ) ! m ! > n ! ( m − n − 1 ) ! ( m − 1 ) !
( n − 1 ) ! ( m − n + 1 ) ( m − n ) ( m − n − 1 ) ! m ( m − 1 ) ! > n ( n − 1 ) ! ( m − n − 1 ) ! ( m − 1 ) !
( m − n + 1 ) ( m − n ) m > n 1
m n > ( m − n + 1 ) ( m − n )
m n ( m − n + 1 ) ( m − n ) < 1
n m − n + 1 ⋅ m m − n < 1
( n m − 1 + n 1 ) ( 1 − m n ) < 1
n → ∞ lim ( n m − 1 + n 1 ) ( 1 − m n ) < n → ∞ lim 1
( n → ∞ lim n m − 1 + 0 ) ( 1 − n → ∞ lim m n ) < n → ∞ lim 1
n → ∞ lim ( n m − 1 ) ( 1 − m n ) < n → ∞ lim 1
n → ∞ lim ( m − n ) ( m − n ) < n → ∞ lim ( m n )
n → ∞ lim [ ( m − n ) 2 − m n ] < 0
n → ∞ lim ( m 2 − 3 m n + n 2 ) < 0
When m 2 − 3 m n + n 2 = 0 ,
m = 2 3 ± 9 − 4 n = 2 3 ± 5 n
n m = 2 3 ± 5
∴ 2 3 − 5 < n → ∞ lim n m < 2 3 + 5
We'll focus on n → ∞ lim n m < 2 3 + 5
n → ∞ lim ( n m − 2 3 + 5 ) < 0 = n → ∞ lim 0
∴ n → ∞ lim ( n m m a x − 2 3 + 5 ) = 0
⇒ n → ∞ lim n m m a x = 2 3 + 5
I find it a bit hard to explain why the equality holds instead of the inequality in my last part of solution.