Given the sum S = 2 1 + 3 1 + ⋯ + 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 , what is ⌊ S ⌋ ?
Details and assumptions
The function ⌊ x ⌋ : R → Z refers to the greatest integer smaller than or equal to x . For example ⌊ 2 . 3 ⌋ = 2 and ⌊ − 5 ⌋ = − 5 .
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.
Perfect Solution :)
BREATHTAKING
This is phenomenally excellent.
it's a very good solution but can u please tell how did u think of the conjecture at first place, how did u manipulate the question to get the conjecture since its the main part of the question. also since it appeared in a olympiad it was difficult to form such conjecture without prior knowledge of the same. so can u tell how one should go about to solve this using the same procedure using the same conjecture without knowing it before. @Calvin Lin @Mirza Baig @Svatejas Shivakumar
This is mainly a summation of series : i = 2 ∑ 1 0 0 0 0 x 1 This can be written as : 2 ∫ 1 0 0 0 0 x 1 d x
By integrating :
2 x ∣ ∣ 2 1 0 0 0 0
By evaluating ⌊ 1 9 7 . 1 7 1 5 7 2 8 7 5 2 5 3 8 2 ⌋ answer is 1 9 7 .
Important to note that the expression is an approximation of the sum. This is essentially replacing a LRAM approximation with Δ x = 1 with an actual integral. Since x 1 is decreasing, we find that this is an underapproximation of the value (In fact, WA yields S = 1 9 7 . 5 4 4 6 4 5 4 4 9 5 2 3 7 . . . . )
That said, how can you know that your approximation is accurate enough that the integer part of both sums are equal? An argument dealing with error margins won't suffice in this case because even if it underapproximates the sum by 0 . 0 0 1 , if the real sum is 1 9 7 . 0 0 0 0 5 it would not suffice.
Cauchy's Integral test gives the upper bound to the sum as 197.87 and the lower bound as 197.17. So greatest integer lesser equal to S has to be 197
For positive a and b, a 1 − b 1 = a b b − a , which is positive if and only if b>a. Hence, f ( x ) = x 1 is a monotonically decreasing function for positive x.
∫ x 1 = 2 x
S < ∫ 1 1 0 0 0 0 x 1 = 2 1 0 0 0 0 − 2 1 = 2 0 0 − 2 = 1 9 8 because the right riemann sum of a monotonically decreasing function is an underestimation.
S > ∫ 2 1 0 0 0 0 x 1 = 2 1 0 0 0 0 − 2 2 > 2 0 0 − 2 ( 1 . 5 ) = 2 0 0 − 3 = 1 9 7 because the left riemann sum of a monotonically decreasing function is an overestimation.
Therefore, 1 9 7 < S < 1 9 8 , so ⌊ S ⌋ = 1 9 7 .
I used this well-known inequality
2sqrt{ n + 1 } - 2sqrt{ n } < 1/sqrt n < 2sqrt{ n } - 2sqrt{ n − 1 } 2sqrt{ m + 1 } - 2sqrt{ k } < sigma[i=k to m] 1/sqrt n < 2sqrt{ m } - 2sqrt{ k − 1 }
then, we know that S = 1/sqrt 2 + 1/sqrt 3 + ... + 1/sqrt 1 0 0 0 0 = sigma[i=2 to 10000], substitute the value s to the inequality we get
2sqrt{ 1 0 0 0 1 } - 2sqrt{ 2 } < sigma[i=2 to 10000] 1/sqrt n < 2sqrt{ 1 0 0 0 0 } - 2sqrt{ 1 } --> 2sqrt{ 1 0 0 0 1 } - 2sqrt{ 2 } < 1/sqrt 2 + 1/sqrt 3 + ... + 1/sqrt 1 0 0 0 0 < 2sqrt{ 1 0 0 0 0 } - 2sqrt{ 1 } --> 197,18157 < S < 198
So the value of floor{ S } is 197
Use "\sqrt{number}" for square roots, "\frac{numerator}{denominator}" for fractions, "\sum_{variable = starting value}^{end value} Expression," use "\to" or "\rightarrow" or right arrows, and for floor use "\lfloor number \rfloor"
The summation can be written as
S = i = 2 ∑ 1 0 0 0 0 i − 2 1
Now we can approximate it my representing it as a definite integral which is written as follows:
2 ∫ 1 0 0 0 0 x − 2 1 d x = 2 x ∣ 2 1 0 0 0 0 ≈ 1 9 7 . 1 7
So the floor of that value is 1 9 7 .
I honestly feel like I just got lucky with that solution.
Using the Riemann sums for the definite integrals of 1/sqrt(x) from 2 to 10000 & from 2 to 10001 gives us an inequality of S Hence we deduce that the answer is 197
IntegralPartofSum.py
s = 0
for n in range(2,10001):
s += 1/n**0.5
print int(s)
Returns: 197. Q.E.D.
lol I use exact the same method. Only in R instead. I know I use do the calculus. But I could figure it out
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
S = 2 1 + 3 1 + 4 1 + … ⋯ + 9 9 9 9 1 + 1 0 0 0 0 1
Conjecture : k + 1 − k < ( 2 × k ) 1 < k − k − 1 for positive k
Proof : For the left hand side of inequality,
we know that
0 < 4 1 ⇒ k 2 + k < k 2 + k + 4 1 ⇒ k ( k + 1 ) < ( k + 2 1 ) 2
Since both sides are positive we can square root this to get,
k ( k + 1 ) < k + 2 1 ⇒ k ( k + 1 ) − k < 2 1
Dividing both sides by k we get,
k + 1 − k < ( 2 × k ) 1
For the right hand side of inequality,
we know that
0 < 4 1 ⇒ k 2 − k < k 2 − k + 4 1 ⇒ k ( k − 1 ) < ( k − 2 1 ) 2
Since both sides are positive we can square root this to get,
k ( k − 1 ) < k − 2 1 ⇒ k − k ( k − 1 ) > 2 1
Dividing both sides by k we get,
( 2 × k ) 1 < k − k − 1
( Motivation : A few days back, I was asked to proof this conjecture in my class. :) )
Now we can write,
3 − 2 < 2 × 2 1 < 2 − 1
4 − 3 < 2 × 3 1 < 3 − 2
5 − 4 < 2 × 4 1 < 4 − 3
6 − 5 < 2 × 5 1 < 5 − 4
… …
… …
… …
1 0 0 0 0 − 9 9 9 9 < 2 × 9 9 9 9 1 < 9 9 9 9 − 9 9 9 8
1 0 0 0 1 − 1 0 0 0 0 < 2 × 1 0 0 0 0 1 < 1 0 0 0 0 − 9 9 9 9
This is like a telescoping series and reduces to,
1 0 0 0 1 − 2 < 2 S < 1 0 0 0 0 − 1
⇒ 1 0 0 0 1 − 2 < 2 S < 9 9
Now, 1 0 0 0 0 − 2 < 1 0 0 0 1 − 2
⇒ 1 0 0 − 1 . 4 1 4 2 1 3 . . . = 9 8 . 5 8 5 7 8 . . . < 1 0 0 0 1 − 2
This means,
9 8 . 5 8 5 7 8 . . . . . < 2 S < 9 9
⇒ 1 9 7 . 1 7 1 5 7 2 . . . < S < 1 9 8
Which means,
⌊ S ⌋ = 1 9 7