3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 1 7 = 1 7
Let N be the sum of all the real solutions to the above equation. If N = c a b − a , where a , b , and c are positive integers and a and c are coprime, then what is a + b + c ?
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.
To be explicit, if f ( 1 7 ) < 1 7 , then by monotonicity, we can get that f ( f ( f ( 1 7 ) ) ) < f ( f ( 1 7 ) ) < f ( 1 7 ) < 1 7 . Hence, f ( 1 7 ) < 1 7 . We can do the same if f ( 1 7 ) > 1 7 .
The idea of f ( x ) being a monotonically increasing function is great.
In this case, we could avoid it by setting 2 0 x + 1 7 = y , which gives us y + 3 0 y = 1 7 3 0 + 1 7 . Hence, y = 1 7 3 0 and x is the value as given.
You can see why this doesn't work well if the question is f ( f ( f ( 1 7 ) ) ) = 1 7 .
an wrong approach gave me those numbers, lucky
Very good solution.by Steven yuan.
We can solve this by exploiting the structure of the equation. Suppose that we had an x 0 such that 2 0 x 0 + 1 7 = 1 7 3 0 . Then the innermost radical would evaluate to 1 7 and again we would have 2 0 x 0 + 1 7 so then the second radical also reduces to 1 7 and then for the last radical we also end up with 2 0 x 0 + 1 7 so we found a solution. And we may solve for this x 0 , getting x = 2 0 1 7 3 0 − 1 7 . To show this is the only solution first notice that for [ 0 , ∞ ] the function is increasing so no other positive solutions exist. Then, for the function to be defined for negative x , it must be for really small ∣ x ∣ , smaller than 2 0 1 7 so a trivial size check for the function shows it won't reach 17.
The whole left hand side expression equals to 17, so, Substitute 17 in left hand side with the expression i.e., 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 1 7 = 1 7
We can repeat the above logic to get an infinite expansion like this: 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + . . . . . ∞ = 1 7 This implies: 3 0 2 0 x + 1 7 = 1 7 So, x = 2 0 1 7 3 0 − 1 7
There are no other real solutions to the equation, so,
N = x = 2 0 1 7 3 0 − 1 7 i.e., a = 1 7 , b = 3 0 , c = 2 0 , where a and c are coprimes.
So, a + b + c = 6 7
This argument is not justified as yet. It makes the unwritten assumption that just because you string a bunch of things together, they must make sense the way you want them to. Especially when appealing to a limit argument, we have to be careful to justify the steps taken. E.g. We may not be able to exchange limits, or we may not be getting the desired convergence.
We might change the value when taking the limit, because of how the limit is evaluated. In particular, you are assuming that the (positive real) solutions to
3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 1 7 = 1 7 and 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + 3 0 2 0 x + . . . . . ∞ = 1 7 are the same. As an example, try this problem .
The notion of infinite surds are doubtful imo.
The logic presented here is not correct. There are many cases where this argument doesn't work like you think it would.
Log in to reply
From the step,
3
0
2
0
x
+
3
0
2
0
x
+
3
0
2
0
x
+
.
.
.
∞
=
1
7
We get removing just one radical,
3
0
2
0
x
+
3
0
2
0
x
+
3
0
2
0
x
+
.
.
.
∞
=
1
7
3
0
−
2
0
x
.
Subtract equation 1 from equation 2 to get the desired equation.
So why the logic presented here is not true.
Please explain if I am wrong. Thanks!!!
Log in to reply
See the problem that I linked to in the Challenge Master note.
You are making the assumption that the (positive real) solutions to the 2 equations are equal, which they may not be.
If that assumption is properly justified, then the rest of the proof (IE the steps that you wrote up) follows.
Basically you are following the footprints of Ramanujan... Some series cannot be expressed as a finite limit while some can be.. It is all a matter of convergence... The series in the question converges while in the link you posted doesn't converge. POSITIVE POWER(>1) SERIES DOESN'T CONVERGE
Log in to reply
That claim is not true. Somewhat surprising, but they can converge even though it is greater than 1.
It is true that 2 = 2 2 2 … so this sequence converges.
For large enough values, they will not converge. E.g. 2 2 2 … will not converge.
You are on the right track when you talk about "it's all a matter of convergence". However, the key is understanding why / how this is important.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Simply check The ratio of any two consecutive terms of the sequence AND How they vary. I donot bother much about it as most of the times it is clearly visible. set a n=a (n+1)=a and you get the essence
Simply use the first and second binomial coefficients to manipulate the sum of roots.
I don't understand. What do you mean by the first and second binomial coefficients? What roots are you referencing?
Log in to reply
Use vieta's formula(first & second Binomial coefficients) to get sum of roots. OR simply use Infinite recursion
Log in to reply
Even if you've converted the original radical equation into a polynomial equation, all you can find via Vieta's formula is that you're able to find the sum of all the roots, but you didn't restrict it to the sum of the all the REAL roots.
((((1-20x)^30)-20x)^30)-20x-17=0 first and second binomial coefficients. Sum and product of roots
Log in to reply
I don't see the relevance here. What you have written is a polynomial equation; what the question gave was an equation with radicals.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let f ( k ) = 3 0 2 0 x + k . The equation in the problem can be rewritten as f ( f ( f ( 1 7 ) ) ) = 1 7 . However, f is a monotonically increasing function, so the only way that f ( f ( f ( k ) ) ) can equal k is if f ( k ) = k . Thus, the problem reduces to f ( 1 7 ) = 1 7 , and further manipulation gives us
f ( 1 7 ) 3 0 2 0 x + 1 7 2 0 x + 1 7 x = 1 7 = 1 7 = 1 7 3 0 = 2 0 1 7 3 0 − 1 7 .
Therefore, the value of N is 2 0 1 7 3 0 − 1 7 , and a + b + c = 1 7 + 3 0 + 2 0 = 6 7 .