For an ordered triple ( a , b , c ) , define a transformation as follows: choose any two of the three numbers, say a and b , and replace them with 2 a + b and 2 a − b , respectively.
For instance, if we chose to transform the first two elements of ( 4 , 2 , 4 ) as above, a transformation would result in ( 2 4 + 2 , 2 4 − 2 , 4 ) = ( 3 2 , 2 , 4 ) .
Can ( 2 , 2 2 , 3 2 ) transform into ( 2 , 1 , 1 ) after finitely many transformations defined above?
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.
We can recognize each possible transformation as a rotation 4 5 ∘ about one of the axes. Then we note the following facts:
Combined, this means the distance between the origin and any point is preserved by each transformation.
We can check that the distances from the origin for the two points are different, so the answer is no
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
For any transformation ( a , b , c ) into ( 2 a + b , 2 a − b , c ) , we calculate its sum of squares:
( 2 a + b ) 2 + ( 2 a − b ) 2 + c 2 = 2 a 2 + 2 a b + b 2 + 2 a 2 − 2 a b + b 2 + c 2 = a 2 + b 2 + c 2
Note that the sum of squares before and after transformation remains the same, hence we can now compute the sum of squares of these two triples:
2 2 + ( 2 2 ) 2 + ( 3 2 ) 2 = 3 0
2 2 + 1 2 + 1 2 = 6
Since the sum of squares are different, the triple is not transformable, the answer is NO .