Note: This was a contest question hosted earlier by me, so don't get confused by the comments of the solutions posted in this problem.
Question: Ann, Bob and Chetan are 3 friends, where Annie gives Chetan a number x and gives the expression below for the value of x :
x = π 2 [ ( 1 × 1 0 + 9 ) ( 9 × 1 0 + 1 ) + 1 − 9 3 + 1 2 3 − 1 0 3 ] ( 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! . . . ) ( 1 7 2 9 ) ( 1 2 3 + 2 2 3 + 3 2 3 + 4 2 3 + 5 2 3 + . . . )
(In the above expression, the continued fraction and the radical continue the same pattern as it is observed in them)
Then, Bob tells to Chetan that he thinks of a prime number p which is a positive odd prime, and it can be expressed in 2 ways, the first as p = u 2 + ( 2 ) 4 where u is a positive integer, and the second as p ≡ 3 (mod 4)
Now, if p exists, then Chetan tells that p exists and whether tan ( x p ) is irrational or rational, where x p is the product of x and p and x p is measured in radians.
And if p does not exists, Chetan tells p does not exist and whether tan ( x ) is irrational or rational, where x is measured in radians.
What would Chetan say?
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.
The most precise and upto the point solution sir.
@David Vreken Your proof is well-illustrated and very precise. Have you heard of Fermat's sum of squares theorem and Lambert's equation for tan x which he used to prove pi was irrational. This 2 things could be also used here.
Log in to reply
Thanks! I hadn't heard of using Fermat's sum of squares with Lambert's equation. I'll have to research that!
Wow, awesome solution @David Vreken
The thing I like that you also used Niven's Theorem, but clearly showed what you mean. @Jeff Giff and @Suchet Sadekar just copied it line by line from my solution. But, you haven't, as you made me only understand Niven's Theorem better! Upvoted!
- Square Root Part
k 1 = 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! . . . . . k 1 = 3 ! × k 1 k 1 2 = 6 k 1 k 1 ( k 1 − 6 ) = 0 As k 1 = 0 , k 1 = 6
- Basel Problem Part
Here is a link to solve it. It’s long so I can’t tell here 1 2 1 + 2 2 1 + 3 2 1 … = 6 π 2 k 2 = 1 2 3 + 2 2 3 + 3 2 3 … = 3 × 6 π 2 k 2 = 2 π 2
Basel Problem Solution
- Denominator part
k 3 = π 2 ( 1 × 1 0 + 9 ) ( 9 × 1 0 + 1 ) + 1 − 9 3 + 1 2 3 − 1 0 3 k 3 = π 2 × 1 7 2 9
- Combining everything
x = k 3 k 1 × 1 7 2 9 × k 2 x = π 2 × 1 7 2 9 6 × 1 7 2 9 × 2 π 2 x = 3
As p ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 ) , Let p = 4 k + 3 where k ∈ I Putting p = 4 k + 3 in p = u 2 + ( 2 ) 4 4 k + 3 = u 2 + 4 k = 4 u 2 + 1
Now, we know that all squares can be expressed of form 4 m or 4 m + 1 where m ∈ I Here is a proof if you like link
Proof that squares are of form 4m and 4m + 1
k = 4 ( 4 m ) + 1 or k = 4 ( 4 m + 1 ) + 1 = 4 4 m + 2
Now, R.H.S. in neither is an integer whereas L.H.S. in both is an integer
p is not existent
Now, as p is not existent, we’ll take second Statement
tan x = tan 3 which is irrational
So, Answer is Option 1
@Siddharth Chakravarty ,i am not as great as leonardo eulur,this question was a big trouble for me, i know that the continued fractions will converge at pi/6 but,i have no proof till. Please remove me from leader board
peace
The contest has ended, @Kriti Kamal .
The question has been made to look unnecessarily complex it would be better to split this problem into various sub problems.Also this has nothing special to itself it just a collection of problems combining them in this way doesn't makes it better neither does it adds extra thinking.No offence.
After all questions are supposed to teach us how to think and learn not to just 'look' hard.
also @Siddharth Chakravarty you can kindly remove me from the leader board I am no longer participating.
Ok fine, but I would say this is not a solution. But you are free to criticize. Complex questions are made out of simple ideas. So if you can solve simple problems of the complex question, you can solve the whole question easily.
I agree partially with Sahil. @Siddharth Chakravarty it's a great initiative to host this contest but fantastic problems are those which look easy, simple elegant, can be stated in just a line, no unnecessary complex trigonometry or single digit required answer and so many names. Just simple and clean.
Log in to reply
Now that is a point of perspective @Mahdi Raza I'm planning the same for future problems. Some people like, some people don't not my fault.
Just wanted to say problems should be complex but one should have the ability to understand the easiness of the problem.
There was a problem with my computer, my mouse lags a lot and I clicked the wrong answer, so can i post my solution here as it isn't an actual solution? What do you think @Siddharth Chakravarty and @Sahil Goyat ???
Log in to reply
No I cannot do that, it would be impartial. Next time be more careful.
Answer please, I'm anxious (Due to ADHD) @Siddharth Chakravarty
This question can be broken down into pieces:
F i n d i n g P
Since p ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 ) and p = u 2 + 4 , u 2 ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 ) . We know immediately that this isn’t possible for integer u as for integer u , u 2 ≡ 0 , 1 ( m o d 4 ) . So p doesn’t exist.
B r e a k i n g
π 2 ( 1 9 × 9 1 + 1 − 9 3 + 1 2 3 − 1 0 3 ) ( 3 ! 3 ! . . . ) ( 1 7 2 9 ) ( 1 3 + 4 3 . . . )
R E D
Call this bit x . Since 3 ! = 6 , x = 6 x x 2 = 6 x ⇒ x = 0 , 6 So x = 6 .
B L U E
Study ∑ i = 1 n i 2 3 . This is actually three times the answer to the Basel problem .
Proof and graph-to-theorem
So this bit = 2 1 7 2 9 π 2 .
G R E E N
This requires some simple maths. You get 1 7 2 9 π 2 immediately.
E N D
Put these together to get 1 7 2 9 π 2 ( 6 ) ( 1 7 2 9 ) 2 π 2 = 3 . Now find out whether tan 3 ( rad ) is rational.
We see this isn’t
0
or
±
1
so it’s irrational. So
p
doesn’t exist, and
tan
3
is irrational.
Done,
@Siddharth Chakravarty
. Pls give me marks now :)
@Siddharth Chakravarty , I see that @Jeff Giff has copied my picture, please give marks accordingly!
Log in to reply
No marks would be given to both of you if you put a link also, and then the same page's screenshot, what logic is this?
Log in to reply
Alright, I’ll edit my solution:P
I added the link after you told me, before, I did not put the link.
Wait... I think I won’t edit my solution. That pic was for completeness. :)
Log in to reply
@Jeff Giff – I would still say you should take your own screenshot, not mine.
@Jeff Giff points for pictures or animations will be awarded if they are only related to the problem not to the proofs of the theorems used in the problem.
3 ! 3 ! ⋯ = y (Say) ⟹ 3 ! y = y
Squaring both sides of the equation, and taking positive square root since y > 0 ⟹ y 2 = 3 ! y ⟹ y y = 3 ! y ⟹ y = 3 ! = 3 × 2 × 1 = 6 (By definition of factorial function) Link to factorial function
1 2 3 + 2 2 3 + 3 2 3 + 4 2 3 ⋯ 3 × ( 1 2 1 + 2 2 1 + 3 2 1 + 4 2 1 ⋯ ) By the famous Basel Problem, solved by the great Leonhard Euler,
Link 1 to Basel Problem Link 2 to Basel Problem(Wonderful explanation!) 1 2 1 + 2 2 1 + 3 2 1 + 4 2 1 ⋯ = 6 π 2 3 × ( 1 2 1 + 2 2 1 + 3 2 1 + 4 2 1 ⋯ ) = 3 × 6 π 2 = 2 π 2
We leave π 2 just now, and solve the rest ( 1 × 1 0 + 9 ) ( 9 × 1 0 + 1 ) + 1 + 9 3 − 1 2 3 + 1 0 3 = 1 7 2 9 (Can be solved using algebraic identities, and someone may use a calculator also.)
The expression becomes: x = π 2 × ( 1 7 2 9 ) 6 × ( 1 7 2 9 ) × 2 π 2 = π 2 × ( 1 7 2 9 ) 3 × ( 1 7 2 9 ) × π 2 = π 2 × ( 1 7 2 9 ) 3 × ( 1 7 2 9 ) × π 2 ⟹ x = 3
Given, p = u 2 + ( 2 ) 4 = u 2 + 4 ⟹ p ≡ u 2 ( m o d 4 ) Now, according to "Square Modulo 4" Link to Square Modulo 4
All perfect squares are equivalent to either 0 or 1 ( m o d 4 )
But, it is also given that p ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 ) , Hence, we reach a contradiction, and
p does not exist.
According to my search on WolframAlpha, Link to WolframAlpha
According to Niven’s Theorem, Link to Niven’s Theorem
Link to Proof of Niven’s Theorem
Now, since we know that 3 radians = 3 × ( π 1 8 0 ) ∘ = ( π 5 4 0 ) ∘ Since it is irrational, and not a multiple of some special values, which make it 0 or ± 1 , it needs to be irrational.
p does not exist, and tan ( x ) is irrational.
@Siddharth Chakravarty , I am done, please first tell me if the proof is ok or not, and then give me points.
I would say Niven's theorem is ok, but I meant something else. But it is not a proof, you need to prove Niven's theorem first.
Log in to reply
But how? If Fermat's Last Theorem is used, I need to prove it? Its a theorem.
Log in to reply
I mean give the link to the proof.
Log in to reply
@Siddharth Chakravarty – Done! Now, you can give me points. I haven't studied anything today! :(
I have to include proof of basel problem also?
Log in to reply
No only link, and for image use something for simplification because providing a link and taking a screenshot of the page where there is 1 proof is the same thing.
@Siddharth Chakravarty , I have given all links, written everything needed, prooved, or given link to proofs, and this problem is not geometry, so you can't cut marks for pictures.
Please give me scores, and it is clear you can't cut marks for no pictures.
Where is a picture? Also, I've reduced the points of @Aryan Sanghi as all were creating a buzz. So only pictures in the sense diagrams, graphs are only allowed.
Log in to reply
I'll not add a picture, today is not a Geometry or Logic problem. Today, everyone should get 0 in pictures.
Criteria | Points | Reason |
Intelligble Solution | 15 | The solution is clear and correct, with links also used. Also with the proof why tan3 is irrational. |
Uniqueness | 0 | The simplifying and proofs are common ones |
Using L A T E X | 10 | L A T E X is used extensively |
Animation | 0 | No Animation is used |
Pictures | 0 | Pictures are not used |
Total points | 25 |
Log in to reply
Thanks for 0 points in pictures, it now feels better! Also, if someone else uses Niven's theorem now, please don't give points for that.
Dude, one query... Are points given for screenshots of the webpages, coz pictures aren't really useful here? @Siddharth Chakravarty
Log in to reply
No points for screenshots only points for images which show diagram, graph, etc or something related only to the problem, and not it's theorem or proof of the theorem.
Log in to reply
@Siddharth Chakravarty – K, what abbout graph for proof, like gef jof
@Siddharth Chakravarty – *jeff giff not gef jof
Also, does humour help me here, like 2-3 extra points, coz Leo could give me something good. @Siddharth Chakravarty
@Vinayak Srivastava I don't understand the Niven's theorem part. The theorem states that IF BOTH (theta/pi) and sin (theta) is rational, you can find the value of theta. Here you have to check the rationality of tan 3. But 3/pi is irrational, so it completely has nothing to do with Niven's theorem.
And the theorem finds out the value of theta based on the rationality of sin, but you find out the rationality of tan based on the value of theta. You're applying the theorem in reverse, which is not valid because it's an IF statement.
Log in to reply
Actually, it states about tan also. The value of tan is only rational when it is exactly 0 , ± 1 . But, I don't understand completely where I am wrong, if I am, still I at least can see that everyone else has copied my proof, to gain points, which I don't feel good about. @Siddharth Chakravarty , now that the contest is over, can you share the proof you were talking about? I would like to see it!
Log in to reply
Yeah, I think it would be nice. Can you share your solution? @Siddharth Chakravarty
Evaluate x :
Radical = 6^1/2 * 6^1/4 * 6^1/8 ...... = 6^S 1/2+1/4+1/8.... to infinite = 6^1 = 6
S 1/n^2 from n=1 to infinite is Problem of Basilea ( https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problema de Basilea) = (Pi^2)/6
X = (1729 * 3* pi^2 ) / (pi^2 ) * (1729 + 0 ) => X=3
Evaluate p :
expresion 1 : p = u^2 + 4
expresion 2 : p = 4 N + 3
for equals : p = u^2 + 4 = 4 N + 3 => (u^2 + 1) / 4 = N => ( u / 2 ) ^2 + 1/4
( u / 2 ) ^2 = integer if u = even or integer + 1/4 if u = odd
expresion : ( u / 2 ) ^2 + 1/4 will be always integer + 1/4 or integer + 1/2 => never N => p not exist
Funtion tg (3) is irrational
**
3 ! 3 ! 3 ! . . . ∞ = y(say)
Thus y = 3 ! × y
y 2 = 6 y
y = 6
3 ! = 3 ∗ 2 ∗ 1 = 6
( 1 2 3 + 2 2 3 + 3 2 3 + 4 2 3 + . . . ∞ ) = 3 ( 1 2 1 + 2 2 1 + 3 2 1 + 4 2 1 + . . . ∞ ) = 3 × 6 π 2 = 2 π 2
The denominator simplifies to 1 7 2 9 × π 2 . using a calculator or just your head, if you can.
The two equations given to us are:
p ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 )
p = u 2 + 2 4 = u 2 + 4
The first equation tells us that p can be expressed in the form 4 n + 3 , where n ∈ I .
Equating 'p' in both equations gives us: 4 n = u 2 + 1
This simplifies to n = 4 u 2 + 1
With our newly acquired knowledge, we can now replace u 2 with 4 m or 4 m + 1 .
Hence: n = 4 4 m + 1 o r 4 4 m + 2 both of which are not integers, but n must be an integer.
This contradicts our original statement and we can make a conclusion that p does not exist .
Since p does not exist, the second statement is followed: "Chetan tells p does not exist and whether tan ( x ) is irrational or rational, where x is measured in radians."
tan ( x ) = tan ( 3 ) (rad) ≈ − 0 . 1 4 2
Proof that it is irrational:
According to Niven's Theorem , tan θ can only be rational if its values are 0 or ± 1
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Assigning Parts
Let a = 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! . . . , b = 1 2 3 + 2 2 3 + 3 2 3 + 4 2 3 + 5 2 3 . . . , and c = ( 1 × 1 0 + 9 ) ( 9 × 1 0 + 1 ) + 1 − 9 3 + 1 2 3 − 1 0 3 . Then x = π 2 ⋅ c a ⋅ 1 7 2 9 ⋅ b .
Solving for a
Since a = 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! 3 ! . . . , that means a = 3 ! a . Squaring both sides gives a 2 = 3 ! a , and since a = 0 , a = 3 ! = 6 .
Solving for b
Writing b = 1 2 3 + 2 2 3 + 3 2 3 + 4 2 3 + 5 2 3 . . . as a sum gives b = n = 1 ∑ ∞ n 2 3 = 3 n = 1 ∑ ∞ n 2 1 . Since the sum of the reciprocals of the squares of the natural numbers is a Basel problem that has been shown to be n = 1 ∑ ∞ n 2 1 = 6 π 2 , this can be substituted in to show that b = 3 ⋅ 6 π 2 = 2 π 2 .
Solving for c
By direct calculation, c = ( 1 × 1 0 + 9 ) ( 9 × 1 0 + 1 ) + 1 − 9 3 + 1 2 3 − 1 0 3 = 1 7 2 9 .
(Bonus: 1 7 2 9 is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two positive cubes in two different ways, and is called a taxicab number .)
Solving for x
Substituting a = 6 , b = 2 π 2 , and c = 1 7 2 9 into x = π 2 ⋅ c a ⋅ 1 7 2 9 ⋅ b gives x = π 2 ⋅ 1 7 2 9 6 ⋅ 1 7 2 9 ⋅ 2 π 2 = 3 .
Solving for p
Since u is a positive integer, it is either in the form of 4 n , 4 n + 1 , 4 n + 2 , or 4 n + 3 for some integer n .
That means there are four cases to consider for p = u 2 + ( 2 ) 4 = u 2 + 4 :
Case 1: If u = 4 n , then p = ( 4 n ) 2 + 4 = 1 6 n 2 + 4 ≡ 0 ( m o d 4 )
Case 2: If u = 4 n + 1 , then p = ( 4 n + 1 ) 2 + 4 = 1 6 n 2 + 8 n + 5 ≡ 1 ( m o d 4 )
Case 3: If u = 4 n + 1 , then p = ( 4 n + 2 ) 2 + 4 = 1 6 n 2 + 1 6 n + 4 ≡ 0 ( m o d 4 )
Case 4: If u = 4 n + 1 , then p = ( 4 n + 3 ) 2 + 4 = 1 6 n 2 + 2 4 n + 9 ≡ 1 ( m o d 4 )
Since there are no cases where p ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 ) , p does not exist .
Analyzing tan ( x )
According to an extension of Niven's Theorem , the only rational values of tangent are 0 and ± 1 , which would occur at tan ( π n ) and tan ( π n ± 4 π ) for some integer n , or put another way, would occur at tan ( π k ) for some rational number k . However, since x = 3 = π ⋅ π 3 , the k value would be k = π 3 , which is not rational. Therefore, tan ( 3 ) must be irrational .
In the graph above, rational values of tan ( x ) occur at the intersection of blue and black lines, when tan ( x ) = 0 or tan ( x ) = ± 1 . As proved above, the green line x = 3 will not give tan ( x ) a rational value because it does not pass through the blue and black intersection points. Therefore, tan ( 3 ) is irrational.
Conclusion
Therefore, Chetan would say that p does not exist and that tan ( x ) is irrational .