Weighing up the positives and the negatives

± ( x 1 ) ± ( x 1 ) ± ( x 1 ) ± ( x 1 ) ± ( x 1 ) " appears 2018 times = 2018 \underbrace{\pm (x-1) \pm (x-1) \cdots \pm (x-1) \pm (x-1)}_{“\pm (x-1)" \text{ appears 2018 times}} = 2018

On the left side of the equation, " ± ( x 1 ) \pm (x-1) " repeats 2018 times.

How many integer solutions of x x are there?

Note : The " ± \pm " symbols are independent of one another.

1 2 4 1009 2018

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.

7 solutions

David Vreken
Jun 18, 2018

Let a a be the number of ± \pm symbols that are positive and b b be the number of ± \pm symbols that are - . Since there are are 2018 2018 ± \pm symbols, a + b = 2018 a + b = 2018 , and so b = 2018 a b = 2018 - a (for integers a a and b b ).

The equation then becomes a ( x 1 ) b ( x 1 ) = 2018 a(x - 1) - b(x - 1) = 2018 or ( a b ) ( x 1 ) = 2018 (a - b)(x - 1) = 2018 . Substituting b = 2018 a b = 2018 - a gives ( a ( 2018 a ) ) ( x 1 ) = 2018 (a - (2018 - a))(x - 1) = 2018 or ( 2 a 2018 ) ( x 1 ) = 2018 (2a - 2018)(x - 1) = 2018 for integers a a and x x .

Since 2 a 2018 2a - 2018 is always even for integers a a , and x 1 x - 1 is always an integer for integers x x , the number of solutions to the equation would be the number of even factors (positive or negative) of 2018 2018 . There are only 4 4 even factors of 2018 2018 ( 2018 -2018 , 2 -2 , 2 2 , and 2018 2018 ) and so there are 4 \boxed{4} integer solutions of x x .

There is a typo in the fourth line. The first set of parentheses did not get closed.

Marta Reece - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks! I fixed it.

David Vreken - 2 years, 11 months ago

a+b=2018 => (a,b)=(odd,odd)or (even,even)

=> a-b=even => a-b = +/- 2 or 2018 as 2018=2*1009

Less algebra for the solution.

Pop Wong - 2 years, 11 months ago

I thought this was remarkably easy for an "advanced" problem.

Rory Erlich - 2 years, 11 months ago

You could simplify this slightly by dividing the equation through by 2, to give us ( a 1009 ) ( x 1 ) = 1009 (a-1009)(x-1) = 1009 . Then you're just looking for the number of ordered pairs of integers that multiply to 1009 - in other words, the number of divisors (both positive and negative) of 1009.

Stewart Gordon - 2 years, 11 months ago

I overlooked the negative solutions.

Kermit Rose - 2 years, 11 months ago

I'll admit I find all those responses really surprising: Whatever is the number of "+" and "-" signs in the equations, we end up with a single linear, affine equation on |R such as ax+b = 2018. Either there is a solution or not. If there is, it is unique, and whether it is a integer or not, the total number of solutions must be 0 or 1.

Thierry Doe - 2 years, 10 months ago
Gursimar Miglani
Jun 25, 2018

Let some number of ( x 1 ) (x-1) 's remain after doing the cancellations. Since there was an even number of them to start with, and we cancel 2 of them at a time, there is an even number of ( x 1 ) (x-1) 's remaining. Let that number be 2 k 2k , where k k is an integer. Note that k k can be negative as well, in which case ( x 1 ) -(x-1) 's remain. Hence, 2 k ( x 1 ) = 2018 2k(x-1)=2018 , or k ( x 1 ) = 1009 k(x-1)=1009 . Therefore ( x 1 ) (x-1) is a factor of 1009 1009 , which is prime. Hence ( x 1 ) (x-1) can take on 1 1 , 1 -1 , 1009 1009 and 1009 -1009 as its values, so the answer is 4 \boxed{4} .

Great and concise solution

Stephen Mellor - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you!

Gursimar Miglani - 2 years, 11 months ago

I think you missed a sign in there. 1,-1,1009 and -1009 is what you meant right?

James Long - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks for noticing!

Gursimar Miglani - 2 years, 11 months ago

good concise solution!!!

Wenjing Li - 2 years, 11 months ago

Very nice solution. I solved it the same way.

alex schroeder - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

I also solved it that way. Just had to check from a table of primes that 1009 was indeed prime.

Richard Costen - 2 years, 11 months ago

Guy above says factors are +/-2 and +/-2018.

S I - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@David Vreken was referring to the even factors of 2018 (which aren't necessarily the solutions for x x ), while this answer uses the factors of 1009 1009 to find the explicit solutions of x x which satisfy the given equation. Both are valid approaches to solving the problem; one solves for x x .

Akeel Howell - 2 years, 11 months ago
Binky Mh
Jun 25, 2018

Each ± ( x 1 ) ± ( x 1 ) \pm(x-1)\pm(x-1) pair can either equal 0 0 or ± 2 ( x 1 ) \pm2(x-1) . This means the above equation can be expressed 2 y ( x 1 ) = 2018 2y(x-1)=2018 , where y y is the number of positive pairs, minus the number of negative pairs.

2 ( x 1 ) 2(x-1) must be an even factor of 2018 2018 , since if it is odd, x x will not be an integer, and if it is not a factor of 2018 2018 , y y will not be an integer. This leaves us with the numbers 2 2 & 2018 2018 , and when y y is negative, 2 -2 & 2018 -2018 .

This means there are 4 \boxed{4} possible integer values of x x : 1008 -1008 , 0 0 , 2 2 and 1010 1010 .

I did it the same way, stupid me for not noticing that only integer solutions were asked. Like it to see someone with the same solution though.

Joël Ganesh - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

I make that kind of mistake all the time. It's really annoying when you figure out how to solve a problem, but you misread the problem so you get it wrong. Especially when you come up with a unique method for solving, but can't post it because you got the wrong answer.

Binky MH - 2 years, 11 months ago

All solutions are excellent ,obviously. Wish one was mine.

Joseph Tursi - 2 years, 11 months ago
Adam Harrison
Jun 27, 2018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i=0

while i <= 2018:
    a = 2*i-2018
    b = -a
    if a != 0:
        if (2018 - b) % a == 0:
            print(a)
    i += 1

孙鹏 周
Jun 18, 2018

2018=2×2×503

x-1=1/2/1006/503

2x2x503=2012, not 2018. But you forgot the negative factors, so double error = good result (in this case)

Laszlo Kocsis - 2 years, 11 months ago

Excuse me,You are Chinese?right? I am not good at the English.

mowei chen - 2 years, 11 months ago
Geoff Pilling
Jun 26, 2018

Let u = x 1 u = x-1

Then the above statement is equivalent to saying:

2 n u = 2018 2nu = 2018

where n n is an integer between 1009 -1009 and 1009 1009 .

Therefore, u u must be divisible by 2018 2018 which has only two prime factors 2 2 and 1009 1009 .

Since u can be negative, it can take on only 4 4 values, ± 2 \pm 2 and ± 1009 \pm 1009 .

Therefore, x x can also only take on 4 \boxed4 values.

2nu=2018 does not state that u must be divisible by 2018, rather that n divides the prime 1009.

Joseph Tursi - 2 years, 11 months ago
Alex Waldherr
Jun 28, 2018

My solution could be wrong, but I would love it someone tells me if it is correcr or wrong and why:

The expression (x-1) is actually just one number if you substitute x so the calculation gives us a pattern of the same number added or subtracted 2017 times to the starting term. 2018 has to be reached in the end.

All the added numbers have to equal 2018 (otherwise we would get 0 or something) so if we only add the number x would have to be 2. If we increase x, we can subtract in the end to cancel out the amount of extra additions but in the end we have to end at 2018.

Therefore I imagined it like climbing stairs were every stair up is +(x-1) and every stair down is -(x-1). We start at 0 and can either take 2018 small stairs only up to get to 2018, or higher steps to go above 2018 and then go back again.

But one step has to go by precisely at 2018 - the height of the stairs therefore has to equal a divisor of 2018. And as 2018 has four divisors: 1, 2, 1009 and 2018 we can find 4 different x to satisfy the equation. Right?

Intuitively the steps analogy would work. However, by using this example, you forget about the negative divisors of 2018. Also, the odd divisors don't work. Please see Binky MH's solution as I think she describes why in a good way.

Stephen Mellor - 2 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you really much! :)

Alex Waldherr - 2 years, 11 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...