Let (ujk), 1≤j≤3, 1≤k≤2 be real numbers and let N be an integer such that 1≤k≤2maxj=1∑3∣ujk∣≤N. Suppose M and l are positive integers such that l2<(M+1)3. Prove that there exist integers ξ1,ξ2,ξ3, not all zero, such that 1≤j≤3max∣ξj∣≤Mandj=1∑3ujkξj≤lMN,for k=1,2.
Solution
Let a1,a2,a3 be integers such that 0≤a1,a2,a3≤M. Let Sk=j=1∑3ujkaj,k=1,2. Then Cauchy-Schwartz inequality gives Sk≤j=1∑3aj2j=1∑3ujk2≤3M2N2=3MN2. We have used aj2≤M2 and ∑j=13ujk2≤(∑j=13∣ujk∣)2≤N2. Since M is a positive integer, M≥1, so that (M+1)3−1≥3. Thus we have 0≤Sk≤MN(M+1)3−1, for k=1,2. Divide the interval [0,MN(M+1)3−1] into (M+N)3−1 equal parts, each of length MN/(M+1)3−1. If we consider ordered triples (a1,a2,a3) of integers such that 0≤a1,a2,a3≤M, there are (M+1)3 such triples and these give (M+1)3 values for Sk. Hence by pigeon-hole principle, we can find two triples (A1,A2,A3) and (B1,B2,B3) such that 0≤A1,A2,A3,B1,B2,B3≤M and the corresponding S-values lie in the same subinterval. Thus ∣Sk(A1,A2,A3)−Sk(B1,B2,B3)∣≤(M+1)3−1MN≤lMN, because l2<(M+1)3 implies that l2≤(M+1)3−1. Taking ξj=Aj−Bj, j=1,2,3, we see that ∣ξj∣≤M and j=1∑3ujkξj≤∣Sk(A1,A2,A3)−Sk(B1,B2,B3)∣≤lMN. Note that estimate does not depend on k and hence valid for k=1,2.
Want a route through all this instead of an archive? The track
puts 2,000 problems in a working order, from AMC 10 level to the IMO shortlist.
Source: MathNet,
licensed CC-BY-4.0.
Statement reproduced verbatim; metadata (topic, difficulty) added by this project.