a) Let a1≤a2≤⋯≤an be the stolen numbers. Since all the partial sums are positive, all the stolen numbers must be positive. Obviously a1 is the smallest number among the partial sums. Suppose that numbers a1,a2,…,ai have been determined. Omit all the partial sums of a1,a2,…,ai from the partial sums of a1,a2,…,an. The smallest number among the remaining numbers, must be ai+1, so all the numbers will be determined uniquely.
b) Suppose that a1≤⋯≤ak<0≤ak+1≤⋯≤an are the stolen numbers and s1≤s2≤⋯≤s2n−1 are the partial sums. Note that if s1>0, the problem is already solved in part (a). Therefore, we can assume that s1<0. We have
(1+xa1)(1+xa2)⋯(1+xan)=1+xs1+xs2+⋯+xs2n−1.
Obviously, s1 is the sum of negative numbers a1,a2,…,ak. Multiplying the above equation by x−s1 implies
(1+x−a1)⋯(1+x−ak)(1+xak+1)⋯(1+xan)=x−s1+xs1−s1+xs2−s1+⋯+xs2n−1−s1.
Hence we can say that we have the partial sums of stolen numbers ∣a1∣,∣a2∣,…,∣an∣, and by part a, it is possible to find them uniquely.
Finally, we must show that xs1 can be uniquely written as a product of xai's. If there were two ways to do this, we would obtain a partial sum of ai's equal to 0, which leads to a contradiction.
c) The partial sums of two sets {1,2,−3} and {−1,−2,3} are the same, so adding 1389 0's to these sets will not change the partial sums.