Maths Olympiad Prep

Library / Olimpiade Italiana di Matematica /7 of 36

Olimpiade Italiana di Matematica

Combinatorics Difficulty 5.7 AIME, harder Prove it Italy

Problem:

Let x1,x2,x3,…x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, \ldots be a sequence of positive integers such that, for all positive integers m,nm, n, we have xmn≠xm(n+1)x_{m n} \neq x_{m(n+1)}. Prove that there exists a positive integer ii such that xi≥2017x_{i} \geq 2017.

Solutions — 2

Solution 1

Solution:

We say that two numbers ii and jj are connected if one of them can be written in the form mnm n and the other in the form m(n+1)m(n+1) for suitable mm and nn. The statement of the exercise tells us that xix_{i} is different from xjx_{j} whenever ii and jj are connected. We want to prove that there are at least 2017 positive integers i1…i2017i_{1} \ldots i_{2017} such that the 2017 terms xi1,…,xi2017x_{i_{1}}, \ldots, x_{i_{2017}} of the sequence are all distinct from each other: this implies the assertion by the pigeonhole principle. It therefore suffices to prove that there exist 2017 positive integers i1…i2017i_{1} \ldots i_{2017} pairwise connected to each other.
We prove by induction on nn that for every nn there exist nn positive integers i1…ini_{1} \ldots i_{n} pairwise connected to each other. In the case n=1n=1, the base of the induction, it suffices to fix i1=1i_{1}=1 and there is nothing to prove.
We observe that ii and jj, with i<ji<j, are connected if and only if j−ij-i is a divisor of ii. Hence, if ii and jj are connected and kk is a multiple of ii then k+ik+i and k+jk+j are connected.
Coming to the inductive step, we have by hypothesis nn positive integers pairwise connected i1,…,ini_{1}, \ldots, i_{n}. Let kk be their product. By our observation the numbers k+i1,…,k+ink+i_{1}, \ldots, k+i_{n} are pairwise connected. These numbers are also all connected to kk. We have thus constructed n+1n+1 numbers pairwise connected, as required to complete the induction.

Solution 2

Solution:

Assume for contradiction that xix_{i} is less than 2017 for every ii. We will prove by induction on nn that for every kk there exists an interval of kk consecutive numbers such that the sequence xix_{i} takes at most 2016−n2016-n distinct values for ii ranging over the interval. From this a contradiction follows immediately by considering the case n=2016,k=1n=2016, k=1.
The base case of the induction, n=0n=0, is an immediate consequence of the absurd hypothesis.
For the inductive step, we want to prove that there exists an interval of length kk such that xix_{i} takes at most 2016−(n+1)2016 - (n+1) distinct values on that interval. By the inductive hypothesis, we have an interval II of length 3k!3k! on which the sequence takes at most 2016−n2016-n distinct values. This interval must contain two consecutive multiples of k!k!, say mk!mk! and (m+1)k!(m+1)k!, hence also the numbers of the form mk!+jmk!+j with 1≤j≤k≤k!1 \leq j \leq k \leq k!. Observing that mk!mk! is a multiple of jj for every j=1,…,kj=1, \ldots, k, we see that the numbers xmk!+jx_{mk!+j} are all different from xmk!x_{mk!}. The sequence xix_{i} therefore cannot assume 2016−n2016-n or more distinct values for ii in the interval mk!+1,…,mk!+kmk!+1, \ldots, mk!+k, otherwise it would assume 2016−n+12016-n+1 or more values in the interval II, contradicting the inductive hypothesis.

Want a route through all this instead of an archive? The track puts 2,604 problems in a working order, from Junior Challenge level to the IMO shortlist.

Source: MathNet, licensed CC-BY-4.0. Statement translated into English from it; metadata (topic, difficulty) added by this project.