Maths Olympiad Prep

Track / Stage 4 / 71 of 340 #331 of 1964

Problem 331

AMC 12 late, AIME early
Number theory Difficulty 4.7 Prove it

Suppose the sequence of nonnegative integers a1,a2,...,a1997a_1,a_2,...,a_{1997} satisfies
ai+ajai+jai+aj+1a_i+a_j \le a_{i+j} \le a_i+a_j+1
for all i,j1i, j \ge 1 with i+j1997i+j \le 1997. Show that there exists a real number xx such that an=nxa_n=\lfloor{nx}\rfloor (the greatest integer nx\le nx) for all 1n19971 \le n \le 1997.

This one wants a proof. Work it on paper, then read the official solution and mark yourself. Be honest about it: the record is only any use to you if it is.

Official solution

Given nonnegative integers a1,a2,,a1997a_1,a_2,\dots, a_{1997} satisfying the given inequalities, let InI_n be the set of all xx such that an=nxa_n=\lfloor nx\rfloor. Therefore,
I n= x ,: ,a n nxk , then by the division algorithm, we can write n=qk+r for nonnegative integers q and r with 0 r ra k . Substituting this into (3), we find [k(a n+1)> kqa k+ra k=(kq+r)a k=na k.\text{I n= x ,: ,a n nxk , then by the division algorithm, we can write n=qk+r for nonnegative integers q and r with 0 r ra k . Substituting this into (3), we find [k(a n+1)> kqa k+ra k=(kq+r)a k=na k.}
This proves the hypothesis for n=j>kn=j>k.
Suppose that k=j>nk=j>n. Then by the division algorithm, we can write k=qn+rk=qn+r for nonnegative integers qq and rr with 0rn0\le rn.
Therefore, if the hypothesis is true for all k,n<jk,n<j, then it must be true for all k,njk,n\le j. Hence by induction, it must be true for all positive integers kk and nn. \text{}
Now suppose for the sake of contradiction that InI_n and IkI_k are disjoint intervals. Without loss of generality, we may assume that InI_n precedes IkI_k on the number line. Hence the upper bound of InI_n is less than or equal to the minimum value of IkI_k, or rather
an+1nakk.\frac{a_{n}+1}{n}\le \frac{a_k}{k}.
This simplifies to nakk(an+1)na_k\ge k(a_n+1). But this contradicts the statement of Lemma 1. Therefore, IkInI_k\cap I_n\ne \emptyset.
Now we claim that I1I2I1997I_1\cap I_2\cap \cdots \cap I_{1997}\ne \emptyset. We prove this by induction. By the above, we know that I1I2I_1\cap I_2\ne \emptyset. Now suppose that I1I2IkI_1\cap I_2\cap\cdots\cap I_k\ne \emptyset. The intersection of two overlapping intervals of the form [a,b)[a,b) and [c,d)[c,d) is an interval of the form [e,f)[e,f), where e=max{a,c}e=\max\{a,c\} and f=min{b,d}f=\min\{b,d\}. Therefore, by induction, we know that if the intersection of kk overlapping intervals is nonempty, then it must also be an interval, say
I1I2Ik=[xk,yk).I_1\cap I_2\cap\cdots\cap I_k=[x_k,y_k).
If Ik+1I_{k+1} does not intersect [xk,yk)[x_k,y_k), then as an interval, it must appear either completely before xkx_k or completely after yky_k. If Ik+1I_{k+1} appears completely before xkx_k, then it has a nonempty intersection with each of I1,I2,,IkI_1, I_2, \dots, I_k. But we also know that xkx_k is a lower bound of one of the intervals, hence Ik+1I_{k+1} cannot intersect that interval, a contradiction. A similar contradiction arises if Ik+1I_{k+1} appears completely after yky_k. Therefore,
I1I2Ik+1.I_1\cap I_2\cap\cdots\cap I_{k+1}\ne \emptyset.
Thus by induction, I1I2I1997I_1\cap I_2\cap\cdots\cap I_{1997}\ne \emptyset. So let xI1I2I1997x\in I_1\cap I_2\cap\cdots\cap I_{1997}. Then by the definition of InI_n, we know that an=nxa_n=\lfloor nx\rfloor for all 1n19971\le n\le 1997, and we are done.

Source: NuminaMath-1.5, licensed Apache-2.0. Statement and solution reproduced as published; topic, difficulty and ordering added by this site.