1991 IMO Problems/Problem 2
Contents
Problem
Let be an integer and
be all the natural numbers less than
and relatively prime to
. If
prove that
must be either a prime number or a power of
.
Solution 1
We use Bertrand's Postulate: for is a positive integer, there is a prime in the interval
.
Clearly, must be equal to the smallest prime
which does not divide
. If
, then
is a prime since the common difference
is equal to
, i.e. all positive integers less than
are coprime to
. If, on the ther hand,
, we find
to be a power of
: the positive integers less than
and coprime to it are precisely the odd ones. We may thus assume that
. Furthermore, since
, the positive integers less than
and coprime to it cannot be
alone, i.e.
.
By Bertrand's Postulate, the largest prime less than is strictly larger than
, so it cannot divide
. We will denote this prime by
. We know that
. It's easy to check that for
there is a prime
strictly between
.
, so, in particular,
. On the other hand, if
, the two largest primes
which are smaller than
satisfy
(again, Bertrand's Postulate), so
so, once again, we have
(this is what I wanted to prove here).
Now, , and all the numbers
are smaller than
(they are smaller than
, which is smaller than
, according to the paragraph above). One of these numbers, however, must be divisible by
. Since our hypothesis tells us that all of them must be coprime to
, we have a contradiction.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by grobber. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [1]
Note
Bertrand actually allows for the bounds for
; thus, since
is the smallest prime not dividing
,
must equal
. Hence there cannot exist a prime in the bounds
, clearly untrue for
by Bertrand. Then
is clearly not possible, and
does not work (unless
is a power of
); hence the conclusion holds.
~eevee9406
Solution 2
Let . Then we have
. Since
, so
is the largest positive integer smaller than
and co-prime to
. Thus,
and
which shows
and so
divides
. We make two cases.
Case 1:
is odd. Then
. So, every divisor of
is co-prime to
too, so is
. Thus, there is a
such that
which implies
. Therefore, in this case,
and we easily find that all numbers less than
are co-prime to
, so
must be a prime.
Case 2:
is even. But then
and also
is ruled out. So
. Say,
. Then,
divides
. If
is odd,
and
forcing
, contradiction! So,
with
. If
for some
, then
. So, again
for a
. If
is odd, then
and thus,
. Similarly, we find that actually
must occur. We finally have,
. But then all odd numbers less than
are co-prime to
. So,
does not have any odd factor i.e.
for some
.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by ngv. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [2]
Solution 3
We use Bonse's Inequality: , for all
,
.
Let denote the smallest prime which does not divide
.
Case 1) . This implies
is a prime.
Case 2)
. This implies
for some
.
Case 3)
. Since
, we have that
. Therefore
, but
.
Case 4)
. Write
. We have
. Hence
, a contradiction since
.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by SFScoreLow. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [3]
Solution 4
Clearly, . Now let
be the smallest prime number which is not a divisor of
. Hence,
, and the common difference
. Observe that since
, we have that
, or
. This means that all prime factors of
are prime factors of
. However, due to the minimality of
, all primes factors of
are prime factors of
. By the Euclidean algorithm, the only prime factors of
are
, so
or
, by the theory of Fermat primes. We will now do casework on
.
Case 1:
This case is relatively easy.
, so all numbers less than
must be relatively prime to
. However, if
, where
and
, observe that
is not relatively prime to
, so
must be prime for this case to work.
Case 2: and
.
This case is somewhat tricky. Observe that
is even. Since
, we have that all numbers less than
which are odd are relatively prime to
. However, if
has a odd divisor
, clearly
is not relatively prime to
, so
must be a power of two.
Case 3: .
Note that
must be a divisor of
, so
cannot be a multiple of
for any
. I will contradict this statement. First, I claim that
for all integers
.
is trivial, so let me show that
has only solutions less than or equal to
. Since
is a multiplicative function, observe that
cannot be a multiple of a prime greater than
, because for such primes
we have that
, which is contradiction. Hence,
is just composed of factors of
and
. If it divides both, and is of the form
for
and
positive, we get that we need
, so
and
in this case. If it is of the form
, we get
. And if it is of the form
, we get
.
,
, and
are all less than or equal to
, so
. Now we're almost done. Since
, the number
must be in this sequence. However,
is of the form
, which is a multiple of
, and we have contradiction, so we are done.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by va2010. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [4]
Solution 5
Clearly that . Let
then
We can see that if
is a prime then
satisfies the condition. We consider the case when
is a composite number. Let
be the smallest prime divisor of
then
. Note that
for all prime
since
for all
. Therefore, if
then there will exists
such that
or
, a contradiction since
. Thus,
. We consider two cases:
If then
. Hence,
. This means there exists a prime
such that
. Since
so we get
or
, a contradiction since
. Thus,
or
.
If then all odd numbers
are relatively prime to
. This can only happen when
.
If then
since
. Thus,
or there exist a prime
such that
. Note that
so
, a contradiction.
Thus, must be either a prime number or a power of
.
This solution was posted and copyrighted by shinichiman. The original thread for this problem can be found here: [5]
Solution 6
We begin firstly by showing that if be the number of numbers smaller than and coprime to a number
, such that
, then
is even. This is very easily visible; if
is coprime to
, then
is also coprime to
. We see that all the coprime numbers are kind of symmetric around
, and for
,
is never coprime with
, and it is easy to see that
is always even for
.
This question essentially asks us that for , the numbers smaller than and coprime to n never form an arithmetic progression unless n is a power of two or n is prime.
Now, we break this question into three scenarios:
Scenario 1: is odd.
If a number is odd, then it is coprime with
. All numbers are coprime with
. So, the numbers smaller than and coprime to
begin with 1, 2, .. If this is truly an arithemtic sequence up to
, then that means that
is coprime to all number smaller than itself. But, if
is not prime, then it has a prime factor smaller than itself, and the arithmetic sequence would break, as that prime factor won't be included in the coprime numbers. So, if
is odd, and the numbers smaller than and coprime to
form an arithemtic sequence, then
is a prime.
Scenario 2: is divisible by
.
It seems like we have nothing to argue here. So, we do something else here; we assume that the numbers smaller than
form an arithemtic sequence like
,
, ... ,
(where
is the number of numbers smaller than and coprime to
), and sum them. The sum is
. If you remember the part where we proved that all these numbers are symmetric around
, we can see that we can sum these numbers another way, and find their sum to be
. So,
=
, which means
.
here is even,
is odd, so
must be even too, otherwise the LHS will not be even. Also, gcd(
,
) =
, and as
is divisible by
, it means that
is only divisible by
, and not
, because then gcd(
,
) =
, and the LHS would be a multiple of
, which it is not. Before going on further, we'll see another very important thing, that
is made up of prime factors that all divide
, the proof of which is very trivial. But, if there is another prime which divides
and
, then that would mean that gcd(
,
) != 2, which is false, thus
must be divisible by
, and not
or any other prime number, which just means
. So, Our arithmmetic progression is like
,
,
, .. ,
, implying that
is coprime to all the odd numbers smaller than it. But, if
has some odd prime factors, then that would mean that that odd prime is not coprime to
, a contradiction, so,
is only made up of powers of
, that is,
is a power of two greater than or equal to
. The problem with
is that it is only coprime to two numbers smaller than itself, which obviously form an arithemtic progression. But, as
here, we are on the safe side.
Scenario 3: is divisible by
, but not
.
Let
=
, where
is odd. Before making anymore arguments, we see that
and
are consecutive coprime numbers to
. So, the arithemtic progression must have difference
. Our number
must be coprime to some prefix of the sequence
,
,
, ..., and only that prefix. The moment
,
must be coprime to
(it's easy to see why), and thus also coprime to
, which breaks this progression. Thus, for
, we can see that no number of the form
satisfies the conditions of the problem.
The proof is done
Courtesy of EobardThawne
See Also
1991 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 1 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 3 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |