Difference between revisions of "2007 IMO Problems/Problem 1"
Not detriti (talk | contribs) (added solution 2. I also edited Mo Lam's solution) |
Not detriti (talk | contribs) m (added a comment to solution 2) |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
|a_i-x_i| \leq \frac{1}{2}\Big(a_{i_l}-a_{j_l}\Big) = \frac{d_{i_l}}{2} \leq \frac{d}{2}. | |a_i-x_i| \leq \frac{1}{2}\Big(a_{i_l}-a_{j_l}\Big) = \frac{d_{i_l}}{2} \leq \frac{d}{2}. | ||
</cmath> | </cmath> | ||
− | A similar argument shows the above equation also holds if <math>i \geq i_l</math>. Since <math>i</math> was arbitrary, combined with (a) it follows equality holds in (*) for this choice of <math>x_1 \leq \cdots \leq x_n</math>. | + | by definition of <math>d</math>. A similar argument shows the above equation also holds if <math>i \geq i_l</math>. Since <math>i</math> was arbitrary, combined with (a) it follows equality holds in (*) for this choice of <math>x_1 \leq \cdots \leq x_n</math>. |
~not_detriti | ~not_detriti |
Latest revision as of 00:12, 27 July 2025
Contents
Problem
Real numbers are given. For each
(
) define
and let
.
(a) Prove that, for any real numbers ,
(b) Show that there are real numbers such that equality holds in (*)
Solution 1
Since , all
can be expressed as
where
. Thus
can be expressed as
for some
and
with
Lemma: .
Since and
for some
satisfying
it follows
.
(a):
Case
If ,
is the maximum of a set of non-negative number, which must be at least
.
Case
Assume for the sake of contradiction that .
Then ,
. So
and
.
Thus and
. Subtracting the two inequalities we obtain
i.e.
which contradicts
(since
).
Thus .
(b):
A set of where equality holds in (*) is:
for all
. Since
is a non-decreasing function,
is non-decreasing.
let
. Then
.
Thus .
because
is the max of a set including
).
Therefore one has
hence
. Lastly since
and
, it follows
.
This is written by Mo Lam--- who is a horrible proof writer, so please fix the proof for me. Thank you. O, also the formatting.
(edited by not_detriti)
Solution 2
(a): Let satisfy
. Then
with
such that
(note
. Note this reasoning also implies
for all
). And for any
if
then
in which case we're done. So we may assume
. But then
and we're done.
(b): Let for
. Then let
such that
. Let
. Then let
be such that
and
for
. Note that
and
since
.
Therefore if we set
and
one will have
. Furthermore if
then
so that
hence
by definition of
. A similar argument shows the above equation also holds if
. Since
was arbitrary, combined with (a) it follows equality holds in (*) for this choice of
.
~not_detriti
Alternate solutions are always welcome. If you have a different, elegant solution to this problem, please add it to this page.
Resources
2007 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by First question |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 2 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |
- <url>viewtopic.php?p=894656#p894656 Discussion on AoPS/MathLinks</url>