Difference between revisions of "2020 AMC 10A Problems/Problem 22"
|  (→See Also) | m (→Solution 1) | ||
| (190 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Problem== | ||
| For how many positive integers <math>n \le 1000</math> is<cmath>\left\lfloor \dfrac{998}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{999}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{1000}{n}\right \rfloor</cmath>not divisible by <math>3</math>? (Recall that <math>\lfloor x \rfloor</math> is the greatest integer less than or equal to <math>x</math>.) | For how many positive integers <math>n \le 1000</math> is<cmath>\left\lfloor \dfrac{998}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{999}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{1000}{n}\right \rfloor</cmath>not divisible by <math>3</math>? (Recall that <math>\lfloor x \rfloor</math> is the greatest integer less than or equal to <math>x</math>.) | ||
| <math>\textbf{(A) } 22 \qquad\textbf{(B) } 23 \qquad\textbf{(C) } 24 \qquad\textbf{(D) } 25 \qquad\textbf{(E) } 26</math> | <math>\textbf{(A) } 22 \qquad\textbf{(B) } 23 \qquad\textbf{(C) } 24 \qquad\textbf{(D) } 25 \qquad\textbf{(E) } 26</math> | ||
| − | == Solution == | + | ==Solution 1==   | 
| + | If <math>n</math> is a factor of <math>999</math> (and <math>n \neq 1</math>), then let <math>999 = an</math> for some positive integer <math>a.</math> Then we get <math>\lfloor 998/n \rfloor = a - 1</math>, <math>\lfloor 999/n \rfloor =a</math>, <math>\lfloor 1000/n \rfloor = a</math>. The sum is <math>3a - 1,</math> which isn't a multiple of 3. If <math>n</math> is a factor of <math>1000</math> (and <math>n \neq 1</math>), then let <math>1000 = an.</math> Then we get <math>\lfloor 998/n \rfloor = a - 1</math>, <math>\lfloor 999/n \rfloor = a - 1</math>, and <math>\lfloor 1000/n \rfloor = a.</math> The sum is <math>3a - 2,</math> which also isn't a multiple of 3.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | We find that the only way for the problem's condition to hold true is if <math>n</math> is a factor of <math>999</math> or <math>1000</math> and <math>n \neq 1</math>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * <math>1000 = 5^3 \cdot 2^3 \implies (3+1)(3+1) = 16</math> factors.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | * <math>999 = 3^3 \cdot 37 \implies (3+1)(1+1) = 8</math> factors.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | We counted <math>1</math> twice. So the answer is <math>16 + 8 - 2 = \boxed{22}.</math>  | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~[[User:grogg007|grogg007]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Solution 2== | ||
| + | Clearly, <math>n=1</math> fails. Except for the special case of <math>n=1</math>, | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor - \left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor</cmath> | ||
| + | equals either <math>0</math> or <math>1</math>. If it equals <math>0</math>, this implies that <math>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor</math>, so their sum is clearly a multiple of <math>3</math>, so this will always fail. If it equals <math>1</math>, the sum of the three floor terms is <math>3 \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor \pm 1</math>, so it is never a multiple of <math>3</math>. Thus, we are looking for all <math>n \neq 1</math> such that | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor - \left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor = 1.</cmath> | ||
| + | This implies that either | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor,</cmath> | ||
| + | or | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor.</cmath> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Let's analyze the first equation of these two. This equation is equivalent to the statement that there is a positive integer <math>a</math> such that | ||
| + | <cmath>\frac{998}{n} < a \leq \frac{999}{n} \implies 998 < an \leq 999 \implies an = 999 \implies a = \frac{999}{n} \implies n | 999.*</cmath> | ||
| + | Analogously, the second equation implies that | ||
| + | <cmath>n | 1000.</cmath> | ||
| + | So our only <math>n</math> that satisfy this condition are <math>n \neq 1</math> that divide <math>999</math> or <math>1000</math>. Using the method to find the number of divisors of a number, we see that <math>999</math> has <math>8</math> divisors and <math>1000</math> has <math>16</math> divisors. Their only common factor is <math>1</math>, so there are <math>8+16-1 = 23</math> positive integers that divide either <math>999</math> or <math>1000</math>. Since the integer <math>1</math> is a special case and does not count, we must subtract this from our <math>23</math>, so our final answer is <math>23-1 = \boxed{\textbf{(A) } 22}.</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + |  *While this observation may seem strange, it is actually "trivial by intuition" to go straight from <math>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor</math> to <math>n | 999</math>. In fact, "trivial by intuition" is basically a good summary of the solution to this entire problem. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~ihatemath123 | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Solution 3== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Counting down <math>n</math> from <math>1000</math>, <math>999</math>, <math>998</math>... we notice that <math>\left\lfloor \dfrac{998}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{999}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{1000}{n}\right \rfloor</math> is only not divisible by <math>3</math> when n is a divisor of ''only'' <math>1000</math> or <math>999 (1000, 999, 500, 333</math>...). Notice how the factors of <math>998: 1, 2, 499</math>, and <math>998</math>, do not work.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | The prime factorization of <math>999</math> is <math>3^3\cdot37</math>, so <math>4\cdot2=8</math> factors in total. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The prime factorization of <math>1000</math> is <math>2^3\cdot5^3</math>, so <math>4\cdot4=16</math> factors in total. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, <math>1</math> obviously does not work, so we have to subtract <math>2</math> (<math>1</math> is counted twice) from the total. <math>8 + 16 - 2</math> = <math>\boxed{\textbf{(A)}22}</math>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~BLOATED_BAGEL | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~Typo fixed by evanhliu2009 | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Solution 4== | ||
| + | First, we notice the following lemma: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Lemma}</math>: For <math>N, n \in \mathbb{N}</math>, <math> \left\lfloor \frac{N}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{N-1}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 </math> if <math>n \mid N</math>; and <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{N-1}{n} \right\rfloor</math>  if <math>n \nmid N.</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Proof}</math>: Let <math>A = kn + r</math>, with <math>0 \leq r < n</math>. If <math>n \mid N</math>, then <math>r = 0</math>. Hence <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N}{n} \right\rfloor = k</math>, <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N-1}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{(k-1)n+n-1}{n} \right\rfloor = k-1 + \left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{n} \right\rfloor = k-1</math>, and <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{N-1}{n} \right\rfloor + 1.</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | If <math>n \nmid N</math>, then <math>1 \leq r < n</math>. Hence <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N}{n} \right\rfloor = k</math>, <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N-1}{n} \right\rfloor = k + \left\lfloor \frac{r-1}{n} \right\rfloor = k</math>, and <math>\left\lfloor \frac{N}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{N-1}{n} \right\rfloor.</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | From the lemma and the given equation, we have four possible cases: | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor - 1 \qquad (1)</cmath> | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor \qquad (2)</cmath> | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor \qquad (3)</cmath> | ||
| + | <cmath>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor \qquad (4)</cmath> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that cases (2) and (3) are the cases in which the term, <math>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor,</math> is not divisible by <math>3</math>. So we only need to count the number of <math>n</math>'s for which cases (2) and (3) stand. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Case (2): By the lemma, we have <math>n \mid 1000</math> and <math>n \nmid 999.</math> Hence <math>n</math> can be any factor of <math>1000</math> except for <math>n = 1</math>. Since <math>1000 = 2^3 * 5^3,</math> there are <math>(3+1)(3+1) - 1 = 15</math> possible values of <math>n</math> for this case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Case (3): By the lemma, we have <math>n \mid 999</math> and <math>n \nmid 998.</math> Hence <math>n</math> can be any factor of <math>999</math> except for <math>n = 1</math>. Since <math>999 = 3^3 * 37^1,</math> there are <math>(3+1)(1+1) - 1 = 7</math> possible values of <math>n</math> for this case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So in total, we have total of <math>15+7=\boxed{\textbf{(A)}22}</math> possible <math>n</math>'s. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~mathboywannabe | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Solution 5 (Casework)== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that <math>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor</math> is a multiple of <math>3</math> if <math>\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor</math> lies between two consecutive multiples of <math>n</math>.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Explanation:}</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Let's assume that the above expression does indeed lie betweent two consecutive multiples of <math>n</math>. This implies that <math>n</math> does not divide either <math>998, 999</math> or <math>1000</math>, meaning that when divided by <math>n</math>, none of the quotients are whole. In turn, this also means that they will all have the same whole number part.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | If <math>\frac{998}{n}, \frac{999}{n},</math> and <math>\frac{1000}{n}</math> were to have a different whole number part, then <math>n</math> would have to lie within <math>998</math> and <math>1000</math>. If this is confusing, think of why <math>\frac{6}{5}, \frac{7}{5}</math> and <math>\frac{8}{5}</math> have the same whole number part (<math>1</math> in this case). Here, <math>n=5</math>. What happens to the whole number part when <math>n=7</math>?  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Since <math>\frac{998}{n}, \frac{999}{n},</math> and <math>\frac{1000}{n}</math> have identical whole number parts, their floors are identical, since the floor of a number is equal to its whole number part, discarding its fractional component.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Let <math>k</math> be the number we get when we floor <math>\frac{998}{n}, \frac{999}{n},</math> or <math>\frac{1000}{n}</math> if the three of those numbers lie between two consecutive multiples of <math>n</math>. Adding them up, we get <math>3k</math> (due to their floors being the same), which is a mulutiple of <math>3</math>. So no matter what, we cannot have <math>\frac{998}{n}, \frac{999}{n},</math> and <math>\frac{1000}{n}</math> lie between two consecutive multiples of <math>n</math>.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | What does this mean? It means that there must be some multiple of <math>n</math> within this expression (with some restrictions, as we'll see), in order to prevent the violation of the main restriction. We can proceed with casework now. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Case 1}</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Let's assume that the multiple of <math>n</math> is located at <math>\frac{998}{n}</math>. Luckily, the only prime factors of <math>998</math> are <math>2</math> and <math>499</math>.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | We can observe that <math>499</math> doesn't work, since <math>\frac{998}{499}</math> and <math>\frac{1000}{499}</math> will both round down to <math>2</math> when divided by it. However, <math>2</math> does work, since it divides both <math>998</math> and <math>1000</math>. The floor of <math>\frac{999}{2}</math> is <math>499</math>, , meaning that when we evaluate the given expression for <math>n=2</math>, we will get <math>2\cdot{499}+500</math> which isn't a multiple of <math>3</math>.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | This case works because we have a multiple of <math>n</math> at the end of the expression, as well as the beginning, so the whole number parts of <math>998, 999</math> and <math>1000</math> when divided by <math>n</math> are not all the same, due to <math>n</math> dividing two of these numbers.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | The restriction of <math>n</math> dividing more than one number within the expression is only valid when we're testing the first number in the given expression (otherwise, the other floors wouldn't round down to the same value as the first).  | ||
| + | |||
| + | Case <math>1</math> is complete, and we've found that only <math>2</math> works.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Case 2}</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Now, let's assume that the multiple of <math>n</math> is located at <math>\frac{999}{n}</math>. In this case, if <math>n</math> divides <math>999</math>, it doesn't divide <math>998</math> (since two multiples of a number greater than <math>1</math> are never consecutive), nor does it divide <math>1000</math>, for the same reason.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The prime factorization of <math>999</math> is <math>3^3\cdot37</math>, and thus has <math>(3+1)(1+1)=8</math> divisors.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | When testing a few values of <math>n</math> initially, we observed that <math>n=1</math> causes the expression to be divisible by <math>3</math>. Subtracting <math>1</math>, we see that there are <math>7</math> values of <math>n</math> that work for this case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Case 3}</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally, let's assume that the multiple of <math>n</math> is located at <math>\frac{1000}{n}.</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Our goal is to have the other multiple of <math>n</math> below whatever <math>\frac{998}{n}</math> is, so we won't have identical floors throughout the expression.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Once again, any factor of <math>1000</math>, except for <math>2</math> is relatively prime to both <math>998</math> and <math>999</math>, so when we floor those two numbers, we get an integer that isn't <math>500</math>.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <math>1000</math> factors as <math>2^3\cdot{5^3}</math>, meaning that it has <math>(3+1)(3+1)=16</math> divisors. <math>1</math> and <math>2</math> either don't work or have already been counted, so there are <math>14</math> valid values of <math>n</math> for this case.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <math>\textbf{Ending}</math>  | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Adding these three cases, we get <math>1+7+14= \boxed{\textbf{A) }22} </math> values of <math>n</math>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -Benedict T (countmath1) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Solution 6 (simple, fast)== | ||
| + | Let <math>\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \rfloor + \lfloor \frac{999}{n} \rfloor + \lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \rfloor</math> be (1). | ||
| + | Claim : If <math>n</math> is a factor of at least one of 998, 999, 1000, then (1) is NOT divisible by 3.  | ||
| + | Proof of the claim :  | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you don't understand this, let's test out some possible values. Evaluating the expression using <math>n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5</math> show that the expression isn't divisible by 3. And when <math>n = 6</math>, we have  | ||
| + | <cmath>\lfloor \frac{998}{6} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{999}{6} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{1000}{6} \rfloor = 166</cmath> | ||
| + | This justifies that the expression is divisible by 3.  | ||
| + | |||
| + | Therefore, let <math>S</math> be the set of numbers (not incl. 1) for which this is divisible by 3, which is <math>S = \{2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 20, 27, 37, 40, 50, 100, 111, 200, 333, 400, 499, 500, 999, 1000\}</math>. Adding 1 to this gives <math>21 + 1 = 22</math> values. <math>\boxed{\textbf{(A) }22} </math>  | ||
| + | Q. E. D.  | ||
| + | ~elpianista227 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Video Solutions== | ||
| + | ===Video Solution 1 (Simple)=== | ||
| + | Education, The Study of Everything | ||
| + | |||
| + | https://youtu.be/LWAYKQQX6KI | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Video Solution 2=== | ||
| + | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ej9nnHS07s | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~Snore | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Video Solution 3=== | ||
| + | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UVS5aM-CY&list=PLLCzevlMcsWNcTZEaxHe8VaccrhubDOlQ&index=4 ~ MathEx | ||
| + | ===Video Solution 4 (Richard Rusczyk)=== | ||
| + | https://artofproblemsolving.com/videos/amc/2020amc10a/517 | ||
| ==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:07, 5 August 2025
Contents
Problem
For how many positive integers  is
 is![\[\left\lfloor \dfrac{998}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{999}{n} \right\rfloor+\left\lfloor \dfrac{1000}{n}\right \rfloor\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/c/f/ecf19881ad8af2e05ead7ef6e66e04ba6a038739.png) not divisible by
not divisible by  ? (Recall that
? (Recall that  is the greatest integer less than or equal to
 is the greatest integer less than or equal to  .)
.)
 
Solution 1
If  is a factor of
 is a factor of  (and
 (and  ), then let
), then let  for some positive integer
 for some positive integer  Then we get
 Then we get  ,
,  ,
,  . The sum is
. The sum is  which isn't a multiple of 3. If
 which isn't a multiple of 3. If  is a factor of
 is a factor of  (and
 (and  ), then let
), then let  Then we get
 Then we get  ,
,  , and
, and  The sum is
 The sum is  which also isn't a multiple of 3.
 which also isn't a multiple of 3. 
We find that the only way for the problem's condition to hold true is if  is a factor of
 is a factor of  or
 or  and
 and  .
.
 factors. factors.
 factors. factors.
We counted  twice. So the answer is
 twice. So the answer is  
 
Solution 2
Clearly,  fails. Except for the special case of
 fails. Except for the special case of  ,
,
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor - \left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/1/3/d131cf36cbb8624b185d23a4d99d4eedb9e95563.png) equals either
equals either  or
 or  . If it equals
. If it equals  , this implies that
, this implies that  , so their sum is clearly a multiple of
, so their sum is clearly a multiple of  , so this will always fail. If it equals
, so this will always fail. If it equals  , the sum of the three floor terms is
, the sum of the three floor terms is  , so it is never a multiple of
, so it is never a multiple of  . Thus, we are looking for all
. Thus, we are looking for all  such that
 such that
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor - \left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor = 1.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/a/f/5af8b32ff72072447cd8238c92b3399ddd9cc353.png) This implies that either
This implies that either
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor,\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/2/3/0/2308471101c54f0c15728b885fe38648ec8dce80.png) or
or
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/6/0/860b8b6c5877dff1334c41e7a21bdbb4d6cfa17e.png) 
Let's analyze the first equation of these two. This equation is equivalent to the statement that there is a positive integer  such that
 such that
![\[\frac{998}{n} < a \leq \frac{999}{n} \implies 998 < an \leq 999 \implies an = 999 \implies a = \frac{999}{n} \implies n | 999.*\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/5/6/5566c5b62083d605f78c80a30b42fde19717f40c.png) Analogously, the second equation implies that
Analogously, the second equation implies that
![\[n | 1000.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/f/8/0f8a220f5443bcd989f6af775c83fdbc1f3174b5.png) So our only
So our only  that satisfy this condition are
 that satisfy this condition are  that divide
 that divide  or
 or  . Using the method to find the number of divisors of a number, we see that
. Using the method to find the number of divisors of a number, we see that  has
 has  divisors and
 divisors and  has
 has  divisors. Their only common factor is
 divisors. Their only common factor is  , so there are
, so there are  positive integers that divide either
 positive integers that divide either  or
 or  . Since the integer
. Since the integer  is a special case and does not count, we must subtract this from our
 is a special case and does not count, we must subtract this from our  , so our final answer is
, so our final answer is  
*While this observation may seem strange, it is actually "trivial by intuition" to go straight fromto
. In fact, "trivial by intuition" is basically a good summary of the solution to this entire problem.
~ihatemath123
Solution 3
Counting down  from
 from  ,
,  ,
,  ... we notice that
... we notice that  is only not divisible by
 is only not divisible by  when n is a divisor of only
 when n is a divisor of only  or
 or  ...). Notice how the factors of
...). Notice how the factors of  , and
, and  , do not work.
, do not work. 
The prime factorization of  is
 is  , so
, so  factors in total.
 factors in total.
The prime factorization of  is
 is  , so
, so  factors in total.
 factors in total.
However,  obviously does not work, so we have to subtract
 obviously does not work, so we have to subtract  (
 ( is counted twice) from the total.
 is counted twice) from the total.  =
 =  .
.
~BLOATED_BAGEL
~Typo fixed by evanhliu2009
Solution 4
First, we notice the following lemma:
 : For
: For  ,
,  if
 if  ; and
; and  if
  if  
 : Let
: Let  , with
, with  . If
. If  , then
, then  . Hence
. Hence  ,
,  , and
, and  
If  , then
, then  . Hence
. Hence  ,
,  , and
, and  
From the lemma and the given equation, we have four possible cases:
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor - 1 \qquad (1)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/4/9/0493b1d6dfba5bc057d4e727447320afc0c13e11.png) 
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor \qquad (2)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/6/8/0685b2bcbefc4c6b6d84068e23cdde1629f95242.png) 
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor \qquad (3)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/c/4/c/c4c1d07e2591aa2072dea43084ed74e3f6b0c2a4.png) 
![\[\left\lfloor \frac{998}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{999}{n} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor \frac{1000}{n} \right\rfloor \qquad (4)\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/7/a/57a4d1cc6b09258fac775d98dbdf87c24a5f0bc3.png) 
Note that cases (2) and (3) are the cases in which the term,  is not divisible by
 is not divisible by  . So we only need to count the number of
. So we only need to count the number of  's for which cases (2) and (3) stand.
's for which cases (2) and (3) stand.
Case (2): By the lemma, we have  and
 and  Hence
 Hence  can be any factor of
 can be any factor of  except for
 except for  . Since
. Since  there are
 there are  possible values of
 possible values of  for this case.
 for this case.
Case (3): By the lemma, we have  and
 and  Hence
 Hence  can be any factor of
 can be any factor of  except for
 except for  . Since
. Since  there are
 there are  possible values of
 possible values of  for this case.
 for this case.
So in total, we have total of  possible
 possible  's.
's.
~mathboywannabe
Solution 5 (Casework)
Note that  is a multiple of
 is a multiple of  if
 if  lies between two consecutive multiples of
 lies between two consecutive multiples of  .
. 
 
Let's assume that the above expression does indeed lie betweent two consecutive multiples of  . This implies that
. This implies that  does not divide either
 does not divide either  or
 or  , meaning that when divided by
, meaning that when divided by  , none of the quotients are whole. In turn, this also means that they will all have the same whole number part.
, none of the quotients are whole. In turn, this also means that they will all have the same whole number part. 
If  and
 and  were to have a different whole number part, then
 were to have a different whole number part, then  would have to lie within
 would have to lie within  and
 and  . If this is confusing, think of why
. If this is confusing, think of why  and
 and  have the same whole number part (
 have the same whole number part ( in this case). Here,
 in this case). Here,  . What happens to the whole number part when
. What happens to the whole number part when  ?
? 
Since  and
 and  have identical whole number parts, their floors are identical, since the floor of a number is equal to its whole number part, discarding its fractional component.
 have identical whole number parts, their floors are identical, since the floor of a number is equal to its whole number part, discarding its fractional component. 
Let  be the number we get when we floor
 be the number we get when we floor  or
 or  if the three of those numbers lie between two consecutive multiples of
 if the three of those numbers lie between two consecutive multiples of  . Adding them up, we get
. Adding them up, we get  (due to their floors being the same), which is a mulutiple of
 (due to their floors being the same), which is a mulutiple of  . So no matter what, we cannot have
. So no matter what, we cannot have  and
 and  lie between two consecutive multiples of
 lie between two consecutive multiples of  .
. 
What does this mean? It means that there must be some multiple of  within this expression (with some restrictions, as we'll see), in order to prevent the violation of the main restriction. We can proceed with casework now.
 within this expression (with some restrictions, as we'll see), in order to prevent the violation of the main restriction. We can proceed with casework now.
 
Let's assume that the multiple of  is located at
 is located at  . Luckily, the only prime factors of
. Luckily, the only prime factors of  are
 are  and
 and  .
. 
We can observe that  doesn't work, since
 doesn't work, since  and
 and  will both round down to
 will both round down to  when divided by it. However,
 when divided by it. However,  does work, since it divides both
 does work, since it divides both  and
 and  . The floor of
. The floor of  is
 is  , , meaning that when we evaluate the given expression for
, , meaning that when we evaluate the given expression for  , we will get
, we will get  which isn't a multiple of
 which isn't a multiple of  .
. 
This case works because we have a multiple of  at the end of the expression, as well as the beginning, so the whole number parts of
 at the end of the expression, as well as the beginning, so the whole number parts of  and
 and  when divided by
 when divided by  are not all the same, due to
 are not all the same, due to  dividing two of these numbers.
 dividing two of these numbers. 
The restriction of  dividing more than one number within the expression is only valid when we're testing the first number in the given expression (otherwise, the other floors wouldn't round down to the same value as the first).
 dividing more than one number within the expression is only valid when we're testing the first number in the given expression (otherwise, the other floors wouldn't round down to the same value as the first). 
Case  is complete, and we've found that only
 is complete, and we've found that only  works.
 works. 
 
Now, let's assume that the multiple of  is located at
 is located at  . In this case, if
. In this case, if  divides
 divides  , it doesn't divide
, it doesn't divide  (since two multiples of a number greater than
 (since two multiples of a number greater than  are never consecutive), nor does it divide
 are never consecutive), nor does it divide  , for the same reason.
, for the same reason. 
The prime factorization of  is
 is  , and thus has
, and thus has  divisors.
 divisors. 
When testing a few values of  initially, we observed that
 initially, we observed that  causes the expression to be divisible by
 causes the expression to be divisible by  . Subtracting
. Subtracting  , we see that there are
, we see that there are  values of
 values of  that work for this case.
 that work for this case.
 
Finally, let's assume that the multiple of  is located at
 is located at  
Our goal is to have the other multiple of  below whatever
 below whatever  is, so we won't have identical floors throughout the expression.
 is, so we won't have identical floors throughout the expression. 
Once again, any factor of  , except for
, except for  is relatively prime to both
 is relatively prime to both  and
 and  , so when we floor those two numbers, we get an integer that isn't
, so when we floor those two numbers, we get an integer that isn't  .
. 
 factors as
 factors as  , meaning that it has
, meaning that it has  divisors.
 divisors.  and
 and  either don't work or have already been counted, so there are
 either don't work or have already been counted, so there are  valid values of
 valid values of  for this case.
 for this case. 
 
 
Adding these three cases, we get  values of
 values of  .
.
-Benedict T (countmath1)
Solution 6 (simple, fast)
Let  be (1).
Claim : If
 be (1).
Claim : If  is a factor of at least one of 998, 999, 1000, then (1) is NOT divisible by 3. 
Proof of the claim :
 is a factor of at least one of 998, 999, 1000, then (1) is NOT divisible by 3. 
Proof of the claim : 
If you don't understand this, let's test out some possible values. Evaluating the expression using  show that the expression isn't divisible by 3. And when
 show that the expression isn't divisible by 3. And when  , we have
, we have 
![\[\lfloor \frac{998}{6} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{999}{6} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{1000}{6} \rfloor = 166\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/2/1/e211a5f999957e5519c3947b6be9989c0b9440ea.png) This justifies that the expression is divisible by 3.
This justifies that the expression is divisible by 3. 
Therefore, let  be the set of numbers (not incl. 1) for which this is divisible by 3, which is
 be the set of numbers (not incl. 1) for which this is divisible by 3, which is  . Adding 1 to this gives
. Adding 1 to this gives  values.
 values.  Q. E. D. 
~elpianista227
 
Q. E. D. 
~elpianista227
Video Solutions
Video Solution 1 (Simple)
Education, The Study of Everything
Video Solution 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ej9nnHS07s
~Snore
Video Solution 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UVS5aM-CY&list=PLLCzevlMcsWNcTZEaxHe8VaccrhubDOlQ&index=4 ~ MathEx
Video Solution 4 (Richard Rusczyk)
https://artofproblemsolving.com/videos/amc/2020amc10a/517
See Also
| 2020 AMC 10A (Problems • Answer Key • Resources) | ||
| Preceded by Problem 21 | Followed by Problem 23 | |
| 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 | ||
| All AMC 10 Problems and Solutions | ||
These problems are copyrighted © by the Mathematical Association of America, as part of the American Mathematics Competitions.  
 factors.
 factors. factors.
 factors. to
 to  . In fact, "trivial by intuition" is basically a good summary of the solution to this entire problem.
. In fact, "trivial by intuition" is basically a good summary of the solution to this entire problem.
