Difference between revisions of "2018 AMC 10B Problems/Problem 25"
(→Solution 8 (Also Gives General Formula For Values of x)) |
m (→Solution 3) |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
Another Note (not by author of previous note): we can actually determine that <math>x</math>=0 is the only possible integer value of <math>x</math> is we set <math>x</math>=<math>\lfloor x \rfloor</math> we end up with <math>x</math>=0 ~YJC64002776 | Another Note (not by author of previous note): we can actually determine that <math>x</math>=0 is the only possible integer value of <math>x</math> is we set <math>x</math>=<math>\lfloor x \rfloor</math> we end up with <math>x</math>=0 ~YJC64002776 | ||
− | Yet Another Note EXCEPT THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT, AS IT DISPROVES THE PROOF (also not by the author of any previous notes or of the original solution): this solution claims that <math>-99 \leq x \leq 99</math>, which is not entirely true. When | + | Yet Another Note EXCEPT THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT, AS IT DISPROVES THE PROOF (also not by the author of any previous notes or of the original solution): this solution claims that <math>-99 \leq x \leq 99</math>, which is not entirely true. When <math>x = 5000-1000\sqrt{26}</math>, the equation originally stated in the question holds true. <math>5000-1000\sqrt{26}</math> is roughly <math>-99.0195</math> (rounded to the nearest ten thousandth), which is not in the <math>-99 \leq x \leq 99</math> interval. It is probably by mere coincidence that this solution gives the correct answer, as the solution is not rigorous. Additionally, <math>x</math> is not necessarily integer, so it is not claimable that there are 199 elements in the range of <math>-99 \leq x \leq 99</math>. |
==Solution 4== | ==Solution 4== |
Revision as of 00:55, 31 July 2025
- The following problem is from both the 2018 AMC 10B #25 and 2018 AMC 12B #24, so both problems redirect to this page.
Contents
Problem
Let denote the greatest integer less than or equal to
. How many real numbers
satisfy the equation
?
Solution 1
This rewrites itself to where
.
Graphing and
we see that the former is a set of line segments with slope
from
to
with a hole at
, then
to
with a hole at
etc.
Here is a graph of
and
for visualization.
Now notice that when the graph has a hole at
which the equation
passes through and then continues upwards. Thus our set of possible solutions is bounded by
. We can see that
intersects each of the lines once and there are
lines for an answer of
.
Solution 2
Same as the first solution, .
We can write as
. Expanding everything, we get a quadratic in
in terms of
:
We use the quadratic formula to solve for :
Since , we get an inequality which we can then solve. After simplifying a lot, we get that
.
Solving over the integers, , and since
is an integer, there are
solutions. Each value of
should correspond to one value of
, so we are done.
Solution 3
Let where
is the integer part of
and
is the fractional part of
.
We can then rewrite the problem below:
From here, we get
Solving for
Because , we know that
cannot be less than or equal to
nor greater than or equal to
. Therefore:
There are elements in this range, so the answer is
.
Note (not by author): this solution seems to be invalid at first, because one can not determine whether is an integer or not. However, it actually works because although
itself might not be an integer, it is very close to one, so there are 199 potential
.
Another Note (not by author of previous note): we can actually determine that =0 is the only possible integer value of
is we set
=
we end up with
=0 ~YJC64002776
Yet Another Note EXCEPT THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT, AS IT DISPROVES THE PROOF (also not by the author of any previous notes or of the original solution): this solution claims that , which is not entirely true. When
, the equation originally stated in the question holds true.
is roughly
(rounded to the nearest ten thousandth), which is not in the
interval. It is probably by mere coincidence that this solution gives the correct answer, as the solution is not rigorous. Additionally,
is not necessarily integer, so it is not claimable that there are 199 elements in the range of
.
Solution 4
Notice the given equation is equivalent to
Now we know that so plugging in
for
we can find the upper and lower bounds for the values.
And just like , we see that
, and since
is an integer, there are
solutions. Each value of
should correspond to one value of
, so we are done.
Solution 5
Firstly, if is an integer, then
, so
must be
.
If , then we know the following:
Therefore, , which overlaps with
. This means that there is at least one real solution between
and
. Since
increases quadratically and
increases linearly, there is only one solution for this case.
Similarly, if , then we know the following:
By following similar logic, we can find that there is one solution between ad
.
We can also follow the same process to find that there are negative solutions for as well.
There are not an infinite amount of solutions, so at one point there will be no solutions when for some integer
. For there to be no solutions in a given range means that the range of
does not intersect the range of
.
will always be positive, and
is less than
less than
, so when
, the equation will have no solutions. This means that there are
positive solutions,
negative solutions, and
for a total of
solutions.
~Owen1204
Solution 6 (General Equation)
General solution to this type of equation :
1. solvefor
to get
2. apply
, solve
to get the domain of
3. get
from the domain of
because
is integer, then get
from
by
Note: function
maps
to its floor. By solving
, we get function
, mapping
's floor to
![]()
,
If ,
, it contradicts
So
Let ,
So the number of 's values is
. Because
, for each value of
, there is a value for
. The answer is
Solution 7
Subtracting from both sides gives
. Dividing both sides by
gives
.
when
so the answer is
.
~randomdude10807
Solution 8 (Also Gives General Formula For Values of x)
The question wants to know how many values of satisfy the equation
. This equation can be simplified as follows
Notice that must be greater than or equal to zero, but less than one. Because of that, the right-hand side of the equation must be less than
. Therefore,
.
can be expressed as
, where
is an integer and
is a real number such that
. Notice that in order to satisfy the conditions set down for
,
.
Substituting and
into
, we get
Let's try to turn this into a quadratic equation where we're trying to solve for . Simplifying, we find
Now the value of depends on the value of
. Our task is to figure out how many values of
will give me valid values of
(a.k.a the values of
that give me
such that
), as that will be our answer. We must also keep in mind that
.
Using the quadratic formula, we can find
The equation above represents the values of in terms of
. Since it represents
, we want values of
such that the equation is between zero and one, zero inclusive. We can then conceive the inequality below.
Wow, that looks like a mess! How are we supposed to easily use such a complicated expression? Maybe it would help to simplify it further. First, let's notice a few things.
- I want the numerator to be between 0 and 2, 0 inclusive. Of the
in the quadratic formula, only the "
" (minus) will work. Why? Because
will always be positive (if I plug in the largest possible value of
,
, it will give
), and if I want
to be real, which I do, then
should also be positive.
will already be much bigger than 2, and adding more on will only make it bigger. It will never be less than 2. It will never work.
- I can simplify the numbers under the square root using Difference of Squares. I can turn
into
. Applying Difference of Squares, it will eventually simplify out to be
.
Cool! Now we've simplified the square root and figured out that it must be a minus sign, not a plus sign. Our new inequality looks like this:
Simplifying the unsimplified fraction farther, we can get this:
Yay! A simpler equation. As long as the value fits this inequality, the restrictions set on
are satisfied. But wait. What about the restrictions on
?
By testing out and
(and finding that
gives a value very close to
, and that
gives exactly
), we can conclude that any value of
a
will satisfy the inequality above as long as it does not make
equal to
. By testing
and
, you will also find that
will not satisfy the inequality.
This means that the inequality describing all possible values of is
.
Remember how these values of give valid values of
that satisfy the desired inequality
and how adding up
and
gives
. In summary, remember that the number of values of
is equivalent to the number of values of
.
must be integer, so the number of values of
that satisfy
is
.
The answer is .
~ :)
Note From Author of Solution: you may have noticed that I missed a slight bit by not proving that the thing under the square root in the quadratic formula I made was positive. Don't worry, it wasn't a mistake. It's actually pretty easy to prove. I'll leave it to you to figure out how to do it!
Another Note From Author of Solution: you may also have noticed that I was not very rigorous in proving that the values of from
to
inclusive were possible. I plan to come back and fix that, once I figure out how to. If you have any idea, feel free to add your idea!
Video Solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHKPbaXwJUE
See Also
2018 AMC 10B (Problems • Answer Key • Resources) | ||
Preceded by Problem 24 |
Followed by Last Problem | |
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 |
2018 AMC 12B (Problems • Answer Key • Resources) | |
Preceded by Problem 23 |
Followed by Problem 25 |
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 12 Problems and Solutions |
These problems are copyrighted © by the Mathematical Association of America, as part of the American Mathematics Competitions.