2019 AIME II Problems/Problem 14
Contents
Problem
Find the sum of all positive integers such that, given an unlimited supply of stamps of denominations
and
cents,
cents is the greatest postage that cannot be formed.
Solution 1
Notice that if we let be a multiple of
then by the Chicken McNugget Theorem we have
We find this is the smallest possible value of
.
For a value of to work, we should not be able to form the value
but we should be able to form the values from
to
. After
we can form any value by adding additional
cent stamps (
,
,
,
, and
, where
is a positive integer, together make all positive integers after
). We also need to be able to form
using only denominations of
and
because if we also used denominations of
then we could just remove a
cent stamp to get back to
Now we can figure out the working pairs that can be used to obtain
. We also need to make sure we can get the numbers
but not
with denominations of
. We can use no more than a total of
stamps. Let
where
is the number of
stamps used and
is the number of
stamps used. The possible
pairs are:
Solving for
in each
pair we find that the potential solutions are:
The first pair doesn't work because and the last two don't work either because they are too large to form the values
through
. Finally,
and
don't work because they can also form
with denominations of
(for example,
). We are left with
Now we need to make sure that
can be formed. We know from the Chicken McNugget Theorem that
is the largest unformable number with denominations
and
so this means that all numbers after
should be formable, and we can bash to confirm that all numbers from
can be formed with denominations of
and
However, we find that
cannot be formed with denominations of
and
so
is eliminated. Then
. The requested sum is
.
~Revisions by emerald_block, Mathkiddie
Note on finding and testing potential pairs
In order to find potential pairs, we simply test all combinations of
and
that sum to less than
(so that
) to see if they produce an integer value of
when their sum is set to
. Note that, since
is divisible by
,
,
, and
, we must either use only
or only
, as otherwise, the sum is guaranteed to not be divisible by one of the numbers
,
, and
.
To test whether a pair works, we simply check that, using the number and the two numbers in the pair, it is impossible to form a sum of
, and it is possible to form sums of
,
, and
. (
can always be formed using only
s, and the pair is already able to form
because that was how it was found.) We simply need to reach the residues
,
, and
using only
and
without going over the number we are trying to form, while being unable to do so with the residue
. As stated in the above solution, the last two pairs are clearly too large to work.
(Note that if a pair is unable to fulfill a single requirement, there is no need to check the rest.)
Solution 2
Notice that once we hit all residues , we'd be able to get any number greater (since we can continually add
to each residue). Furthermore,
since otherwise
is obtainable (by repeatedly adding
to either
or
) Since the given numbers are
,
, and
, we consider two cases: when
and when
is not that.
When , we can only hit all residues
once we get to
(since
and
only contribute
more residue
). Looking at multiples of
greater than
with
, we get
. It's easy to check that this works. Furthermore, any
greater than this does not work since
isn't the largest unobtainable value (can be verified using Chicken McNugget Theorem).
Now, if , then we'd need to go up to
until we can hit all residues
since
and
create
distinct residues
. Checking for such
gives
and
. It's easy to check that
works, but
does not (since
is unobtainable). Furthermore, any
greater than this does not work since
isn't the largest unobtainable value in those cases (can be verified using Chicken McNugget Theorem). (Also note that in the
case, the residue
has will not be produced until
while the
case has already been produced, so the highest possible value that cannot be produced would not be a number equivalent to
)
Since we've checked all residues , we can be sure that these are all the possible values of
. Hence, the answer is
. - ktong
Solution 3
Obviously . We see that the problem's condition is equivalent to: 96 is the smallest number that can be formed which is 1 mod 5, and 92, 93, 94 can be formed (95 can always be formed). Now divide this up into cases. If
, then 91 can be formed by using
and some 5's, so there are no solutions for this case. If
, then 91 can be formed by using
and some 5's, so there are no solutions for this case either.
For ,
is the smallest value that can be formed which is 1 mod 5, so
and
. We see that
,
, and
, so
does work. If
, then the smallest value that can be formed which is 1 mod 5 is
, so
and
. We see that
and
, but 92 cannot be formed, so there are no solutions for this case. If
, then we can just ignore
since it is a multiple of 5, meaning that the Chicken McNugget theorem is a both necessary and sufficient condition, and it states that
meaning
and
.
Hence, the only two
that work are
and
, so our answer is
.
-Stormersyle
Solution 4 (standard)
Consider a postage that gives . We cannot use a
-stamp as otherwise simply removing it yields a postage that gives
. Additionally, there cannot be at least
of
-stamps or
-stamps, as else we can convert
of the same valued stamp into a positive number of
-stamps, then remove one to get a postage of
.
From here consider integers where
. The only pairs
that yield an integer value are
which generate the values
respectively. It is easy to find counterexamples of postages that evaluate to
besides
.
Now for clearly
is unobtainable since we need a
amount of
-stamps which exceeds a value of
. A similar result holds for
as any evaluation
can only be
. In both cases it is easy to construct a postage for
, to which repeatedly adding
-stamps makes all postages worth
possible. The requesteed sum is
.
- blueprimes
Solution 5
We can use the formula , where
is the Frobenius Number (in this case 91),
is the smallest denomination (which is 5),
represents a remainder (residue class) when you divide an integer by
and
is the smallest nonnegative integer such that
where
and
are also nonnegative integers. So we have
This means that the largest of the
values must be equal to exactly
We will do casework on
Case 1:
Plug this in:
:
So
:
So
:
So
:
So
This is the largest of the four
values. Setting this equal to
we get
But this doesn't work because
is not congruent to
Case 2:
Plug this in:
:
So
:
So
:
So
:
So
The largest of the four values is
Setting this equal to
we get
Now this works!
is indeed
Case 3:
Plug this in:
:
So
:
So
:
So
:
So
The largest of the four values is
Setting this equal to
we get
which is not an integer. So this doesn't work.
Case 4:
We notice that will be a multiple of
so we're left with the denominations of
and
. Since these are two relatively prime numbers, we can do a straightforward application of the Chicken Mcnugget Theorem to get
This works because
Case 5:
Same thing as case only this time we are left with denominations of
and
Applying the Chicken Mcnugget Theorem gives
but this doesn't work because
clearly isn't a multiple of
.
The two valid values we found were and
so the sum is
Video Solution
Video solution by Dr. Osman Nal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTZP2e-_rjA
See Also
2019 AIME II (Problems • Answer Key • Resources) | ||
Preceded by Problem 13 |
Followed by Problem 15 | |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 | ||
All AIME Problems and Solutions |
These problems are copyrighted © by the Mathematical Association of America, as part of the American Mathematics Competitions.