Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A–1 The function g(x) = f (x, 0) works. Substituting a01 , . . . , a0h are not. Repeating this argument for each pair
(x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0) into the given functional equa- (p, m) such that pm divides the initial product a1 , . . . , an ,
tion yields f (0, 0) = 0, whence substituting (x, y, z) = we can determine the exact prime factorization of each
(x, 0, 0) yields f (x, 0) + f (0, x) = 0. Finally, substi- of a01 , . . . , a0n . This proves that the final sequence is
tuting (x, y, z) = (x, y, 0) yields f (x, y) = − f (y, 0) − unique.
f (0, x) = g(x) − g(y). Remark: (by David Savitt and Noam Elkies) Here are
Remark: A similar argument shows that the possible two other ways to prove the termination. One is to ob-
functions g are precisely those of the form f (x, 0) + c serve that ∏ j a jj is strictly increasing at each step, and
for some c. bounded above by (a1 · · · an )n . The other is to notice
that a1 is nonincreasing but always positive, so even-
A–2 Barbara wins using one of the following strategies.
tually becomes constant; then a2 is nonincreasing but
First solution: Pair each entry of the first row with the always positive, and so on.
entry directly below it in the second row. If Alan ever
Reinterpretation: For each p, consider the sequence
writes a number in one of the first two rows, Barbara
consisting of the exponents of p in the prime factoriza-
writes the same number in the other entry in the pair. If
tions of a1 , . . . , an . At each step, we pick two positions
Alan writes a number anywhere other than the first two
i and j such that the exponents of some prime p are in
rows, Barbara does likewise. At the end, the resulting
the wrong order at positions i and j. We then sort these
matrix will have two identical rows, so its determinant
two position into the correct order for every prime p
will be zero.
simultaneously.
Second solution: (by Manjul Bhargava) Whenever
It is clear that this can only terminate with all se-
Alan writes a number x in an entry in some row, Bar-
quences being sorted into the correct order. We must
bara writes −x in some other entry in the same row. At
still check that the process terminates; however, since
the end, the resulting matrix will have all rows summing
all but finitely many of the exponent sequences consist
to zero, so it cannot have full rank.
of all zeroes, and each step makes a nontrivial switch
A–3 We first prove that the process stops. Note first that in at least one of the other exponent sequences, it is
the product a1 · · · an remains constant, because a j ak = enough to check the case of a single exponent sequence.
gcd(a j , ak ) lcm(a j , ak ). Moreover, the last number in This can be done as in the first solution.
the sequence can never decrease, because it is always Remark: Abhinav Kumar suggests the following proof
replaced by its least common multiple with another that the process always terminates in at most n2 steps.
number. Since it is bounded above (by the product of (This is a variant of the worst-case analysis of the bub-
all of the numbers), the last number must eventually ble sort algorithm.)
reach its maximum value, after which it remains con-
Consider the number of pairs (k, l) with 1 ≤ k < l ≤ n
stant throughout. After this happens, the next-to-last
such that ak does not divide al (call these bad pairs).
number will never decrease, so it eventually becomes
At each step, we find one bad pair (i, j) and eliminate
constant, and so on. After finitely many steps, all of the
it, and we do not touch any pairs that do not involve
numbers will achieve their final values, so no more steps
either i or j. If i < k < j, then neither of the pairs (i, k)
will be possible. This only happens when a j divides ak
and (k, j) can become bad, because ai is replaced by a
for all pairs j < k.
divisor of itself, while a j is replaced by a multiple of
We next check that there is only one possible final se- itself. If k < i, then (k, i) can only become a bad pair if
quence. For p a prime and m a nonnegative integer, we ak divided ai but not a j , in which case (k, j) stops being
claim that the number of integers in the list divisible bad. Similarly, if k > j, then (i, k) and ( j, k) either stay
by pm never changes. To see this, suppose we replace the same or switch status. Hence the number of bad
a j , ak by gcd(a j , ak ), lcm(a j , ak ). If neither of a j , ak is pairs goes
down by at least 1 each time; since it is at
divisible by pm , then neither of gcd(a j , ak ), lcm(a j , ak ) most n2 to begin with, this is an upper bound for the
is either. If exactly one a j , ak is divisible by pm , then number of steps.
lcm(a j , ak ) is divisible by pm but gcd(a j , ak ) is not.
Remark: This problem is closely related to the clas-
gcd(a j , ak ), lcm(a j , ak ) are as well. sification theorem for finite abelian groups. Namely,
If we started out with exactly h numbers not divisible if a1 , . . . , an and a01 , . . . , a0n are the sequences obtained
by pm , then in the final sequence a01 , . . . , a0n , the num- at two different steps in the process, then the abelian
bers a0h+1 , . . . , a0n are divisible by pm while the numbers
2
groups Z/a1 Z × · · · × Z/an Z and Z/a01 Z × · · · × Z/a0n Z up with 0, ∗, 1 for any of ∗ = a, b, c, whereas for the pen-
are isomorphic. The final sequence gives a canonical tagon we can end up with 0, ∗, 1 for any of ∗ = a, b.
presentation of this group; the terms of this sequence Consequently, the final sequence is determined by the
are called the elementary divisors or invariant factors initial sequence if and only if L is distributive.
of the group.
Remark: (by Tom Belulovich) A lattice is a partially A–4 The sum diverges. From the definition, f (x) = x on
e
ordered set L in which for any two x, y ∈ L, there is a [1, e], x ln x on (e, ee ], x ln x ln ln x on (ee , ee ], and so
unique minimal element z with z ≥ x and z ≥ y, called forth. It follows that on [1, ∞), f is positive, continu-
1
the join and denoted x ∧ y, and there is a unique max- ous, and increasing. Thus ∑∞ n=1 f (n) , if it converges, is
R ∞ dx
imal element z with z ≤ x and z ≤ y, called the meet bounded below by 1 f (x) ; it suffices to prove that the
and denoted x ∨ y. In terms of a lattice L, one can pose integral diverges.
the following generalization of the given problem. Start
Write ln1 x = ln x and lnk x = ln(lnk−1 x)
with a1 , . . . , an ∈ L. If i < j but ai 6≤ a j , it is permit-
for k ≥ 2; similarly write exp1 x = ex and
ted to replace ai , a j by ai ∨ a j , ai ∧ a j , respectively. The k−1
same argument as above shows that this always termi- expk x = eexp x . If we write y = lnk x, then
nates in at most n2 steps. The question is, under what x = exp y and dx = (expk y)(expk−1 y) · · · (exp1 y)dy =
k
conditions on the lattice L is the final sequence uniquely x(ln1 x) · · · (lnk−1 x)dy. Now on [expk−1 1, expk 1], we
determined by the initial sequence? have f (x) = x(ln1 x) · · · (lnk−1 x), and thus substituting
It turns out that this holds if and only if L is distributive, y = lnk x yields
i.e., for any x, y, z ∈ L, Z expk 1 Z 1
dx
= dy = 1.
x ∧ (y ∨ z) = (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z). expk−1 1 f (x) 0
k
(This is equivalent to the same axiom with the oper- R ∞ dx ∞ R exp 1 dx
It follows that 1 f (x) = ∑k=1 expk−1 1 f (x) diverges, as
ations interchanged.) For example, if L is a Boolean
desired.
algebra, i.e., the set of subsets of a given set S under in-
clusion, then ∧ is union, ∨ is intersection, and the dis- A–5 Form the polynomial P(z) = f (z) + ig(z) with complex
tributive law holds. Conversely, any finite distributive coefficients. It suffices to prove that P has degree at
lattice is contained in a Boolean algebra by a theorem least n − 1, as then one of f , g must have degree at least
of Birkhoff. The correspondence takes each x ∈ L to n − 1.
the set of y ∈ L such that x ≥ y and y cannot be written
By replacing P(z) with aP(z) + b for suitable a, b ∈
as a join of two elements of L \ {y}. (See for instance
C, we can force the regular n-gon to have vertices
Birkhoff, Lattice Theory, Amer. Math. Soc., 1967.)
ζn , ζn2 , . . . , ζnn for ζn = exp(2πi/n). It thus suffices to
On one hand, if L is distributive, it can be shown that check that there cannot exist a polynomial P(z) of de-
the j-th term of the final sequence is equal to the meet gree at most n − 2 such that P(i) = ζni for i = 1, . . . , n.
of ai1 ∧ · · · ∧ ai j over all sequences 1 ≤ i1 < · · · < i j ≤ n.
We will prove more generally that for any complex
For instance, this can be checked by forming the small-
number t ∈ / {0, 1}, and any integer m ≥ 1, any polyno-
est subset L0 of L containing a1 , . . . , an and closed under
mial Q(z) for which Q(i) = t i for i = 1, . . . , m has degree
meet and join, then embedding L0 into a Boolean alge-
at least m − 1. There are several ways to do this.
bra using Birkhoff’s theorem, then checking the claim
for all Boolean algebras. It can also be checked di- First solution: If Q(z) has degree d and leading coeffi-
rectly (as suggested by Nghi Nguyen) by showing that cient c, then R(z) = Q(z + 1) − tQ(z) has degree d and
for j = 1, . . . , n, the meet of all joins of j-element sub- leading coefficient (1 − t)c. However, by hypothesis,
sets of a1 , . . . , an is invariant at each step. R(z) has the distinct roots 1, 2, . . . , m − 1, so we must
have d ≥ m − 1.
On the other hand, a lattice fails to be distributive if
and only if it contains five elements a, b, c, 0, 1 such that Second solution: We proceed by induction on m. For
either the only relations among them are implied by the base case m = 1, we have Q(1) = t 1 6= 0, so Q must
be nonzero, and so its degree is at least 0. Given the
1 ≥ a, b, c ≥ 0 assertion for m − 1, if Q(i) = t i for i = 1, . . . , m, then
the polynomial R(z) = (t − 1)−1 (Q(z + 1) − Q(z)) has
(this lattice is sometimes called the diamond), or the degree one less than that of Q, and satisfies R(i) = t i
only relations among them are implied by for i = 1, . . . , m − 1. Since R must have degree at least
m − 2 by the induction hypothesis, Q must have degree
1 ≥ a ≥ b ≥ 0, 1≥c≥0 at least m − 1.
(this lattice is sometimes called the pentagon). (For a Third solution: We use the method of finite differ-
proof, see the Birkhoff reference given above.) For each ences (as in the second solution) but without induction.
of these examples, the initial sequence a, b, c fails to de-
termine the final sequence; for the diamond, we can end
3
(by elementary algebra, or Cramer’s rule), so the center this holds for the unit vector in the same direction as
of the circle is rational. This proves the desired result. (v1i , v2i ), we must have
Remark: The above solution is deliberately more ver-
bose than is really necessary. A shorter way to say this v21i + v22i ≤ 1 (i = 1, . . . , 4).
is that any two distinct rational points determine a ra-
Conversely, if this holds, then the Cauchy-Schwarz in-
tional line (a line of the form ax + by + c = 0 with a, b, c
equality and the above analysis imply that C lies in H.
rational), while any two nonparallel rational lines inter-
sect at a rational point. A similar statement holds with If r is the radius of C, then
the rational numbers replaced by any field. 4 4
Remark: A more explicit argument is to show that 2r2 = ∑ v21i + ∑ v22i
the equation of the circle through the rational points i=1 i=1
(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), (x3 , y3 ) is 4
2 = ∑ (v21i + v22i )
x1 + y21 x1 y1 1
i=1
x2 + y2 x2 y2 1
2 2
≤ 4,
0 = det x2 + y2 x3 y3 1
3 3 √
x 2 + y2 x y 1 so r ≤ 2. Since this is achieved by the circle through
(1, 1, 0, 0) and (0, 0, 1, 1), it is the desired maximum.
which has the form a(x2 + y2 ) + dx + ey + f = 0 Remark: One may similarly ask for the radius of the
for a, d, e, f rational. The center of this circle is largest k-dimensional ball inside an n-dimensional unit
(−d/(2a), −e/(2a)), which is again a rational point. hypercube; the given problem is the case (n, k) = (4, 2).
Daniel Kane gives the following argument
p to show that
B–2 We claim that Fn (x) = (ln x − an )xn /n!, where an =
the maximum radius in this case is 12 nk . (Thanks for
∑nk=1 1/k. Indeed, temporarily write Gn (x) = (ln x − Noam Elkies for passing this along.)
an )xn /n! for x > 0 and n ≥ 1; then limx→0 Gn (x) = 0
and G0n (x) = (ln x − an + 1/n)xn−1 /(n − 1)! = Gn−1 (x), We again scale up by a factor of 2, so that we are trying
and the claim follows by the Fundamental Theorem of to show that the maximum radius r of a k-dimensional
ball contained in the hypercube [−1, 1]n is nk . Again,
p
Calculus and induction on n.
there is no loss of generality in centering the ball at the
Given the claim, we have Fn (1) = −an /n! and so we
origin. Let T : Rk → Rn be a similitude carrying the
need to evaluate − limn→∞ lnann . But since the function
unit ball to this embedded k-ball. Then there exists a
1/x is strictly decreasingR for x positive, ∑nk=2 1/k = an −
vector vi ∈ Rk such that for e1 , . . . , en the standard basis
1 isRbounded below by 2n dx/x = ln n − ln 2 and above
of Rn , x · vi = T (x) · ei for all x ∈ Rk . The condition of
by 1n dx/x = ln n. It follows that limn→∞ lnann = 1, and
the problem is equivalent to requiring |vi | ≤ 1 for all i,
the desired limit is −1.
√
while the radius r of the embedded ball is determined
B–3 The largest possible radius is 22 . It will be convenient by the fact that for all x ∈ Rk ,
to solve the problem for a hypercube of side length 2 n
instead, in which√ case we are trying to show that the r2 (x · x) = T (x) · T (x) = ∑ x · vi .
largest radius is 2. i=1
Choose coordinates so that the interior of the hypercube Let M be the matrix with columns v1 , . . . , vk ; then
is the set H = [−1, 1]4 in R4 . Let C be a circle centered MM T = r2 Ik , for Ik the k × k identity matrix. We then
at the point P. Then C is contained both in H and its have
reflection across P; these intersect in a rectangular par-
alellepiped each of whose pairs of opposite faces are at kr2 = Trace(r2 Ik ) = Trace(MM T )
most 2 unit apart. Consequently, if we translate C so n
that its center moves to the point O = (0, 0, 0, 0) at the = Trace(M T M) = ∑ |vi |2
center of H, then it remains entirely inside H. i=1
Second solution: (by Yufei Zhao) Let Mn,k be the n × n We next add column 1 to each of columns 2, . . . , k + 1.
matrix with
( 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/
1 |i − j| ≤ k 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0/
(Mn,k )i j =
0 otherwise. 0
0 0 0 1 1 0 0/
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0/
Write det(Mn,k ) as the sum over permutations σ of
0
{1, . . . , n} of (Mn,k )1σ (1) · · · (Mn,k )nσ (n) times the signa- 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?
ture of σ . Then σ contributes ±1 to det(Mn,k ) if σ is
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 ?
k-limited and 0 otherwise. We conclude that
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 ?
det(Mn,k ) ≡ Fn,k (mod 2). 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ ? ? ? ∗
identity matrix), the bottom right block is Mn−2k−1,k , We next check that if n ≡ 0, 1 (mod 2k + 1), then Mn,k
and the other two blocks are zero. We conclude that is invertible. Suppose that a1 , . . . , an are scalars such
that a1 r1 + · · · + an rn is the zero vector. The m-th co-
det(Mn,k ) ≡ det(Mn−2k−1,k ) (mod 2), ordinate of this vector equals am−k + · · · + am+k , where
we regard ai as zero if i ∈ / {1, . . . , n}. By comparing
proving the desired congruence. consecutive coordinates, we obtain
To prove the desired result, we must now check that
F0,k , F1,k are odd and F2,k , . . . , F2k,k are even. For n = am−k = am+k+1 (1 ≤ m < n).
0, . . . , k + 1, the matrix Mn,k consists of all ones, so its
determinant is 1 if n = 0, 1 and 0 otherwise. (Alter- In particular, the ai repeat with period 2k + 1. Taking
natively, we have Fn,k = n! for n = 0, . . . , k + 1, since m = 1, . . . , k further yields that
every permutation of {1, . . . , n} is k-limited.) For n =
ak+2 = · · · = a2k+1 = 0
k + 2, . . . , 2k, observe that rows k and k + 1 of Mn,k both
consist of all ones, so det(Mn,k ) = 0 as desired. while taking m = n − k, . . . , n − 1 yields
Third solution: (by Tom Belulovich) Define Mn,k as
in the second solution. We prove det(Mn,k ) is odd for an−2k = · · · = an−1−k = 0.
n ≡ 0, 1 (mod 2k + 1) and even otherwise, by directly
determining whether or not Mn,k is invertible as a matrix For n ≡ 0 (mod 2k + 1), the latter can be rewritten as
over the field of two elements.
a1 = · · · = ak = 0
Let ri denote row i of Mn,k . We first check that if n ≡
2, . . . , 2k (mod 2k + 1), then Mn,k is not invertible. In whereas for n ≡ 1 (mod 2k + 1), it can be rewritten as
this case, we can find integers 0 ≤ a < b ≤ k such that
n + a + b ≡ 0 (mod 2k + 1). Put j = (n + a + b)/(2k + a2 = · · · = ak+1 = 0.
1). We can then write the all-ones vector both as In either case, since we also have
j−1 a1 + · · · + a2k+1 = 0
∑ rk+1−a+(2k+1)i
i=0 from the (k + 1)-st coordinate, we deduce that all of the
ai must be zero, and so Mn,k must be invertible.
and as
Remark: The matrices Mn,k are examples of banded
j−1
matrices, which occur frequently in numerical appli-
∑ rk+1−b+(2k+1)i . cations of linear algebra. They are also examples of
i=0
Toeplitz matrices.
Hence Mn,k is not invertible.