1970 IMO Problems/Problem 4
Contents
Problem
Find the set of all positive integers with the property that the set
can be partitioned into two sets such that the product of the numbers in one set equals the product of the numbers in the other set.
Solution
The only primes dividing numbers in the set can be 2, 3 or 5, because if any larger prime was a factor, then it would only divide one number in the set and hence only one product. Three of the numbers must be odd. At most one of the odd numbers can be a multiple of 3 and at most one can be a multiple of 5. The other odd number cannot have any prime factors. The only such number is 1, so the set must be , but that does not work because only one of the numbers is a multiple of 5. So there are no such sets.
Solution 2
As in the previous solution, none of the six consecutive numbers can be multiples of . This means that together, they take on the values
. The product of all the numbers in this set, then, is
, by Wilson's Theorem. However,
is not a quadratic residue
, which means that we cannot partition the original set into two sets of equal product. Thus, no such
exist.
Remarks (added by pf02, December 2024)
1. I will re-write Solution 2 without making references
to Wilson's Theorem or quadratic residue. Beautiful
as they are, they are not needed here, so I think it is worth
re-writing this elegant proof so that it can be understood by
students who know nothing more than the notion of (modulo).
2. I will then give another solution, which in fact, proves a more difficult problem: the product of six consecutive integers can not be a perfect square.
3. Just as a matter of general interest, the more difficult problem is the subject of a discussion at https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/90894/product-of-six-consecutive-integers-being-a-perfect-square . As of December 2024 there are several solutions presented in this discussion (I can make sense of two of them), as well as two references to publications where the problem is solved. The references are https://www.jstor.org/stable/2635974?seq=1 (to a journal article of 1874) and http://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1939-03.pdf to a paper from 1939. This second paper proves a more general statement: a product of any number of consecutive integers can not be a perfect square.
Solution 2 re-visited
Let and
be a partition
of
. If a number
is a factor of
then
must also be a factor
of
. In particular, if
is a factor of one
of the numbers in
, then it
must be a factor of another, different number in this set.
But
can be a factor of at most one of six consecutive
integers, so it is a factor of none of them.
Since none of the numbers in
is divisible by
, the six values of
from
are
.
So .
On the other hand, if is an integer, then
is one of
. Indeed let
with
. Calculating
, we
see that the result will be a multiple of
plus
, which are
, none of which is
.
So, can not be a perfect square,
as it should be if
.
Solution 3
If can be partitioned in two
sets
and
such that
then
must be a perfect square. To shorten the text, when a number
is a perfect square, we'll write
. Se we
want to prove a more difficult problem, namely
. Assume for
the sake of reaching a contradiction that
.
Regroup the factors of and do some multiplications. We
get
.
Denote
. We have
.
Let
, such that all the prime factors of
are at
power
(in other words,
is the product of all the
prime factors of
at an even power, and
is the product
of all the remaining prime factors of
).
Then, we have . Multiplying,
we get that
for some number
(in fact
). Note that if a prime
is a factor of
, then it is a factor of the right hand
side
, so
is a factor of the right hand
side
, so
is a factor of
, so
is a factor of
, so
is a factor of
.
This implies that
or
, which in its turn
implies that
, or
or
(since
has
its factors at power
).
We will continue the proof by contradiction by taking
three cases (for ), and showing that none of
the following three statements can be true:
,
,
.
Case 1: becomes
. Note that
and
have no common factors (since they differ
by
) so either
Case 1.1: and
or
Case 1.2: and
Case 1.1 is impossible because is
impossible (because two squares differ by more than
).
Case 1.2 implies , because only the squares
and
differ by
(all higher squares differ by more
than
). But if
the other condition in case
1.2 becomes
, which is false.
So Case 1 is impossible.
Case 2: The condition becomes .
We consider two sub-cases corresponding to
odd or
even.
Case 2.1: When odd,
and
have no common
factors because
and
have no
common factors (because we have two odd numbers which differ by
). So we must have
and
. But this is impossible because of the latter
condition.
Case 2.2: If even, let
. The condition becomes
. Note that
and
have no common factors (because their multiples by
and
are
and
which differ by
).
Case 2.2.1: Take the sub-sub-case and
. The first condition implies that we
must have
for some
, or
. But this is impossible, since
can not be a multiple of
. (Indeed, take
,
,
;
or
).
Case 2.2.2: Take the sub-sub-case and
. The second condition is impossible
because
has exactly
as a factor, so it
can not be a square.
Case 3: becomes
. We see that
and
have no common factors since
and
differ by
. So we have
Case 3.1: and
.
This case is impossible, since the latter condition is
impossible (because two squares differ by more than
).
Case 3.2: and
.
The first condition implies
, but this
is impossible since as we saw in Case 2.2.2,
can
not be a multiple of
.
We looked at all possible cases, and they were impossible,
so can not be a perfect square.
[Solution by pf02, December 2024]
See Also
1970 IMO (Problems) • Resources | ||
Preceded by Problem 3 |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | Followed by Problem 5 |
All IMO Problems and Solutions |