Art of Problem Solving
AoPS Online
Math texts, online classes, and more
for students in grades 5-12.
Visit AoPS Online ‚
Books for Grades 5-12 Online Courses
Beast Academy
Engaging math books and online learning
for students ages 6-13.
Visit Beast Academy ‚
Books for Ages 6-13 Beast Academy Online
AoPS Academy
Small live classes for advanced math
and language arts learners in grades 2-12.
Visit AoPS Academy ‚
Find a Physical Campus Visit the Virtual Campus

Difference between revisions of "2021 AMC 12B Problems/Problem 25"

(→‎Solution 6)
(→‎Solution 2)
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
<cmath>\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor \frac{2}{3}x \rfloor) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + \cdots + 18 + 18 + 19 + 20</cmath><cmath>=\frac{20(21)}{2} + 2 + 4 + 6 + \cdots + 18 </cmath><cmath>=210 + \frac{20}{2}\cdot 9</cmath><cmath>=300</cmath>
 
<cmath>\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor \frac{2}{3}x \rfloor) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + \cdots + 18 + 18 + 19 + 20</cmath><cmath>=\frac{20(21)}{2} + 2 + 4 + 6 + \cdots + 18 </cmath><cmath>=210 + \frac{20}{2}\cdot 9</cmath><cmath>=300</cmath>
  
−
This means that <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> is a possible value of <math>m. </math> Furthermore, it is the lower bound for <math>m. </math> This is because <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> goes through many points (such as <math>(21, 14)</math>). If <math>m</math> was lower, <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> would no longer go through some of these points, and there would be less than <math>300</math> lattice points under it.
+
This means that <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> is a possible value of <math>m. </math> Furthermore, it is the lower bound for <math>m. </math> This is because <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> goes through many points (such as <math>(21, 14)</math>). If <math>m</math> was lower, <math>y=mx</math> would no longer go through some of these points, and there would be less than <math>300</math> lattice points under it.
  
 
Now, we find an upper bound for <math>m. </math> Imagine increasing <math>m</math> slowly and rotating the line <math>y=mx, </math> starting from the lower bound of <math>m=\frac{2}{3}. </math>The upper bound for <math>m</math> occurs when <math>y=mx</math> intersects a lattice point again (look at this problem to get a better idea of what's happening: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2011_AMC_10B_Problems/Problem_24).
 
Now, we find an upper bound for <math>m. </math> Imagine increasing <math>m</math> slowly and rotating the line <math>y=mx, </math> starting from the lower bound of <math>m=\frac{2}{3}. </math>The upper bound for <math>m</math> occurs when <math>y=mx</math> intersects a lattice point again (look at this problem to get a better idea of what's happening: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2011_AMC_10B_Problems/Problem_24).
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
~JimY
 
~JimY
 +
~Minor edits by sl_hc
  
 
An alternative would be using Farey fractions and the mediant theorem to find the upper bound. <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> and <math>\frac{7}{10}</math> gives <math>\frac{9}{13},</math> and so on using Farey addition.
 
An alternative would be using Farey fractions and the mediant theorem to find the upper bound. <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> and <math>\frac{7}{10}</math> gives <math>\frac{9}{13},</math> and so on using Farey addition.
 +
 +
An alternative approach with the same methodology can be done using Pick's Theorem. Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%27s_theorem. It's a formula to find the number of lattice points strictly inside a polygon. Approximation of the lower bound is still necessary.
  
 
==Solution 2==
 
==Solution 2==
−
I know that I want about <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> of the box of integer coordinates above my line. There are a total of 30 integer coordinates in the desired range for each axis which gives a total of 900 lattice points. I estimate that the slope, m, is <math>\frac{2}{3}</math>. Now, although there is probably an easier solution, I would try to count the number of points above the line to see if there are 600 points above the line. The line <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> separates the area inside the box so that <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> of the are is above the line.  
+
Based on area ratios between a square of side length <math>30</math> and a triangle with base <math>30</math>, we estimate that the slope <math>m</math> of the line we want is approximately <math>\frac{2}{3}</math>. Following this estimate, we see if there are approximately <math>30 \cdot 30 - 300 = 600</math> lattice points above the line <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math>.
  
−
I find that the number of coordinates with <math>x=1</math> above the line is 30, and the number of coordinates with <math>x=2</math> above the line is 29. Every time the line <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> hits a y-value with an integer coordinate, the number of points above the line decreases by one. I wrote out the sum of 30 terms in hopes of finding a pattern. I graphed the first couple positive integer x-coordinates, and found that the sum of the integers above the line is <math>30+29+28+28+27+26+26 \ldots+ 10</math>. The even integer repeats itself every third term in the sum. I found that the average of each of the terms is 20, and there are 30 of them which means that exactly 600 above the line as desired. This give a lower bound because if the slope decreases a little bit, then the points that the line goes through will be above the line.  
+
Counting the number of lattice points with <math>x=1</math> above the line, the number of lattice points with <math>x=2</math> above the line, and so on, we find that the total number of lattice points above the line is <math>30+29+28+28+27+26+26 \ldots+ 10</math>, with the even integers repeating every third term. We see that the average of the <math>30</math> terms is <math>20</math>, which means that exactly <math>20 \cdot 30 = 600</math> lattice points above the line as desired. This gives a lower bound because any decrease in the slope of the line would cause points that were already on the line to shift to being above it.
  
−
To find the upper bound, notice that each point with an integer-valued x-coordinate is either <math>\frac{1}{3}</math> or <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> above the line. Since the slope through a point is the y-coordinate divided by the x-coordinate, a shift in the slope will increase the y-value of the higher x-coordinates. We turn our attention to <math>x=28, 29, 30</math> which the line <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> intersects at <math>y= \frac{56}{3}, \frac{58}{3}, 20</math>. The point (30,20) is already counted below the line, and we can clearly see that if we slowly increase the slope of the line, we will hit the point (28,19) since (28, <math>\frac{56}{3}</math>) is closer to the lattice point. The slope of the line which goes through both the origin and (28,19) is <math>y=\frac{19}{28}x</math>. This gives an upper bound of <math>m=\frac{19}{28}</math>.  
+
To find the upper bound, notice that each lattice point less than <math>1</math> unit above the line is either <math>\frac{1}{3}</math> or <math>\frac{2}{3}</math> above. Since the slope through a point is the y-coordinate divided by the x-coordinate, a shift in the slope will increase the y-value of the higher x-coordinates more than the y-value of the lower x-coordinates. So, we turn our attention to <math>x=28, 29, 30</math> for which the line <math>y=\frac{2}{3}x</math> intersects at <math>y= \frac{56}{3}, \frac{58}{3}, 20</math>. The point <math>(30,20)</math> is already counted, and we can clearly see that if we slowly increase the slope of the line, we will first hit the point <math>(28,19)</math> since <math>(28, \frac{56}{3})</math> is the closest to it. The equation of the line which goes through both the origin and <math>(28,19)</math> is <math>y=\frac{19}{28}x</math>. This gives an upper bound of <math>m=\frac{19}{28}</math>.  
  
−
Taking the upper bound of m and subtracting the lower bound yields <math>\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}</math>. This is answer <math>1+84=</math> <math>\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}</math>.
+
Taking the upper bound of <math>m</math> and subtracting the lower bound yields <math>\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}</math>. The answer is therefore <math>1+84=</math> <math>\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}</math>.
  
−
~theAJL
+
~theAJL ~Minor edits by Eric_Zang
 
===Diagram===
 
===Diagram===
 
<asy>
 
<asy>
Line 67: Line 70:
  
 
==Solution 3==
 
==Solution 3==
−
 
−
An alternative approach with the same methodology as Solution 1 can be done using Pick's Theorem. Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%27s_theorem It's a formula to find the amount of lattice points strictly inside a polygon. Approximation of the lower bound is still necessary.
 
−
 
−
==Solution 4==
 
 
As the procedure shown in the Solution 1, the lower bound of <math>m </math> is <math> \frac{2}{3}. </math>
 
As the procedure shown in the Solution 1, the lower bound of <math>m </math> is <math> \frac{2}{3}. </math>
 
Here I give a more logic way to show how to find the upper bound of <math>m. </math>
 
Here I give a more logic way to show how to find the upper bound of <math>m. </math>
−
Denote N=<math>\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor mx \rfloor) </math> as the number of lattice points in <math>S</math>.
+
Denote <math>N=\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor mx \rfloor) </math> as the number of lattice points in <math>S</math>.
  
 
<math>N = \lfloor m \rfloor+\lfloor 2m \rfloor+\lfloor 3m \rfloor+\cdots+\lfloor 30m \rfloor = 300 .</math>
 
<math>N = \lfloor m \rfloor+\lfloor 2m \rfloor+\lfloor 3m \rfloor+\cdots+\lfloor 30m \rfloor = 300 .</math>
Line 87: Line 86:
 
When <math> x_{i} = 3n+1, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+\frac{2}{3}+(3n+1)k \rfloor, k_{min1}=\frac{1}{3(3n+1)}.  </math>
 
When <math> x_{i} = 3n+1, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+\frac{2}{3}+(3n+1)k \rfloor, k_{min1}=\frac{1}{3(3n+1)}.  </math>
  
−
When <math> x_{i} = 3n+2, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+1+\frac{1}{3}+(3n+2)k \rfloor, k_{min2}=\frac{2}{3(3n+2)}.  </math>  Here <math>n\in N^{*}, n \le 9.</math>
+
When <math> x_{i} = 3n+2, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+1+\frac{1}{3}+(3n+2)k \rfloor, k_{min2}=\frac{2}{3(3n+2)}.  </math>   
 +
 
 +
Here <math>n\in N^{*}, n \le 9.</math>
  
 
Denote <math> k_{min}=min\left \{k_{min1},k_{min2}  \right \}. </math>
 
Denote <math> k_{min}=min\left \{k_{min1},k_{min2}  \right \}. </math>
Line 99: Line 100:
 
~PythZhou.
 
~PythZhou.
  
−
==Solution 5==
+
==Solution 4==
  
 
It's easier to calculate the number of lattice points inside a rectangle with vertices <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(p,0)</math>, <math>(p,q)</math>, <math>(0,q)</math>. Those lattice points are divided by the diagonal <math>y = \frac{p}{q} \cdot x</math> into <math>2</math> halves. In this problem the number of lattice points on or below the diagonal and <math>x \ge 1</math> is
 
It's easier to calculate the number of lattice points inside a rectangle with vertices <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(p,0)</math>, <math>(p,q)</math>, <math>(0,q)</math>. Those lattice points are divided by the diagonal <math>y = \frac{p}{q} \cdot x</math> into <math>2</math> halves. In this problem the number of lattice points on or below the diagonal and <math>x \ge 1</math> is
Line 158: Line 159:
 
~[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Isabelchen isabelchen]
 
~[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Isabelchen isabelchen]
  
−
==Solution 6==
+
==Solution 5==
  
−
The lower bound of <math>m</math> is <math>\frac23 = \frac{20}{30}</math>. Inside the rectangle with vertices <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(30,0)</math>, <math>(30,20)</math>, <math>(0, 20)</math> and diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math>, there are <math>(30-1)(20-1) = 551</math> lattice points inside, not including the edges. There are <math>9</math> lattice points on diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math> inside the rectangle, <math>551 + 9 = 560</math>. Half of the <math>560</math> lattice points are below diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math>, <math>560 \cdot \frac12 = 280</math>. Add <math>20</math> lattice points on edge <math>x = 30</math>, <math>280 + 20 = 300</math>. Once <math>m < \frac23</math>, the <math>9</math> lattice points on diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math> will be above the new diagonal, making the number of lattice points on and below the diagonal less than <math>300</math>.
+
The lower bound of <math>m</math> is <math>\frac23 = \frac{20}{30}</math>. Inside the rectangle with vertices <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(30,0)</math>, <math>(30,20)</math>, <math>(0, 20)</math> and diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math>, there are <math>(30-1)(20-1) = 551</math> lattice points inside, not including the edges. There are <math>9</math> lattice points on diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math> inside the rectangle, <math>551 + 9 = 560</math>. Half of the <math>560</math> lattice points are below diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math>, <math>560 \cdot \frac12 = 280</math>. There are <math>20</math> lattice points on edge <math>x = 30</math>, <math>280 + 20 = 300</math>. Once <math>m < \frac23</math>, the <math>9</math> lattice points on diagonal <math>y = \frac23 x</math> will be above the new diagonal, making the number of lattice points on and below the diagonal less than <math>300</math>.
  
 
Now we are going to calculate the upper bound by the following formula:
 
Now we are going to calculate the upper bound by the following formula:
−
  The number of lattice points inside rectangle <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(a,0)</math>, <math>(a, b)</math>, <math>(0, b)</math> and below diagonal <math>y = \frac{a}{b}x</math> is <math>\frac{(a-1)(b-1)}{2}</math>, where <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> are relatively prime.
+
  The number of lattice points inside rectangle <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(a,0)</math>, <math>(a, b)</math>, <math>(0, b)</math> and below diagonal <math>y = \frac{b}{a}x</math> is <math>\frac{(a-1)(b-1)}{2}</math>, where <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> are relatively prime.
 
  There are <math>(a-1)(b-1)</math> lattice points inside the rectangle. Because <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> are relatively prime, the only lattice points on the diagonal are <math>(0,0)</math> and <math>(a,b)</math>. By symmetry, half of the lattice points are below the diagonal.
 
  There are <math>(a-1)(b-1)</math> lattice points inside the rectangle. Because <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> are relatively prime, the only lattice points on the diagonal are <math>(0,0)</math> and <math>(a,b)</math>. By symmetry, half of the lattice points are below the diagonal.
  
Line 190: Line 191:
 
<math>\frac{2}{3} = \frac{20}{30} < \frac{21}{31} < \frac{19}{28}</math>
 
<math>\frac{2}{3} = \frac{20}{30} < \frac{21}{31} < \frac{19}{28}</math>
  
−
When <math>a = 21</math>, <math>b = 31</math>, <math>\frac{(21-1)(31-1)}{2} = 300</math>.
+
When <math>a = 31</math>, <math>b = 21</math>, <math>\frac{(31-1)(21-1)}{2} = 300</math>.
  
−
When <math>a = 19</math>, <math>b = 28</math>, <math>\frac{(19-1)(28-1)}{2} = 243</math>, add <math>19</math> lattice points on edge <math>x = 28</math>, add <math>19</math> lattice points on edge <math>x = 29</math>, add <math>20</math> lattice points on edge <math>x = 30</math>, <math>243 + 19 + 19 + 20 = 301</math>.  
+
When <math>a = 28</math>, <math>b = 19</math>, <math>\frac{(28-1)(19-1)}{2} = 243</math>. Below the line <math>y = \frac{19}{28} x</math>, there are <math>19</math> lattice points on line <math>x = 28</math>, <math>19</math> lattice points on line <math>x = 29</math>, <math>20</math> lattice points on line <math>x = 30</math>, <math>243 + 19 + 19 + 20 = 301</math>.  
  
 
More lattice points fall below the line <math>y = mx</math> as <math>m</math> increases. There are more than <math>301</math> lattice points on and below the line for any <math>m</math> greater than <math>\frac{19}{28}</math>. Therefore, the upper bound is <math>\frac{19}{28}</math>.
 
More lattice points fall below the line <math>y = mx</math> as <math>m</math> increases. There are more than <math>301</math> lattice points on and below the line for any <math>m</math> greater than <math>\frac{19}{28}</math>. Therefore, the upper bound is <math>\frac{19}{28}</math>.
 +
 +
<math>\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}</math>, so <math>1+84=\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}</math>.
 +
 +
~[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Isabelchen isabelchen]
 +
 +
===Remark===
 +
 +
<math>\lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor</math> is the number of lattice points on line <math>x = k</math>, below line <math>y = \frac{b}{a} x</math> and above the <math>x</math> axis, where <math>k</math> is an integer and <math>0<k<a</math>. Therefore, <math>\sum_{k=1}^{a-1} \lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor</math> is the number of lattice points inside the rectangle <math>(0,0)</math>, <math>(a,0)</math>, <math>(a, b)</math>, <math>(0, b)</math>, below diagonal <math>y = \frac{b}{a} x</math>. If <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> are relatively prime, <math>\sum_{k=1}^{a-1} \lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor = \frac{(a-1)(b-1)}{2}</math>, as explained in solution 5. This problem is about finding the upper and lower bound of <math>\frac{b}{a}</math>, given <math>\sum_{k=1}^{30} \lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor = 300</math>. The same problem can have geometric representation as stated in the original problem, or algebraic representation as stated here.
 +
 +
~[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Isabelchen isabelchen]
 +
 +
==Solution 6==
 +
As the procedure shown in the Solution 1, the lower bound of <math>m </math> is <math> \frac{2}{3}</math>, whose equation is <math>2x - 3y = 0</math>.
 +
 +
Now, we are going to find the upper bound of <math>m</math>.
 +
 +
The signed distance between a point <math>(x_0,\ y_0)</math> and the line <math>2x - 3y = 0</math> is <cmath>d = \frac{2x_0 - 3y_0}{\sqrt{2^2 + 3^3}}</cmath>
 +
 +
If <math>(x_0,\ y_0)</math> is the lowest lattice point above the line, then it should have the largest values of coordinates among all the solutions of <math>2x_0 - 3y_0 = 1</math>, because among the points with the shortest distance from the line, the slope of the farthest point to the origin is the smallest. Solve the inequality:<cmath>2x - 3y = 1,\ 1 \leq x \leq 30</cmath>
 +
 +
We obtain <math>(x_0,\ y_0) = (28,\ 19)</math>, so the upper bound of <math>m = \frac{19}{28}</math>.
  
 
<math>\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}</math>, <math>\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}</math>.
 
<math>\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}</math>, <math>\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}</math>.
  
−
~[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Isabelchen isabelchen]
+
~[https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Reda_mandymath reda_mandymath]
  
 
==Video Solution==
 
==Video Solution==

Latest revision as of 19:48, 29 October 2024

The following problem is from both the 2021 AMC 10B #25 and 2021 AMC 12B #25, so both problems redirect to this page.

Problem

Let $S$ be the set of lattice points in the coordinate plane, both of whose coordinates are integers between $1$ and $30,$ inclusive. Exactly $300$ points in $S$ lie on or below a line with equation $y=mx.$ The possible values of $m$ lie in an interval of length $\frac ab,$ where $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime positive integers. What is $a+b?$

$\textbf{(A)} ~31 \qquad \textbf{(B)} ~47 \qquad \textbf{(C)} ~62\qquad \textbf{(D)} ~72 \qquad \textbf{(E)} ~85$

Solution 1

First, we find a numerical representation for the number of lattice points in $S$ that are under the line $y=mx.$ For any value of $x,$ the highest lattice point under $y=mx$ is $\lfloor mx \rfloor.$ Because every lattice point from $(x, 1)$ to $(x, \lfloor mx \rfloor)$ is under the line, the total number of lattice points under the line is $\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor mx \rfloor).$


Now, we proceed by finding lower and upper bounds for $m.$ To find the lower bound, we start with an approximation. If $300$ lattice points are below the line, then around $\frac{1}{3}$ of the area formed by $S$ is under the line. By using the formula for a triangle's area, we find that when $x=30, y \approx 20.$ Solving for $m$ assuming that $(30, 20)$ is a point on the line, we get $m = \frac{2}{3}.$ Plugging in $m$ to $\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor mx \rfloor),$ we get:

\[\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor \frac{2}{3}x \rfloor) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + \cdots + 18 + 18 + 19 + 20\]

We have a repeat every $3$ values (every time $y=\frac{2}{3}x$ goes through a lattice point). Thus, we can use arithmetic sequences to calculate the value above:

\[\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor \frac{2}{3}x \rfloor) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + \cdots + 18 + 18 + 19 + 20\]\[=\frac{20(21)}{2} + 2 + 4 + 6 + \cdots + 18\]\[=210 + \frac{20}{2}\cdot 9\]\[=300\]

This means that $\frac{2}{3}$ is a possible value of $m.$ Furthermore, it is the lower bound for $m.$ This is because $y=\frac{2}{3}x$ goes through many points (such as $(21, 14)$). If $m$ was lower, $y=mx$ would no longer go through some of these points, and there would be less than $300$ lattice points under it.

Now, we find an upper bound for $m.$ Imagine increasing $m$ slowly and rotating the line $y=mx,$ starting from the lower bound of $m=\frac{2}{3}.$The upper bound for $m$ occurs when $y=mx$ intersects a lattice point again (look at this problem to get a better idea of what's happening: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2011_AMC_10B_Problems/Problem_24).

In other words, we are looking for the first $m > \frac{2}{3}$ that is expressible as a ratio of positive integers $\frac{p}{q}$ with $q \le 30.$ For each $q=1,\dots,30$, the smallest multiple of $\frac{1}{q}$ which exceeds $\frac{2}{3}$ is $1, \frac{2}{2}, \frac{3}{3}, \frac{3}{4}, \frac{4}{5}, \cdots , \frac{19}{27}, \frac{19}{28}, \frac{20}{29}, \frac{21}{30}$ respectively, and the smallest of these is $\frac{19}{28}.$

Alternatively, see the method of finding upper bounds in solution 2.

The lower bound is $\frac{2}{3}$ and the upper bound is $\frac{19}{28}.$ Their difference is $\frac{1}{84},$ so the answer is $1 + 84 = \boxed{85}.$

~JimY ~Minor edits by sl_hc

An alternative would be using Farey fractions and the mediant theorem to find the upper bound. $\frac{2}{3}$ and $\frac{7}{10}$ gives $\frac{9}{13},$ and so on using Farey addition.

An alternative approach with the same methodology can be done using Pick's Theorem. Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%27s_theorem. It's a formula to find the number of lattice points strictly inside a polygon. Approximation of the lower bound is still necessary.

Solution 2

Based on area ratios between a square of side length $30$ and a triangle with base $30$, we estimate that the slope $m$ of the line we want is approximately $\frac{2}{3}$. Following this estimate, we see if there are approximately $30 \cdot 30 - 300 = 600$ lattice points above the line $y=\frac{2}{3}x$.

Counting the number of lattice points with $x=1$ above the line, the number of lattice points with $x=2$ above the line, and so on, we find that the total number of lattice points above the line is $30+29+28+28+27+26+26 \ldots+ 10$, with the even integers repeating every third term. We see that the average of the $30$ terms is $20$, which means that exactly $20 \cdot 30 = 600$ lattice points above the line as desired. This gives a lower bound because any decrease in the slope of the line would cause points that were already on the line to shift to being above it.

To find the upper bound, notice that each lattice point less than $1$ unit above the line is either $\frac{1}{3}$ or $\frac{2}{3}$ above. Since the slope through a point is the y-coordinate divided by the x-coordinate, a shift in the slope will increase the y-value of the higher x-coordinates more than the y-value of the lower x-coordinates. So, we turn our attention to $x=28, 29, 30$ for which the line $y=\frac{2}{3}x$ intersects at $y= \frac{56}{3}, \frac{58}{3}, 20$. The point $(30,20)$ is already counted, and we can clearly see that if we slowly increase the slope of the line, we will first hit the point $(28,19)$ since $(28, \frac{56}{3})$ is the closest to it. The equation of the line which goes through both the origin and $(28,19)$ is $y=\frac{19}{28}x$. This gives an upper bound of $m=\frac{19}{28}$.

Taking the upper bound of $m$ and subtracting the lower bound yields $\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}$. The answer is therefore $1+84=$ $\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}$.

~theAJL ~Minor edits by Eric_Zang

Diagram

[asy] /* Created by Brendanb4321 */ import graph; size(16cm); defaultpen(fontsize(9pt)); xaxis(0,30,Ticks(1.0)); yaxis(0,25,Ticks(1.0)); draw((0,0)--(30,20)); draw((0,0)--(30,30/28*19), dotted); for (int i = 1; i<=30; ++i) { for (int j = 1; j<=2/3*i+1; ++j) { dot((i,j)); } } dot((28,19), red); label("$m=2/3$", (32,20)); label("$m=19/28$", (32.3,20.8)); [/asy]

Solution 3

As the procedure shown in the Solution 1, the lower bound of $m$ is $\frac{2}{3}.$ Here I give a more logic way to show how to find the upper bound of $m.$ Denote $N=\sum_{x=1}^{30}(\lfloor mx \rfloor)$ as the number of lattice points in $S$.

$N = \lfloor m \rfloor+\lfloor 2m \rfloor+\lfloor 3m \rfloor+\cdots+\lfloor 30m \rfloor = 300 .$

Let $m = \frac{2}{3}+k$. for $\forall x_{i}\le 30, x\in N^{*}, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{2}{3}x+xk \rfloor.$

Our target is finding the minimum value of $k$ which can increase one unit of $\lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor .$

Notice that:

When $x_{i} = 3n, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+(3n)k \rfloor$ We don't have to discuss this case.

When $x_{i} = 3n+1, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+\frac{2}{3}+(3n+1)k \rfloor, k_{min1}=\frac{1}{3(3n+1)}.$

When $x_{i} = 3n+2, \lfloor mx_{i} \rfloor = \lfloor 2n+1+\frac{1}{3}+(3n+2)k \rfloor, k_{min2}=\frac{2}{3(3n+2)}.$

Here $n\in N^{*}, n \le 9.$

Denote $k_{min}=min\left \{k_{min1},k_{min2} \right \}.$

Obviously $k_{min1}$ and $k_{min2}$ are decreasing. Let's considering the situation when $n=9.$

$k_{min}=min\left\{\frac{1}{84},\frac{2}{87}\right\}=\frac{1}{84}.$

This means that the answer is just $\frac{1}{84}$, so $a+b=85$. Choose $\boxed{E}.$

~PythZhou.

Solution 4

It's easier to calculate the number of lattice points inside a rectangle with vertices $(0,0)$, $(p,0)$, $(p,q)$, $(0,q)$. Those lattice points are divided by the diagonal $y = \frac{p}{q} \cdot x$ into $2$ halves. In this problem the number of lattice points on or below the diagonal and $x \ge 1$ is 

$\frac{1}{2} [(p+1)(q+1) - d] + d - (p+1)$, $d$ is the number of lattice points on the diagonal, $d \ge 2$

$(p+1)(q+1)$ is the total number of lattice points inside the rectangle. Subtract the number of lattice points on the diagonal, divided by 2 is the number of lattice points below the diagonal, add the number of lattice points on the diagonal, and subtract the lattice points on the $x$ axis, then we get the total number of lattice points on or below the diagonal and $x \ge 1$.

There are $900$ lattice points in total. $300$ is $\frac{1}{3}$ of $900$. The $x$ coordinate of the top-right vertex of the rectangle is $30$, $\frac{1}{2} \cdot 30 \cdot 20 = 300$. I guess the $y$ coordinate of the top-right vertex of the rectangle is $20$. Now I am going to verify that. The slope of the diagonal is $\frac{20}{30} = \frac{2}{3}$, there are $11$ lattice points on the diagonal. Substitute $(p,q)=(30, 20)$, $d=11$ to the above formula: 

$\frac{1}{2} [(30+1)(10+1) - 11] + 11 - (30+1) = 300$

Because there are $11$ lattice points on line $y = \frac{2}{3}x$, if $m < \frac{2}{3}$, then the number of lattice points on or below the line is less than $300$. So $m = \frac{2}{3}$ is the lower bound.

Now I am going to calculate the upper bound. From $\frac{b}{a} < \frac{b+1}{a+1}$,

$\frac{2}{3} = \frac{18}{27} < \frac{19}{28}$

$\frac{2}{3} = \frac{20}{30} < \frac{21}{31} < \frac{19}{28}$

[asy] /* Created by Brendanb4321, modified by isabelchen */ import graph; size(18cm); defaultpen(fontsize(9pt)); xaxis(0,31,Ticks(1.0)); yaxis(0,22,Ticks(1.0)); draw((0,0)--(30,20)); draw((0,0)--(30,30*19/28), dotted); draw((0,0)--(31,31*21/31), dotted); for (int i = 1; i<=31; ++i) { for (int j = 1; j<=2/3*i+1; ++j) { dot((i,j)); } } dot((28,19), red); dot((31,21), blue); label("$m=2/3$", (33,20)); label("$m=21/31$", (33,21)); label("$m=19/28$", (33,22)); [/asy]

If $m = \frac{21}{31}$, I will calculate by using the rectangle with blue vertex $(p,q) = (31, 21)$, then subtract lattice points on line $x = 31$, which is $21$. There are 2 lattice points on the diagonal, $d=2$. 

$\frac{1}{2} [(31+1)(21+1) - 2] + 2 - (31+1) - 21 = 300$, same as that of $m = \frac{2}{3}$

If $m = \frac{19}{28}$, I will calculate by using the rectangle with red vertex $(p,q) = (28, 19)$, then add lattice points on line $x = 29$ and $x = 30$, which is $19 + 20 = 39$. There are 2 lattice points on the diagonal, $d=2$. 

$\frac{1}{2} [(28+1)(19+1) - 2] + 2 - (28+1) + 39 = 301$, $1$ more than that of $m = \frac{2}{3}$

When $m$ increases, more lattice points falls below the line $y = mx$. Any value larger than $\frac{19}{28}$ has more than $301$ lattice points on or below $y = \frac{19}{28} x$. So the upper bound is $\frac{19}{28}$.

$\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}$, $\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}$.

~isabelchen

Solution 5

The lower bound of $m$ is $\frac23 = \frac{20}{30}$. Inside the rectangle with vertices $(0,0)$, $(30,0)$, $(30,20)$, $(0, 20)$ and diagonal $y = \frac23 x$, there are $(30-1)(20-1) = 551$ lattice points inside, not including the edges. There are $9$ lattice points on diagonal $y = \frac23 x$ inside the rectangle, $551 + 9 = 560$. Half of the $560$ lattice points are below diagonal $y = \frac23 x$, $560 \cdot \frac12 = 280$. There are $20$ lattice points on edge $x = 30$, $280 + 20 = 300$. Once $m < \frac23$, the $9$ lattice points on diagonal $y = \frac23 x$ will be above the new diagonal, making the number of lattice points on and below the diagonal less than $300$.

Now we are going to calculate the upper bound by the following formula: 

The number of lattice points inside rectangle $(0,0)$, $(a,0)$, $(a, b)$, $(0, b)$ and below diagonal $y = \frac{b}{a}x$ is $\frac{(a-1)(b-1)}{2}$, where $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime.
There are $(a-1)(b-1)$ lattice points inside the rectangle. Because $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime, the only lattice points on the diagonal are $(0,0)$ and $(a,b)$. By symmetry, half of the lattice points are below the diagonal.

[asy] /* Created by isabelchen */ import graph; size(8cm); defaultpen(fontsize(9pt)); xaxis(0,8); yaxis(0,6); draw((0,0)--(7,5)); draw((7,0)--(7,5)); draw((0,5)--(7,5)); dot((0,0)); dot((1,0)); dot((2,0)); dot((3,0)); dot((4,0)); dot((5,0)); dot((6,0)); dot((7,0)); dot((8,0)); dot((0,1)); dot((1,1)); dot((2,1)); dot((3,1)); dot((4,1)); dot((5,1)); dot((6,1)); dot((7,1)); dot((8,1)); dot((0,2)); dot((1,2)); dot((2,2)); dot((3,2)); dot((4,2)); dot((5,2)); dot((6,2)); dot((7,2)); dot((8,2)); dot((0,3)); dot((1,3)); dot((2,3)); dot((3,3)); dot((4,3)); dot((5,3)); dot((6,3)); dot((7,3)); dot((8,3)); dot((0,4)); dot((1,4)); dot((2,4)); dot((3,4)); dot((4,4)); dot((5,4)); dot((6,4)); dot((7,4)); dot((8,4)); dot((0,5)); dot((1,5)); dot((2,5)); dot((3,5)); dot((4,5)); dot((5,5)); dot((6,5)); dot((7,5)); dot((8,5)); dot((0,6)); dot((1,6)); dot((2,6)); dot((3,6)); dot((4,6)); dot((5,6)); dot((6,6)); dot((7,6)); dot((8,6)); label("$(0,0)$", (0,0), SW); label("$(a, b)$", (7,5), NE); dot((7,0)); label("$a$", (7,0), S); dot((0,5)); label("$b$", (0,5), W); [/asy]

$\frac{2}{3} = \frac{20}{30} < \frac{21}{31} < \frac{19}{28}$

When $a = 31$, $b = 21$, $\frac{(31-1)(21-1)}{2} = 300$.

When $a = 28$, $b = 19$, $\frac{(28-1)(19-1)}{2} = 243$. Below the line $y = \frac{19}{28} x$, there are $19$ lattice points on line $x = 28$, $19$ lattice points on line $x = 29$, $20$ lattice points on line $x = 30$, $243 + 19 + 19 + 20 = 301$.

More lattice points fall below the line $y = mx$ as $m$ increases. There are more than $301$ lattice points on and below the line for any $m$ greater than $\frac{19}{28}$. Therefore, the upper bound is $\frac{19}{28}$.

$\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}$, so $1+84=\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}$.

~isabelchen

Remark

$\lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor$ is the number of lattice points on line $x = k$, below line $y = \frac{b}{a} x$ and above the $x$ axis, where $k$ is an integer and $0<k<a$. Therefore, $\sum_{k=1}^{a-1} \lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor$ is the number of lattice points inside the rectangle $(0,0)$, $(a,0)$, $(a, b)$, $(0, b)$, below diagonal $y = \frac{b}{a} x$. If $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime, $\sum_{k=1}^{a-1} \lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor = \frac{(a-1)(b-1)}{2}$, as explained in solution 5. This problem is about finding the upper and lower bound of $\frac{b}{a}$, given $\sum_{k=1}^{30} \lfloor \frac{b}{a} k \rfloor = 300$. The same problem can have geometric representation as stated in the original problem, or algebraic representation as stated here.

~isabelchen

Solution 6

As the procedure shown in the Solution 1, the lower bound of $m$ is $\frac{2}{3}$, whose equation is $2x - 3y = 0$.

Now, we are going to find the upper bound of $m$.

The signed distance between a point $(x_0,\ y_0)$ and the line $2x - 3y = 0$ is \[d = \frac{2x_0 - 3y_0}{\sqrt{2^2 + 3^3}}\]

If $(x_0,\ y_0)$ is the lowest lattice point above the line, then it should have the largest values of coordinates among all the solutions of $2x_0 - 3y_0 = 1$, because among the points with the shortest distance from the line, the slope of the farthest point to the origin is the smallest. Solve the inequality:\[2x - 3y = 1,\ 1 \leq x \leq 30\]

We obtain $(x_0,\ y_0) = (28,\ 19)$, so the upper bound of $m = \frac{19}{28}$.

$\frac{19}{28}-\frac{2}{3}=\frac{1}{84}$, $\boxed{\textbf{(E)} ~85}$.

~reda_mandymath

Video Solution

https://youtu.be/PC8fIZzICFg ~hippopotamus1

Video Solution by Interstigation (In-Depth, Straight-forward)

https://youtu.be/aAogEAOcL2Y

~Interstigation

See Also

2021 AMC 12B (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 12 Problems and Solutions
2021 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

The problems on this page are copyrighted by the Mathematical Association of America's American Mathematics Competitions. AMC logo.png

Retrieved from "https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=2021_AMC_12B_Problems/Problem_25&oldid=230898"