Difference between revisions of "2008 IMO Problems/Problem 3"
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
We can safely assume now that | We can safely assume now that | ||
<cmath>|c| \le \frac{a-1}{2}.</cmath> | <cmath>|c| \le \frac{a-1}{2}.</cmath> | ||
− | As <math>b>a>1</math> | + | As <math>b>a>1</math> implies <math>b>2</math>, we have |
<cmath>|d| = \left|\frac{1-bc}{a}\right| \le \frac{b(a-1)+2}{2a} < \frac{ba}{2a} = \frac{b}{2},</cmath> | <cmath>|d| = \left|\frac{1-bc}{a}\right| \le \frac{b(a-1)+2}{2a} < \frac{ba}{2a} = \frac{b}{2},</cmath> | ||
so | so | ||
<cmath>|d| \le \frac{b-1}{2}.</cmath> | <cmath>|d| \le \frac{b-1}{2}.</cmath> | ||
− | <cmath>n^2+1 = (a^2+b^2)(c^2+d^2) \le p\left( \frac{(a-1)^2}{4}+\frac{(b-1)^2}{4} \right). | + | <cmath>n^2+1 = (a^2+b^2)(c^2+d^2) \le p\left( \frac{(a-1)^2}{4}+\frac{(b-1)^2}{4} \right). <cmath>2</cmath></cmath> |
− | Before we proceed, we would like to show that <math>a+b-1 > \sqrt{p}</math>. Observe that the function <math>x+\sqrt{p-x^2}</math> over <math>x\in(2,\sqrt{p-4})</math> reaches its minima on the ends, so <math>a+b</math> given <math>a^2+b^2=p</math> is minimized for <math>a = 2</math>, where it equals <math>2+sqrt{p-2^2}</math>. So we want to show that | + | Before we proceed, we would like to show that <math>a+b-1 > \sqrt{p}</math>. Observe that the function <math>x+\sqrt{p-x^2}</math> over <math>x\in(2,\sqrt{p-4})</math> reaches its minima on the ends, so <math>a+b</math> given <math>a^2+b^2=p</math> is minimized for <math>a = 2</math>, where it equals <math>2+sqrt{p-2^2}</math>. So we want to show that, for big <math>p</math>, <cmath>2+sqrt{p-4} > \sqrt{p} + 1\\\sqrt{p-4}>\sqrt{p}-1,</cmath> |
− | <cmath>2+sqrt{p-4} > \sqrt{p} + 1\\\sqrt{p-4}>\sqrt{p}-1,</cmath> | ||
which becomes obvious upon squaring boht sides. | which becomes obvious upon squaring boht sides. | ||
Revision as of 22:58, 3 September 2008
(still editing...)
The main idea is to take a gaussian prime and multiply it by a "twice as small" to get . The rest is just making up the little details.
For each sufficiently large prime of the form , we shall find a corresponding satisfying the required condition with the prime number in question being . Since there exist infinitely many such primes and, for each of them, , we will have found infinitely many distinct satisfying the problem.
Take a prime of the form and consider its "sum-of-two squares" representation , which we know to exist for all such primes. As , assume without loss of generality that . If , then is our guy, and as long as (and hence ) is large enough. Let's see what happens when .
Since and are (obviously) co-prime, there must exist integers and such that In fact, if and are such numbers, then and work as well for any integer , so we can assume that .
Define and let's see what happens. Notice that .
If , then from (1), we see that must divide and hence . In turn, and . Therefore, and so , from where . Finally, and the case is cleared.
We can safely assume now that As implies , we have so
</cmath>
Before we proceed, we would like to show that . Observe that the function over reaches its minima on the ends, so given is minimized for , where it equals . So we want to show that, for big , which becomes obvious upon squaring boht sides.
Now armed with and (2), we get where