Difference between revisions of "2008 IMO Problems/Problem 3"
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
− | If <math>c=\pm\frac{a}{2}</math>, then from (1), we | + | If <math>c=\pm\frac{a}{2}</math>, then from (1), we see that <math>a</math> must divide <math>2</math> and hence <math>a=2</math>. In turn, <math>d=-\frac{b-1}{2}</math> and <math>n=\frac{b(b-1)}{2}-2</math>. Therefore, <math>b^2-b=2n+4>2n</math> and so <math>\left(b-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2>2n</math>, from where <math>b > \sqrt{2n}+\frac{1}{2}</math>. Finally, <math>p=b^2+2^2 > 2n+\sqrt{2n}</math> and the case <math>c=\pm\frac{a}{2}</math> is cleared. |
We can safely assume now that | We can safely assume now that | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
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) | + | |
− | 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> | + | <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). \leqno{(2)}</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 | ||
+ | <cmath>2+sqrt{p-4} > \sqrt{p} + 1\\\sqrt{p-4}>\sqrt{p}-1,</cmath> | ||
+ | which becomes obvious upon squaring boht sides. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Now armed with <math>a+b-1>\sqrt{p}</math> and (2), we get | ||
+ | <cmath>4(n^2+1) \le p( p - 2(a+b-1) ) \le p( p-2\sqrt{p} ) < u^2(u-1)^2,</cmath> | ||
+ | where <math>u=\sqrt{p}.</math> |
Revision as of 22:42, 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 , we have and so so
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 which becomes obvious upon squaring boht sides.
Now armed with and (2), we get where