Difference between revisions of "2015 USAMO Problems/Problem 5"
(→Solution) |
(→Solution) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
~BealsConjecture | ~BealsConjecture | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Another Solution=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | A more conventional approach, using proof by contradiction: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Without loss of generality, assume <math>a>d</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Since <math>a^4 +b^4=c^4+d^4</math>, It is obvious that <math>b<c</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | We construct the equation <math>(a^4 +b^4)c^2d^2-(c^4+d^4)a^2b^2=(a^2c^2-b^2d^2)(a^2d^2-b^2c^2)</math> (the right side is the factorization of the left) Which factors into: <math>e^5(cd-ab)(cd+ab)=(ac-bd)(ac+bd)(ad-bc)(ad+bc)</math> (by using <math>a^4 +b^4=c^4+d^4=e^5</math> and factoring) | ||
+ | |||
+ | If <math>ac-bd</math> or <math>ad-bc</math> equal zero, then <math>a:b</math> equals <math>c:d</math> or <math>d:c</math> respectively, which is impossible because <math>a^4 +b^4=c^4+d^4</math> and because <math>a,b,c,d,e</math> are distinct. Therefore the right side of the equation above is non-zero and the left side must be divisible by <math>ac+bd</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | If <math>ac+bd</math> were prime, | ||
+ | |||
+ | We have <math>ac+bd-(cd+ab)=(a-d)(c-b)>0</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Which means that <math>ac+bd>cd+ab>cd-ab</math> and neither <math>cd+ab</math> nor <math>cd-ab</math> can be multiples of <math>ac+bd</math> meaning <math>e</math> must be a multiple of <math>ac+bd</math> and <math>e=k(ac+bd)</math> for some integer <math>k</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | But clearly this is impossible since <math>(k(ac+bd))^5>a^4+b^4</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Therefore, by contradiction, <math>ac+bd</math> is composite. |
Revision as of 22:11, 1 September 2015
Problem
Let be distinct positive integers such that . Show that is a composite number.
Solution
Note: This solution is definitely not what the folks at MAA intended, but it works!
Look at the statement . This can be viewed as a special case of Beal's Conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal%27s_conjecture), stating that the equation has no solutions over positive integers for and . This special case was proven in 2009 by Michael Bennet, Jordan Ellenberg, and Nathan Ng, as . This case is obviously contained under that special case, so and must have a common factor greater than .
Call the greatest common factor of and . Then for some and likewise for some . Then consider the quantity .
.
Because and are both positive, , and by definition , so is composite.
~BealsConjecture
Another Solution
A more conventional approach, using proof by contradiction:
Without loss of generality, assume
Since , It is obvious that
We construct the equation (the right side is the factorization of the left) Which factors into: (by using and factoring)
If or equal zero, then equals or respectively, which is impossible because and because are distinct. Therefore the right side of the equation above is non-zero and the left side must be divisible by
If were prime,
We have
Which means that and neither nor can be multiples of meaning must be a multiple of and for some integer
But clearly this is impossible since .
Therefore, by contradiction, is composite.