完整版真题免费下载
+答案解析请参考文末
Let be a convex pentagon inscribed in a semicircle of diameter
. Denote by
,
,
,
the feet of the perpendiculars from
onto lines
,
,
,
, respectively. Prove that the acute angle formed by lines
and
is half the size of
, where
is the midpoint of segment
.
There are students standing in a circle, one behind the other. The students have heights
. If a student with height
is standing directly behind a student with height
or less, the two students are permitted to switch places. Prove that it is not possible to make more than
such switches before reaching a position in which no further switches are possible.
The 2010 positive numbers satisfy the inequality
for all distinct indices
. Determine, with proof, the largest possible value of the product
.
Let be a triangle with
. Points
and
lie on sides
and
, respectively, such that
and
. Segments
and
meet at
. Determine whether or not it is possible for segments
,
,
,
,
,
to all have integer side lengths.
Let where
is an odd prime, and let
Prove that if
for relatively prime integers
and
, then
is divisible by
.
A blackboard contains 68 pairs of nonzero integers. Suppose that for each positive integer at most one of the pairs
and
is written on the blackboard. A student erases some of the 136 integers, subject to the condition that no two erased integers may add to 0. The student then scores one point for each of the 68 pairs in which at least one integer is erased. Determine, with proof, the largest number
of points that the student can guarantee to score regardless of which 68 pairs have been written on the board.
Let ,
. Since
is a chord of the circle with diameter
,
. From the chord
, we conclude
.
Triangles
and
are both right-triangles, and share the angle
, therefore they are similar, and so the ratio
. Now by Thales' theorem the angles
are all right-angles. Also,
, being the fourth angle in a quadrilateral with 3 right-angles is again a right-angle. Therefore
and
. Similarly,
, and so
.
Now is perpendicular to
so the direction
is
counterclockwise from the vertical, and since
we see that
is
clockwise from the vertical. (Draw an actual vertical line segment if necessary.)
Similarly, is perpendicular to
so the direction
is
clockwise from the vertical, and since
is
we see that
is
counterclockwise from the vertical.
Therefore the lines and
intersect at an angle
. Now by the central angle theorem
and
, and so
, and we are done.
Note that is a quadrilateral whose angles sum to 360°; can you find a faster approach using this fact?
We can prove a bit more. Namely, the extensions of the segments and
meet at a point on the diameter
that is vertically below the point
.
Since and is inclined
counterclockwise from the vertical, the point
is
horizontally to the right of
.
Now , so
is
vertically above the diameter
. Also, the segment
is inclined
clockwise from the vertical, so if we extend it down from
towards the diameter
it will meet the diameter at a point which is
horizontally to the left of
. This places the intersection point of
and
vertically below
.
Similarly, and by symmetry the intersection point of and
is directly below
on
, so the lines through
and
meet at a point
on the diameter that is vertically below
.
The Footnote's claim is more easily proved as follows.
Note that because and
are both complementary to
, they must be equal. Now, let
intersect diameter
at
. Then
is cyclic and so
. Hence
is cyclic as well, and so we deduce that
Hence
are collinear and so
. This proves the Footnote.
The Footnote's claim can be proved even more easily as follows.
Drop an altitude from to
at point
. Notice that
are collinear because they form the Simson line of
from
. Also notice that
are collinear because they form the Simson line of
from
. Since
is at the diameter
, lines
and
must intersect at the diameter.
There is another, more simpler solution using Simson lines. Can you find it?
Of course, as with any geometry problem, DRAW A HUGE DIAGRAM spanning at least one page. And label all your right angles, noting and
. It looks like there are a couple of key angles we need to diagram. Let's take
. From there
.
Move on to the part about the intersection of and
. Call the intersection
. Note that by Simson Lines from point
to
and
,
is perpendicular to
and
lies on
. Immediately note that we are trying to show that
.
It suffices to show that referencing quadrilateral , where
represents the intersection of
, we have reflex
. Note that the reflex angle is
, therefore it suffices to show that
. To make this proof more accessible, note that via (cyclic) rectangles
and
, it suffices to prove
.
Note . Note
, which completes the proof.
For reference/feasibility records: took expiLnCalc ~56 minutes (consecutively). During the problem expiLnCalc realized that the inclusion of was necessary when trying to show that
. Don't be afraid to attempt several different strategies, and always be humble!
Let be the projection of
onto
. Notice that
lies on the Simson Line
from
to
, and the Simson Line
from
to
. Hence,
, so it suffices to show that
.
Since and
are cyclic quadrilaterals,
as required.
Solution by TheUltimate123.
We adopt the usual convention that unless
. With this, the binomial coefficients are defined for all integers via the recursion:
It is clear that the circle is oriented and all the students are facing in same direction (clockwise or counterclockwise). We'll call this direction forward.
In any switch consider the taller student to have moved forward and the shorter student to have remained stationary. No backward motion is allowed. With this definition of forward motion, the first two students with heights and
are always stationary, while other students potentially move past them.
For , the student with height
can never switch places with the student with height
, and the former can make at most
more forward moves than the latter (when all the students of heights
are between
and
in the forward direction).
Therefore, if the student can make
forward steps, the
student can make at most
steps. With
and
, and a constant second difference of
, we quickly see that
.
With students in all, the total number of steps is therefore at most
. The sum is a telescoping sum since:
WLOG, let . Now, we find the end arrangement with the most switches possible. We claim that the arrangement will be
, where the left to right direction is the "backwards" direction. To prove this makes the most switches, we show that there is always at least one more switch that can be done for any other arrangement. This is elementary to show. There will always be one height
such that the number to its right is
less than
, unless every number has
to the right of
(other than
and
). The exception occurs at our claim, so our claim is proven. Now we want to find the maximum ways we can "undo" our arrangement. But undoing a switch is just doing a switch from our arrangement in the opposite direction. So, the start arrangement with the most possible switches is the reverse of the end arrangement or
. We want to find how many switches must be done to get from the start arrangement to the end arrangement. We start by switching
around until it cannot be switched anymore. We find that we can switch
times. When we are switching (or, in other words, moving to the right) the number
, we can switch it
times before it is to the left of
. But then we can also switch each of
(in that order)
times before they get stopped again. Let
. Then, the sum of the switches is
.
Rearranging and summing, we get
The largest possible value is
No larger value is possible, since for each consecutive pair of elements: , the product is at most
, and so the product of all the pairs is at most:
If we can demonstrate a sequence in which for all
the product
, and all the inequalities are satisfied, the above upper bound will be achieved and the proof complete.
We will construct sequences of an arbitrarily large even length , in which:
Given
, from the equations
, we obtain the whole sequence recursively:
And as a result:
The same equations
can be used to compute the whole sequence from any other known term.
We will often need to compare fractions in which the numerator and denominator are both positive, with fractions in which a positive term is added to both. Suppose are three positive real numbers, then:
Returning to the problem in hand, for
,
. If it were otherwise, we would have for some
:
so our assumption is impossible.
Therefore, we need only verify inequalities with an index difference of or
, as these imply the rest.
Now, when the indices differ by we have ensured equality (and hence the desired inequalities) by construction. So, we only need to prove the inequalities for successive even index and successive odd index pairs, i.e. for every index
, prove
.
We now compare with
. By our recurrence relations:
So, for both odd and even index pairs, the strict inequality
follows from
and we need only prove the inequalities
and
, the second of which holds (as an equality) by construction, so only the first remains.
We have not yet used the equation , with this we can solve for the last three terms (or equivalently their squares) and thus compute the whole sequence. From the equations:
multiplying any two and dividing by the third, we get:
from which,
With the squares of the last four terms in hand, we can now verify the only non-redundant inequality:
The inequality above follows because the numerator and denominator are both positive for
.
This completes the construction and the proof of all the inequalities, which miraculously reduced to just one inequality for the last pair of odd indices.
If we choose a different first term, say , the sequence
will have the form:
the same holds if we have a longer sequence, at every index of the shorter sequence, the longer sequence will be a constant multiple (for all the odd terms) or dividend (for all the even terms) of the corresponding term of shorter sequence.
We observe that our solution is not unique, indeed for any , the same construction with
terms, truncated to just the first
terms, yields a sequence
which also satisfies all the required conditions, but in this case
.
We could have constructed this alternative solution directly, by replacing the right hand side in the equation with any smaller value for which we still get
.
In the modified construction, for some constant , we have:
and so:
which satisfies the required inequality provided:
The ratio
, between the largest and smallest possible value of
is in fact the ratio between the largest and smallest values of
that yield a sequence that meets the conditions for at least
terms.
In the case, the equation for
gives:
. We will next consider what happens to
, and the sequence of squares in general, as
increases.
Let denote the
odd and even terms, respectively, of the unique sequence which satisfies our original equations and has
terms in total. Let
be the odd and even terms of the solution with
terms. We already noted that there must exist a constant
(that depends on
, but not on
), such that:
This constant is found explicitly by comparing the squares of the last term
of the solution of length
with the square of the third last term
of the solution of length
:
Clearly
for all positive
, and so for fixed
, the odd index terms
strictly increase with
, while the even index terms
decrease with
.
Therefore, for ,
The product converges to a finite value even if taken infinitely far, and we can conclude (by a simple continuity argument) that there is a unique infinite positive sequence
, in which
, that satisfies all the inequalities
. The square of the first term of the infinite sequence is:
In summary, if we set
, and then recursively set
, we get an infinite sequence that, for all
, yields the maximum possible product
, subject to the conditions
.
We know that angle , as the other two angles in triangle
add to
. Assume that only
, and
are integers. Using the Law of Cosines on triangle BIC,
. Observing that
is an integer and that
we have
and therefore,
The LHS (
) is irrational, while the RHS is the quotient of the division of two integers and thus is rational. Clearly, there is a contradiction. Therefore, it is impossible for
, and
to all be integers, which invalidates the original claim that all six lengths are integers, and we are done.
The result can be also proved without direct appeal to trigonometry, via just the angle bisector theorem and the structure of Pythagorean triples. (This is a lot more work).
A triangle in which all the required lengths are integers exists if and only if there exists a triangle in which and
are relatively-prime integers and the lengths of the segments
are all rational (we divide all the lengths by the
or conversely multiply all the lengths by the least common multiple of the denominators of the rational lengths).
Suppose there exists a triangle in which the lengths and
are relatively-prime integers and the lengths
are all rational.
Since is the bisector of
, by the angle bisector theorem, the ratio
, and since
is the bisector of
,
. Therefore,
. Now
is by assumption rational, so
is rational, but
and
are assumed integers so
must also be rational. Since
is the hypotenuse of a right-triangle, its length is the square root of an integer, and thus either an integer or irrational, so
must be an integer.
With and
relatively-prime, we conclude that the side lengths of
must be a Pythagorean triple:
, with
relatively-prime positive integers and
odd.
Without loss of generality, . By the angle bisector theorem,
Since
is a right-triangle, we have:
and so
is rational if and only if
is a perfect square.
Also by the angle bisector theorem,
and therefore, since
is a right-triangle, we have:
and so
is rational if and only if
is a perfect square.
Combining the conditions on and
, we see that
and
must both be perfect squares. If it were so, their ratio, which is
, would be the square of a rational number, but
is irrational, and so the assumed triangle cannot exist.
Since is an odd prime,
, for a suitable positive integer
, and consequently
.
The partial-fraction decomposition of the general term of is:
therefore
with
and
positive relatively-prime integers.
Since and
is a prime, in the final sum all the denominators are relatively prime to
, but all the numerators are divisible by
, and therefore the numerator
of the reduced fraction
will be divisible by
. Since the sought difference
, we conclude that
divides
as required.
暂无官方Solutions,可联系翰林导师进行详解。欢迎点击联系我们资讯翰林顾问!
翰林课程体验,退费流程快速投诉邮箱: yuxi@linstitute.net 沪ICP备2023009024号-1