Re: Putnam Exam 2004 -- [*SPOILERS*]
From: Robin Chapman (rjc_at_ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: Stephen J. Herschkorn: "Well-orderings of infinite cardinals"
- Previous message: Airy R. Bean: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- In reply to: Dave Rusin: "Putnam Exam 2004 -- [*SPOILERS*]"
- Next in thread: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Putnam Exam 2004 -- [*SPOILERS*]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:49:38 +0000
Dave Rusin wrote:
> The Sixty-Fifth Annual Putnam Exam was held today. I have already
> posted a copy of the questions. Here are as many answers as I have
> at this moment; I have nothing to say about A-5 and B-6.
>
> If I were the grader I wouldn't give myself full credit for some of
> these answers but I think rather than nail down all the details I
> will wait for someone else to provide the slickest answers, making
> the drudgery unnecessary... (See Problems A-2, A-4, and problems
> with detailed computations such as B-3, B-4, B-5.)
>
> Overall I thought this was an easier exam than is typical, which
> made the event much more fun for the "average" students taking the test.
>
> I will add these answers and any other interesting responses to the
> files I make available about Putnam questions; see
> http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/problems-math/
>
>
> From Heron's formula, the area and side lengths of a triangle satisfy
> 16 A^2 = 2 (a^2b^2+a^2c^2+b^2c^2) - (a^4+b^4+c^4)
> Viewed as a quadratic polynomial in X = a^2, this function is clearly
> increasing as long as X < (b^2+c^2), which means that the area of a
> triangle increases with the length of any side as long as the angle
> opposite that side is acute (a^2 < b^2 + c^2 ).
>
> (A student pointed out to me at lunch that this is also obvious from
> A = (1/2) b h, where the height h of the triangle varies with a but
> c is fixed; the maximum height occurs with sides b and c
> perpendicular.)
>
> It then suffices to observe that we can transform triangle T_1 to T_2
> by a sequence of operations which lengthen just one edge at a time. This
> is not entirely obvious since, for example, we are not given that the
> smaller triangle is acute. But it's easy to see in a sketch which I will
> not attempt in ASCII, showing the portion of the positive octant in
> a,b,c -space which corresponds to triangles ( a < b+c, etc. ); the acute
> triangles are the ones external to three cones around the coordinate
> axes ( a^2 < b^2 + c^2, etc.) If one always lengthens the shortest edge
> (from among those that need to be lengthened to change T_1 into T_2),
> then that will always be opposite an acute angle. (An obtuse angle will
> always be opposite the _largest_ side, and that cannot the the only side
> remaining to be lengthened since T_2 is acute.)
An alternative method: enlarging the second trinagle by a constant
factor allows us to assume that a = a'. Draw both triangles on the
same base: ABC and A'BC say with A and A' on the same side of BC.
Draw the line L through A parallel to BC and the line L' perpendicalar
to L at A. If the second triangle had larger area, A' would lie
beyond L (opposite side of L to BC). Divide the "beyond" of L into
two quadrants by L'. If A' is beyond L then b' > b if L is
in one quadrant and c' > c in the other (here is where we use acuteness).
> A-4.
>
> This is a heavily-used formula when n = 2 : xy = (1/4)( (x+y)^2 -
> (x-y)^2 ). I guess I never really thought about generalizing it before!
>
> It suffices to arrange it so that the right side is a nonzero multiple of
> every x_i ; for then it is a degree-n polynomial and also a multiple of
> x_1 x_2 ... x_n, so the quotient of the two sides is a constant
> (necessarily rational, as can be seen from substituting x_1 = ... = 1);
> we can then divide through to make the constant be 1.
>
> If we arrange it so that the right side is symmetric in the x_i, then
> it suffices to make sure it vanishes when x_1 = 0.
>
> For odd n this is easy: for any subset T of N = {1, 2, ..., n}, let
> S(T) = the sum of the x_i with i in T. Then consider
>
> X = \sum (-1)^|T| ( S(T) - S(N-T) )^n ,
>
> the sum taken over all subsets T of N. When we substitute x1=0 we
> obtain an alternating sum of terms of the form ( S(U) - S(M-U) )^n
> where M = N - {1}. Each such term arises exactly twice, once from
> S(U union {1}) - S(M-U) and once from S(U) - S(N-U); since the
> cardinalities
> of U and U union {1} are of opposite parity, these two summands
> will cancel. Thus, X vanishes when x1=0.
>
> On the other hand, X (apparently) doesn't vanish identically; for
> example,
> when all x_i equal 1, we have
> c = \sum (-1)^|T| ( |T| - |N-T| )^n = \sum (-1)^k (2k-n)^n C( n,k ),
> which seems to equal (-2)^n n! (I computed the first few examples but
> didn't prove this formula in general.)
I got
n! x_1 x_2 ... x_n = sum_T (-1)^{n-|T|}(S(T))^n
eschewing coefficient -1. :-)
>
> B-2.
>
> Another slick one: Let S = {1, 2, ..., m}, T = {m+1, ..., m+n}.
> How many functions are there from S union T to S union T ? (m+n)^(m+n).
> Among those are the functions that send precisely m elements of the
> domain to S, and the other n elements to T. There are C(m+n,m)
> ways
> to choose which elements go to S, and once those are chosen there are
> m^m n^n such functions. So (m+n)^(m+n) >= (m+n)!/m!n! m^m n^n .
Alternative:
One of the terms in the binomial expansion of (m+n)^{m+n}
is (m+n choose m) m^m n^n so that (m+n)^{m+n} > (m+n choose m) m^m n^n
-- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html "Lacan, Jacques, 79, 91-92; mistakes his penis for a square root, 88-9" Francis Wheen, _How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World_
- Next message: Stephen J. Herschkorn: "Well-orderings of infinite cardinals"
- Previous message: Airy R. Bean: "Re: Infantile authours degrading this NG."
- In reply to: Dave Rusin: "Putnam Exam 2004 -- [*SPOILERS*]"
- Next in thread: The World Wide Wade: "Re: Putnam Exam 2004 -- [*SPOILERS*]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|