# Algebra ## A-1 DEN The real numbers $x_{1}, \ldots, x_{2011}$ satisfy $$ x_{1}+x_{2}=2 x_{1}^{\prime}, \quad x_{2}+x_{3}=2 x_{2}^{\prime}, \quad \ldots, \quad x_{2011}+x_{1}=2 x_{2011}^{\prime} $$ where $x_{1}^{\prime}, x_{2}^{\prime}, \ldots, x_{2011}^{\prime}$ is a permutation of $x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{2011}$. Prove that $x_{1}=x_{2}=\cdots=x_{2011}$. Solution 1 For convenience we call $x_{2011}$ also $x_{0}$. Let $k$ be the largest of the numbers $x_{1}, \ldots, x_{2011}$, and consider an equation $x_{n-1}+x_{n}=2 k$, where $1 \leq n \leq 2011$. Hence we get $2 \max \left(x_{n-1}, x_{n}\right) \geq x_{n-1}+x_{n}=2 k$, so either $x_{n-1}$ or $x_{n}$, say $x_{n-1}$, satisfies $x_{n-1} \geq k$. Since also $x_{n-1} \leq k$, we then have $x_{n-1}=k$, and then also $x_{n}=2 k-x_{n-1}=2 k-k=k$. That is, in such an equation both variables on the left equal $k$. Now let $\mathcal{E}$ be the set of such equations, and let $\mathcal{S}$ be the set of subscripts on the left of these equations. From $x_{n}=k \forall n \in \mathcal{S}$ we get $|\mathcal{S}| \leq|\mathcal{E}|$. On the other hand, since the total number of appearances of these subscripts is $2|\mathcal{E}|$ and each subscript appears on the left in no more than two equations, we have $2|\mathcal{E}| \leq 2|\mathcal{S}|$. Thus $2|\mathcal{E}|=2|\mathcal{S}|$, so for each $n \in \mathcal{S}$ the set $\mathcal{E}$ contains both equations with the subscript $n$ on the left. Now assume $1 \in \mathcal{S}$ without loss of generality. Then the equation $x_{1}+x_{2}=2 k$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}$, so $2 \in \mathcal{S}$. Continuing in this way we find that all subscripts belong to $\mathcal{S}$, so $x_{1}=x_{2}=\cdots=x_{2011}=k$. Solution 2 Again we call $x_{2011}$ also $x_{0}$. Taking the square on both sides of all the equations and adding the results, we get $$ \sum_{n=1}^{2011}\left(x_{n-1}+x_{n}\right)^{2}=4 \sum_{n=1}^{2011} x_{n}^{\prime 2}=4 \sum_{n=1}^{2011} x_{n}^{2} $$ which can be transformed with some algebra into $$ \sum_{n=1}^{2011}\left(x_{n-1}-x_{n}\right)^{2}=0 $$ Hence the assertion follows. ## A-2 NOR Let $f: \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ be a function such that, for all integers $x$ and $y$, the following holds: $$ f(f(x)-y)=f(y)-f(f(x)) . $$ Show that $f$ is bounded, i.e. that there is a constant $C$ such that $$ -C2$. Is it always true that for some $n_{0}$ the sequence $a_{n_{0}}, a_{n_{0}+1}, a_{n_{0}+2}, \ldots$ is periodic? Since for $n>2$, we actually consider the sequence $\bmod 10$, and $\varphi(10)=4$, we have that the recursive formula itself has a period of 4 . Furthermore, the subsequent terms of the sequence are uniquely determined by two consecutive terms. Therefore if there exist integers $n_{0}>2$ and $k>0$ such that $a_{n_{0}}=a_{n_{0}+4 k}$ and $a_{n_{0}+1}=a_{n_{0}+4 k+1}$, then the sequence is periodic from $a_{n_{0}}$ on with period $4 k$. Consider the pairs $\left(a_{2+4 j}, a_{3+4 j}\right)$ for $0 \leq j \leq 100$. Since there are at most 100 possible different amongst these, there have to exist $0 \leq j_{1}1 \text {. } $$ Determine the largest integer $k_{a}$ for which there exists a prime $p$ such that $p^{k_{a}}$ divides $x_{2011}-1$. Let $y_{n}=x_{n}-1$. Hence $y_{n}=x_{n}-1=2\left(y_{n-1}+1\right)-4\left(y_{n-2}+1\right)+3-1=2 y_{n-1}-4 y_{n-2}=2\left(2 y_{n-2}-4 y_{n-3}\right)-4 y_{n-2}=-8 y_{n-3}$ for all $n>2$. Hence $$ x_{2011}-1=y_{2011}=-8 y_{2008}=\cdots=(-8)^{670} y_{1}=2^{2011} $$ Hence $k=2011$. ## N-2 DEN Determine all positive integers $d$ such that whenever $d$ divides a positive integer $n, d$ will also divide any integer obtained by rearranging the digits of $n$. Answer: $d=1, d=3$ or $d=9$. It is known that 1,3 and 9 have the given property. Assume that $d$ is a $k$ digit number such that whenever $d$ divides an integer $n, d$ will also divide any integer $m$ having the same digits as $n$. Then there exists a $k+2$ digit number $10 a_{1} a_{2} \ldots a_{k}$ which is divisible by $d$. Hence $a_{1} a_{2} \cdots a_{k} 10$ and $a_{1} a_{2} \cdots a_{k} 01$ are also divisible by $d$. Since $a_{1} a_{2} \cdots a_{k} 10-a_{1} a_{2} \cdots a_{k} 01=9, d$ divides 9 , and hence $d=1, d=3$ or $d=9$ as stated. ## N-3 GER Determine all pairs $(p, q)$ of primes for which both $p^{2}+q^{3}$ and $q^{2}+p^{3}$ are perfect squares. Answer. There is only one such pair, namely $(p, q)=(3,3)$. Proof. Let the pair $(p, q)$ be as described in the statement of the problem. 1.) First we show that $p \neq 2$. Otherwise, there would exist a prime $q$ for which $q^{2}+8$ and $q^{3}+4$ are perfect squares. Because of $q^{2}N$. Clearly, by assumption, there cannot meet two blocks with length $\geq 2$. It is also impossible that there meet two blocks of length 1 (remember that we deleted the first block). Thus all balanced or all unbalanced blocks have length 1. All other blocks have length 3, at least. Case 1: All unbalanced blocks have length 1. We take an unbalanced number $u>2 N^{\prime}+3$ with $u \equiv 1(\bmod 4)$ (for instance $u=p^{2}$ for an odd prime $p$ ). Since all balanced blocks have length $\geq 3, u-3, u-1$, and $u+1$ must be balanced. This implies that $(u-3) / 2$ is unbalanced, $(u-1) / 2$ is balanced, and $(u+1) / 2$ is again unbalanced. Thus $\{(u-1) / 2\}$ is an balanced block of length 1 - contradiction. Case 2: All balanced blocks have length 1. Now we take a balanced number $b>2 N^{\prime}+3$ with $b \equiv 1(\bmod 4)\left(\right.$ for instance $b=p^{2} q^{2}$ for distinct odd primes $p, q)$. By similar arguments, $(b-3) / 2$ is balanced, $(b-1) / 2$ is unbalanced, and $(b+1) / 2$ is again balanced. Now the balanced block $\{(b-1) / 2\}$ gives the desired contradiction.