# USAMO 2015 Solution Notes Evan Chen《陳誼廷》 15 April 2024 This is a compilation of solutions for the 2015 USAMO. The ideas of the solution are a mix of my own work, the solutions provided by the competition organizers, and solutions found by the community. However, all the writing is maintained by me. These notes will tend to be a bit more advanced and terse than the "official" solutions from the organizers. In particular, if a theorem or technique is not known to beginners but is still considered "standard", then I often prefer to use this theory anyways, rather than try to work around or conceal it. For example, in geometry problems I typically use directed angles without further comment, rather than awkwardly work around configuration issues. Similarly, sentences like "let $\mathbb{R}$ denote the set of real numbers" are typically omitted entirely. Corrections and comments are welcome! ## Contents 0 Problems ..... 2 1 Solutions to Day 1 ..... 3 1.1 USAMO 2015/1, proposed by Titu Andreescu ..... 3 1.2 USAMO 2015/2, proposed by Zuming Feng, Jacek Fabrykowski ..... 4 1.3 USAMO 2015/3, proposed by Gabriel Carroll ..... 7 2 Solutions to Day 2 ..... 9 2.1 USAMO 2015/4, proposed by Maria Monks Gillespie ..... 9 2.2 USAMO 2015/5, proposed by Mohsen Jamaali ..... 11 2.3 USAMO 2015/6, proposed by Iurie Boreico ..... 12 ## §0 Problems 1. Solve in integers the equation $$ x^{2}+x y+y^{2}=\left(\frac{x+y}{3}+1\right)^{3} $$ 2. Quadrilateral $A P B Q$ is inscribed in circle $\omega$ with $\angle P=\angle Q=90^{\circ}$ and $A P=$ $A Qe$. Proof. We have $e^{5}=a^{4}+b^{4} \leq a^{5}+b^{5}<(a c+b d)^{5}=p^{5}$. Thus the above equation implies $p \leq \max \left(a-d, a+d, a^{2}+d^{2}\right)=a^{2}+d^{2}$. Similarly, $p \leq b^{2}+c^{2}$. So $$ a c+b d=p \leq \min \left\{a^{2}+d^{2}, b^{2}+c^{2}\right\} $$ or by subtraction $$ 0 \leq \min \{a(a-c)+d(d-b), b(b-d)+c(c-a)\} . $$ But since $a^{4}+b^{4}=c^{4}+d^{4}$ the numbers $a-c$ and $d-b$ should have the same sign, and so this is an obvious contradiction. ## §2.3 USAMO 2015/6, proposed by lurie Boreico Available online at https://aops.com/community/p4774023. ## Problem statement Consider $0<\lambda<1$, and let $A$ be a multiset of positive integers. Let $A_{n}=\{a \in A$ : $a \leq n\}$. Assume that for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the multiset $A_{n}$ contains at most $n \lambda$ numbers. Show that there are infinitely many $n \in \mathbb{N}$ for which the sum of the elements in $A_{n}$ is at most $\frac{n(n+1)}{2} \lambda$. For brevity, $\# S$ denotes $|S|$. Let $x_{n}=n \lambda-\# A_{n} \geq 0$. We now proceed by contradiction by assuming the conclusion fails for $n$ large enough; that is, $$ \begin{aligned} \frac{n(n+1)}{2} \lambda & <\sum_{a \in A_{n}} a \\ & =1\left(\# A_{1}-\# A_{0}\right)+2\left(\# A_{2}-\# A_{1}\right)+\cdots+n\left(\# A_{n}-\# A_{n-1}\right) \\ & =n \# A_{n}-\left(\# A_{1}+\cdots+\# A_{n-1}\right) \\ & =n\left(n \lambda-x_{n}\right)-\left[\left(\lambda-x_{1}\right)+\left(2 \lambda-x_{2}\right)+\cdots+\left((n-1) \lambda-x_{n-1}\right)\right] \\ & =\frac{n(n+1)}{2} \lambda-n x_{n}+\left(x_{1}+\cdots+x_{n-1}\right) . \end{aligned} $$ This means that for all sufficiently large $n$, say $n \geq N_{0}$, we have $$ x_{n}<\frac{x_{1}+\cdots+x_{n-1}}{n} \quad \forall n \geq N_{0} $$ In particular, each $x_{n}$ is the less than the average of all preceding terms. Intuitively this means $x_{n}$ should become close to each other, since they are also nonnegative. However, we have a second condition we haven't used yet: the "integer" condition implies $$ \left|x_{n+1}-x_{n}\right|=|\lambda-\#\{n \in A\}|>\varepsilon $$ for some fixed $\varepsilon>0$, namely $\varepsilon=\min \{\lambda, 1-\lambda\}$. Using the fact that consecutive terms differ by some fixed $\varepsilon$, we will derive a contradiction. If we let $M$ be the average of $x_{1}, \ldots, x_{N_{0}}$, then we ought to have $$ x_{n}N_{0} . $$ Hence for $n>N_{0}$ we have $x_{n}+x_{n+1}<2 M-\varepsilon$, and so for large enough $n$ the average must drop to just above $M-\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon$. Thus for some large $N_{1}>N_{0}$, we will have $$ x_{n}N_{1} . $$ If we repeat this argument then with a large $N_{2}>N_{1}$, we obtain $$ x_{n}N_{2} $$ and so on and so forth. This is a clear contradiction. Remark. Note that if $A=\{2,2,3,4,5, \ldots\}$ and $\lambda=1$ then contradiction. So the condition that $0<\lambda<1$ cannot be dropped, and (by scaling) neither can the condition that $A \subseteq \mathbb{Z}$. Remark (Suggested by Zhao Ting-wei). Despite the relation $$ x_{n}<\frac{x_{1}+\cdots+x_{n-1}}{n} \quad \forall n \geq N_{0} $$ implying that $x_{n}$ is bounded, it does not alone imply that $x_{n}$ converges, not even to some nonzero value. Zhao Ting-Wei showed me that one can have a sequence which is zero "every so often" yet where the average is nonzero. A counterexample is given explicitly by $$ x_{n}= \begin{cases}1000 & n=1 \\ 0 & n \text { is a power of } 10 \\ 1+\frac{1}{n} & \text { otherwise }\end{cases} $$ which does not have a limit. For completeness, let's check this - let $H_{n}$ denote the $n$ 'th harmonic number, and compute $$ \begin{aligned} \sum_{1}^{n-1} x_{n} & =1000+(n-1)+H_{n-1}-\sum_{k=1}^{\left\lfloor\log _{10} n\right\rfloor}\left(1+\frac{1}{10^{k}}\right) \\ & >n+999+H_{n-1}-\log _{10} n-\left(1+\frac{1}{10}+\ldots\right) \\ & >n+997+H_{n-1}-\log _{10} n>n+1 \end{aligned} $$ so $1+\frac{1}{n}<\frac{1}{n} \sum_{1}^{n-1} x_{n}$ as needed.