2009 USAMO Problems/Problem 2
Contents
Problem
Let be a positive integer. Determine the size of the largest subset of
which does not contain three elements
(not necessarily distinct) satisfying
.
Solution 1
Let be a subset of
of largest size satisfying
for all
. First, observe that
. Next note that
, by observing that the set of all the odd numbers in
works. To prove that
, it suffices to only consider even
, because the statement for
implies the statement for
as well. So from here forth, assume
is even.
For any two sets and
, denote by
the set
, and by
the set
. Also, let
denote
and
denote
. First, we present a lemma:
Lemma 1: Let and
be two sets of integers. Then
.
Proof: Write and
where
and
. Then
is a strictly increasing sequence of
integers in
.
Now, we consider two cases:
Case 1: One of is not in
. Without loss of generality, suppose
. Let
(a set with
elements), so that
by our assumption. Now, the condition that
for all
implies that
. Since any element of
has absolute value at most
, we have
. It follows that
, so
. However, by Lemma 1, we also have
. Therefore, we must have
, or
, or
.
Case 2: Both and
are in
. Then
and
are not in
, and at most one of each of the pairs
and their negatives are in
. This means
contains at most
elements.
Thus we have proved that for even
, and we are done.
Solution 2
Let be the set of subsets satisfying the
condition for
, and let
be the largest size of a set in
. Let
if
is even, and
if
is odd. We note that
due to the following constuction:
or all of the odd numbers in the set. Then the sum of any three will be odd and thus nonzero.
Lemma 1: . If
, then we note that
, so
.
Lemma 2: . Suppose, for sake of contradiction, that
and
. Remove
from
, and partition the rest of the elements into two sets
, where
and
contain all of the positive and negative elements of
, respectively. (obviously
, because
). WLOG, suppose
. Then
. We now show the following two sub-results:
- Sub-lemma (A): if
,
[and similar for
]; and
- Sub-lemma (B): we cannot have both
and
simultaneously hold.
This is sufficient, because the only two elements that may be in that are not in
are
and
; for
, we must either have
and both
[but by pigeonhole
, see sub-lemma (A)], or
, and
, in which case by (A) we must have
, violating (B).
(A): Partition into the
sets
. Because
, then if any of those sets are within
,
. But by Pigeonhole at most
elements may be in
, contradiction.
(B): We prove this statement with another induction. We see that the statement easily holds true for or
, so suppose it is true for
, but [for sake of contradiction] false for
. Let
, and similarly for
. Again WLOG
. Then we have
.
- If
, then by inductive hypothesis, we must have
. But (A) implies that we cannot add
or
. So to satisfy
we must have
added, but then
contradiction.
- If
, then at least three of
added. But
, and by (A) we have that
cannot be added. If
, then another grouping similar to (A) shows that
canno be added, contradiction. So
,
, and adding the three remaining elements gives
contradiction.
- If
, then all four of
must be added, and furthermore
. Then
, and by previous paragraph we cannot add
.
So we have and by induction, that
, which we showed is achievable above.
See also
2009 USAMO (Problems • Resources) | ||
Preceded by Problem 1 |
Followed by Problem 3 | |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 | ||
All USAMO Problems and Solutions |
The problems on this page are copyrighted by the Mathematical Association of America's American Mathematics Competitions.