完整版真题免费下载
+答案解析请参考文末
The isosceles triangle?, with?
, is inscribed in the circle?
. Let?
?be a variable point on the arc?
?that does not contain?
, and let?
?and?
?denote the incenters of triangles?
?and?
, respectively.
Prove that as??varies, the circumcircle of triangle?
?passes through a fixed point.
Prove that there exists a positive integer??such that?
?has six consecutive zeros in its decimal representation.
Let??be a sequence of mutually distinct nonempty subsets of a set?
. Any two sets?
?and?
?are disjoint and their union is not the whole set?
, that is,?
?and?
, for all?
. Find the smallest possible number of elements in?
.
Find, with proof, the least integer??such that if any?
?elements are removed from the set?
, one can still find?
?distinct numbers among the remaining elements with sum?
.
Let??be an acute triangle, with?
?as its circumcenter. Point?
?is the foot of the perpendicular from?
?to line?
, and points?
?and?
are the feet of the perpendiculars from?
?to the lines?
?and?
, respectively.
Given thatprove that the points?
?and?
?are collinear.
Find all functions??such that for all real numbers?
?and?
,
Step 1:?Set??to obtain?
Step 2:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, if?
?then?
?In addition, replacing?
, it follows that?
?for all?
Step 3:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, replacing?
, it follows that?
?for all?
Step 4:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, if?
, then?
?by the observation from Step 3, because?
?Hence, the above equation implies that?
, where the last step follows from the first observation from Step 2.
?Therefore, either?
?or?
?for each?
?Looking back on the equation from Step 3, it follows that?
?for any nonzero?
?Therefore, replacing?
?in this equation, it follows that?
Step 5:?If?, then?
?This follows by choosing?
?such that?
?and?
?Then?
, so plugging?
?into the given equation, we deduce that?
?Therefore, by the third observation from Step 4, we obtain?
, as desired.
Step 6:?If?, then?
?Suppose by way of contradiction that there exists an nonzero?
?with?
?Choose?
?such that?
?and?
?The following three facts are crucial:
?1.?
?This is because?
, so by Step 5,?
, impossible.
?2.?
?This is because?
, so by Step 5 and the observation from Step 3,?
, impossible.
?3.?
?This is because by the second observation from Step 2,?
?Then because?
, Step 5 together with the observation from Step 3 yield?
, impossible.
?By the second observation from Step 4, these three facts imply that?
?and?
?and?
By plugging into the given equation, it follows that
But the above expression miraculously factors into?
! This is clearly a contradiction, since?
?by assumption. This completes Step 6.
Step 7:?By Step 6 and the second observation from Step 4, the only possible solutions are??and?
?for all?
?It's easy to check that both of these work, so we're done.
From steps 1 and 2 of Solution 1 we have that?, and?
. Therefore, if?
, then?
. Furthermore, setting?
?gives us?
. The LHS can be factored as?
. In particular, if?
, then we have?
. However, since we have from step 2 that?
, assuming?
, the equation becomes?
, so for every?
,?
?is equivalent to either?
?or?
. From step 6 of Solution 1, we can prove that?
, and?
?are the only possible solutions.
Step 1:?
Step 2:?. Now, assume?
. Then, if?
, we substitute in?
?to get?
, or?
. Otherwise, we divide both sides by?
?to get?
. If?
, we obviously have?
. Thus, the function is even. . Step 3:?
. Thus,?
, we have?
?or?
.
Step 4: We now assume?,?
. We have?
. Now, setting?
, we have?
?or?
. The former implies that?
?or?
. The latter implies that?
?or?
. Assume the latter.?
. Clearly, this implies that?
?is negative for some?
. Now, we have?
, which is a contradiction. Thus,?
?or?
.
Step 5: We now assume?,?
?for some?
. Let?
?be sufficiently large integer, let?
?and take the absolute value of?
(since the function is even). Choose?
?such that?
. Note that we have?
~
?and?
~
. Note that?
. Now,?
?LHS is positive, as the second term is positive and the first term is nonnegative and thus the right term is equal to?
~
. Now if?
, the second term of the LHS/RHS clearly ~0 as?
. if?
, then we have LHS/RHS ~?
, otherwise, we have LHS/RHS~
~
, a contradiction, as we're clearly not dividing by?
, and we should have LHS/RHS=1.
Define??for all rational numbers?
?and primes?
, where if?
, then?
, and?
?is the greatest power of?
that divides?
?for integer?
. Note that the expression(that we're trying to prove is an integer) is clearly rational, call it?
.
, by Legendre. Clearly,?
, and?
, where?
?is the remainder function(we take out groups of?
?which are just permutations of numbers?
?to?
?until there are less than?
?left, then we have?
?distinct values, which the minimum sum is attained at?
?to?
). Thus,?
, as the term in each summand is a sum of floors also and is clearly an integer.
Consider an??grid, which is to be filled with the integers?
?through?
?such that the numbers in each row are in increasing order from left to right, and such that the numbers in each column are in increasing order from bottom to top. In other words, we are creating an?
standard Young tableaux.
The Hook Length Formula is the source of the controversy, as it is very powerful and trivializes this problem. The Hook Length Formula states that the number of ways to create this standard Young tableaux (call this??for convenience) is:
Now, we do some simple rearrangement:
This is exactly the expression given in the problem! Since the expression given in the problem equals the number of distinct?
?standard Young tableaux, it must be an integer, so we are done.
This problem can be proved in the following two steps.
1. Let??be the?
-excenter, then?
?and?
?are colinear. This can be proved by the Trigonometric Form of Ceva's Theorem for?
2. Show that??which implies?
?This can be proved by multiple applications of the Pythagorean Thm.
Step 1:?Set??to obtain?
Step 2:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, if?
?then?
?In addition, replacing?
, it follows that?
?for all?
Step 3:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, replacing?
, it follows that?
?for all?
Step 4:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, if?
, then?
?by the observation from Step 3, because?
?Hence, the above equation implies that?
, where the last step follows from the first observation from Step 2.
?Therefore, either?
?or?
?for each?
?Looking back on the equation from Step 3, it follows that?
?for any nonzero?
?Therefore, replacing?
?in this equation, it follows that?
Step 5:?If?, then?
?This follows by choosing?
?such that?
?and?
?Then?
, so plugging?
?into the given equation, we deduce that?
?Therefore, by the third observation from Step 4, we obtain?
, as desired.
Step 6:?If?, then?
?Suppose by way of contradiction that there exists an nonzero?
?with?
?Choose?
?such that?
?and?
?The following three facts are crucial:
?1.?
?This is because?
, so by Step 5,?
, impossible.
?2.?
?This is because?
, so by Step 5 and the observation from Step 3,?
, impossible.
?3.?
?This is because by the second observation from Step 2,?
?Then because?
, Step 5 together with the observation from Step 3 yield?
, impossible.
?By the second observation from Step 4, these three facts imply that?
?and?
?and?
By plugging into the given equation, it follows that
But the above expression miraculously factors into?
! This is clearly a contradiction, since?
?by assumption. This completes Step 6.
Step 7:?By Step 6 and the second observation from Step 4, the only possible solutions are??and?
?for all?
?It's easy to check that both of these work, so we're done.
From steps 1 and 2 of Solution 1 we have that?, and?
. Therefore, if?
, then?
. Furthermore, setting?
?gives us?
. The LHS can be factored as?
. In particular, if?
, then we have?
. However, since we have from step 2 that?
, assuming?
, the equation becomes?
, so for every?
,?
?is equivalent to either?
?or?
. From step 6 of Solution 1, we can prove that?
, and?
?are the only possible solutions.
Step 1:?
Step 2:?. Now, assume?
. Then, if?
, we substitute in?
?to get?
, or?
. Otherwise, we divide both sides by?
?to get?
. If?
, we obviously have?
. Thus, the function is even. . Step 3:?
. Thus,?
, we have?
?or?
.
Step 4: We now assume?,?
. We have?
. Now, setting?
, we have?
?or?
. The former implies that?
?or?
. The latter implies that?
?or?
. Assume the latter.?
. Clearly, this implies that?
?is negative for some?
. Now, we have?
, which is a contradiction. Thus,?
?or?
.
Step 5: We now assume?,?
?for some?
. Let?
?be sufficiently large integer, let?
?and take the absolute value of?
(since the function is even). Choose?
?such that?
. Note that we have?
~
?and?
~
. Note that?
. Now,?
?LHS is positive, as the second term is positive and the first term is nonnegative and thus the right term is equal to?
~
. Now if?
, the second term of the LHS/RHS clearly ~0 as?
. if?
, then we have LHS/RHS ~?
, otherwise, we have LHS/RHS~
~
, a contradiction, as we're clearly not dividing by?
, and we should have LHS/RHS=1.
It is well-known that??(just use similar triangles or standard area formulas). Then by Power of a Point,
Consider the transformation?
?which dilates?
?from?
?by a factor of?
?and reflects about the?
-angle bisector. Then?
?clearly lies on?
, and its distance from?
?is
so?
, hence we conclude that?
?are collinear, as desired.
We will use barycentric coordinates with respect to??The given condition is equivalent to?
?Note that
Therefore, we must show that
Expanding, we must prove
Let??such that?
?The left side is equal to
The right side is equal to
which is equivalent to the left hand side. Therefore, the determinant is?
?and?
?are collinear.?
For convenience, let??denote the lengths of segments?
?respectively, and let?
?denote the measures of?
?respectively. Let?
?denote the circumradius of?
Since the central angle??subtends the same arc as the inscribed angle?
?on the circumcircle of?
?we have?
Note that?
?so?
?Thus,?
?Similarly, one can show that?
?(One could probably cite this as well-known, but I have proved it here just in case.)
Clearly,??Since?
?we have?
?Thus,?
Note that??The Extended Law of Sines states that:
Therefore,?
?Thus,?
Since??and?
?we have:
It follows that:
We see that?
Rearranging??we get?
?We also have?
?so?
?by SAS similarity. Thus,?
?so?
?is a right angle.
Rearranging??we get?
?We also have?
?so?
?by SAS similarity. Thus,?
?so?
?is a right angle.
Since??and?
?are both right angles, we get?
?so we conclude that?
?are collinear, and we are done. (We also obtain the extra interesting fact that?
)
Draw the altitude from??to?
, and let the foot of this altitude be?
.
Then, by the Right Triangle Altitude Theorem on triangle?, we have:?
.
Since??is the perpendicular bisector of?
,?
.
Substituting this into our previous equation gives?, which equals?
?by the problem condition.
Thus,?.
Again, by the Right Triangle Altitude Theorem, angle??is right.
By dropping an altitude from??to?
?and using the same method, we can find that angle?
?is right. Since?
,?
,?
,?
?are collinear and we are done.
~champion999
We use complex numbers. Let lower case letters represent their respective upper case points, with?. Spamming the foot from point to segment formula, we obtain
and
We now simplify the given length condition:
We would like to show that?
,?
,?
?are collinear, or
After some factoring (or expanding) that takes about 15 minutes, this eventually reduces to
which is true.
Step 1:?Set??to obtain?
Step 2:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, if?
?then?
?In addition, replacing?
, it follows that?
?for all?
Step 3:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, replacing?
, it follows that?
?for all?
Step 4:?Set??to obtain?
?In particular, if?
, then?
?by the observation from Step 3, because?
?Hence, the above equation implies that?
, where the last step follows from the first observation from Step 2.
?Therefore, either?
?or?
?for each?
?Looking back on the equation from Step 3, it follows that?
?for any nonzero?
?Therefore, replacing?
?in this equation, it follows that?
Step 5:?If?, then?
?This follows by choosing?
?such that?
?and?
?Then?
, so plugging?
?into the given equation, we deduce that?
?Therefore, by the third observation from Step 4, we obtain?
, as desired.
Step 6:?If?, then?
?Suppose by way of contradiction that there exists an nonzero?
?with?
?Choose?
?such that?
?and?
?The following three facts are crucial:
?1.?
?This is because?
, so by Step 5,?
, impossible.
?2.?
?This is because?
, so by Step 5 and the observation from Step 3,?
, impossible.
?3.?
?This is because by the second observation from Step 2,?
?Then because?
, Step 5 together with the observation from Step 3 yield?
, impossible.
?By the second observation from Step 4, these three facts imply that?
?and?
?and?
By plugging into the given equation, it follows that
But the above expression miraculously factors into?
! This is clearly a contradiction, since?
?by assumption. This completes Step 6.
Step 7:?By Step 6 and the second observation from Step 4, the only possible solutions are??and?
?for all?
?It's easy to check that both of these work, so we're done.
From steps 1 and 2 of Solution 1 we have that?, and?
. Therefore, if?
, then?
. Furthermore, setting?
?gives us?
. The LHS can be factored as?
. In particular, if?
, then we have?
. However, since we have from step 2 that?
, assuming?
, the equation becomes?
, so for every?
,?
?is equivalent to either?
?or?
. From step 6 of Solution 1, we can prove that?
, and?
?are the only possible solutions.
Step 1:?
Step 2:?. Now, assume?
. Then, if?
, we substitute in?
?to get?
, or?
. Otherwise, we divide both sides by?
?to get?
. If?
, we obviously have?
. Thus, the function is even. . Step 3:?
. Thus,?
, we have?
?or?
.
Step 4: We now assume?,?
. We have?
. Now, setting?
, we have?
?or?
. The former implies that?
?or?
. The latter implies that?
?or?
. Assume the latter.?
. Clearly, this implies that?
?is negative for some?
. Now, we have?
, which is a contradiction. Thus,?
?or?
.
Step 5: We now assume?,?
?for some?
. Let?
?be sufficiently large integer, let?
?and take the absolute value of?
(since the function is even). Choose?
?such that?
. Note that we have?
~
?and?
~
. Note that?
. Now,?
?LHS is positive, as the second term is positive and the first term is nonnegative and thus the right term is equal to?
~
. Now if?
, the second term of the LHS/RHS clearly ~0 as?
. if?
, then we have LHS/RHS ~?
, otherwise, we have LHS/RHS~
~
, a contradiction, as we're clearly not dividing by?
, and we should have LHS/RHS=1.
完整版真题资料可以底部二维码免费领取↓↓↓
? 2025. All Rights Reserved. 沪ICP备2023009024号-1