Browse · MathNet
PrintChina-TST-2023B
China 2023 algebra
Problem
Let , , and be integers satisfying , , and . Suppose is a real-coefficient polynomial of degree , and for each positive integer , let denote the remainder of modulo .
Proof: If the sequence is ultimately periodic, then is a rational-coefficient polynomial.
Note 1: For every real number , denotes the largest integer that is not greater than .
Note 2: A sequence is called ultimately periodic if there exist positive integers and such that for every integer , we have .
Proof: If the sequence is ultimately periodic, then is a rational-coefficient polynomial.
Note 1: For every real number , denotes the largest integer that is not greater than .
Note 2: A sequence is called ultimately periodic if there exist positive integers and such that for every integer , we have .
Solution
Proof. Lemma Let integers and real number satisfy . For any non-negative integer , if then is an integer. Here, is defined as the distance between the real number and the nearest integer, that is, .
Proof of the lemma: Without loss of generality, assume (otherwise, replace with ). Suppose the conclusion is false. Without loss of generality, assume (otherwise, replace with , where is some suitable integer). Since , we can assume that which implies . Consequently, , leading to a contradiction. Thus, the lemma is proven.
Back to the original question. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that is not a polynomial with rational coefficients. Let be the largest index such that . Define Let , where denotes the finite difference operator. It is easy to see that except for the constant term, all coefficients of are rational numbers. Let , and let be the least common multiple of the denominators of . Now,
Let . Note that which implies that for any positive integers and , We choose positive integers and such that is a multiple of the smallest positive period of and , and when , we have . Then, for , where the first equality holds because for . On the other hand, According to the lemma, we have , but this contradicts the irrationality of ! Hence, the proof is complete.
Proof of the lemma: Without loss of generality, assume (otherwise, replace with ). Suppose the conclusion is false. Without loss of generality, assume (otherwise, replace with , where is some suitable integer). Since , we can assume that which implies . Consequently, , leading to a contradiction. Thus, the lemma is proven.
Back to the original question. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that is not a polynomial with rational coefficients. Let be the largest index such that . Define Let , where denotes the finite difference operator. It is easy to see that except for the constant term, all coefficients of are rational numbers. Let , and let be the least common multiple of the denominators of . Now,
Let . Note that which implies that for any positive integers and , We choose positive integers and such that is a multiple of the smallest positive period of and , and when , we have . Then, for , where the first equality holds because for . On the other hand, According to the lemma, we have , but this contradicts the irrationality of ! Hence, the proof is complete.
Techniques
PolynomialsFloors and ceilingsModular ArithmeticDivisibility / Factorization