0

$p$ is an odd prime, and $a,b,c$ are integers. If $p$ divides each of $$a^{2023}+b^{2023},\ b^{2024}+c^{2024}, \ c^{2025}+a^{2025}$$prove that $p$ divides $a,b,c$.

This question appeared in INMO 2024 (the contest is over now).

This is how I did it:
$$a^{2023} \equiv -b^{2023} \pmod p$$ $$b^{2024} \equiv -c^{2024} \pmod p$$ $$c^{2025} \equiv -a^{2025} \pmod p$$ Assume, for the sake of contradiction, $p$ does not divide all of them. $\implies$ $p$ does not divide any of them (it can not divide exactly two or one of them).

So, it makes sense to divide and multiply congruences by $a,b,c$.
Multiplying the above three and cancelling terms, we have: $$-bc \equiv a^2 \pmod p$$ Now, we put this in the congruences: $$-b^{2023} \equiv a^{2023} \equiv a(a^{2022}) \equiv -ab^{1011}c^{1011} \pmod p$$ $$\implies ab^{1012} \equiv a^2c^{1011} \pmod p$$ Putting $a^2 \equiv -bc \pmod p$ in the other congruence: $$-c^{2025} \equiv a^{2025} \equiv a(a^{2024}) \equiv a(-bc)^{1012} \equiv ab^{1012}c^{1012} \equiv a^2c^{1011}c^{1012} \pmod p$$ $$\implies c^2 \equiv -a^2 \equiv bc \pmod p$$ $$\implies b \equiv c \pmod p$$ $$b^{2024} \equiv c^{2024} \equiv -b^{2024} \pmod p$$ Since $p$ is odd, this implies $p$ divides $b$, a contradiction.

However, this seems too easy to be true. Is there another way to present the proof that clarifies the correctness and key idea?

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
D S
  • 4,961

3 Answers3

5

Clearer: we have $i,\color{#c00}j,k = 2023,\color{#c00}{2024},2025$ with $\color{#c00}j$ even, $\color{#90f}{i,k}$ odd, so we get a $\rm\color{darkorange}{contradiction}$ by raising the congruences to a common power $\,m = ijk\,$ then taking their product, i.e.

$$\begin{align} [a^i \equiv -b^i]^{jk}\ \Rightarrow\ \color{#0af}{a^m}&\equiv\ \color{#0a0}{b^m}\ \ \ \ \ {\rm by}\ \ \color{#c00}jk\ \ \rm even\\[.2em] [b^j \equiv -c^j]^{ki}\ \Rightarrow\ \color{#0af}{b^m}&\equiv \color{#0a0}{-c^m}\ \ \ {\rm by}\ \ \color{#90f}{ki}\ \ \rm odd\\[.2em] [c^k \equiv -a^k]^{ij}\ \Rightarrow\ \color{#0af}{c^m}&\equiv\ \color{#0a0}{a^m}\ \ \ \ \ {\rm by}\ \ i\color{#c00}j\ \ \rm even_{\phantom{|}} \\[.2em] \hline {\rm multiplying\ rows}\ \Rightarrow\ \color{#0af}{(abc)^m}&\equiv \color{#0a0}{-(abc)^{m^{\phantom|}}} \color{darkorange}{\Rightarrow\!\Leftarrow} \end{align}\qquad\qquad$$


Remark $ $ This boils down to a multiplicative form of a basic ($p$-adic) nonintegrality test for a sum of fractions, i.e. for $\,x,y,z = a/b,\,b/c,\,c/a\,$ the above proof is equivalent to the first line below. The 2nd line is an additive analog, which is rewritten in fraction language in the 3rd line.

$\begin{align} -1 = x^i = y^j = z^k,\:\!\ 1\:\! = x\:\!\cdot\:\! y\:\!\cdot\:\! z \,\Rightarrow\ &1^m\! = (x\cdot y\cdot z)^m\! =\! (-1)^s\text{ contra $\rm\color{#90f}{odd}$ } s \!=\! \!\color{#90f}{ki}\!+\!\color{#c00}j(k\!+\!i)\\[.4em] 1/2 = ix = jy = kz,\ n=x\!+\!y\!+\!z \, \Rightarrow\ &\!mn = m(x\!+\!y\!+\!z)\! = s/2\:\! \text{ contra odd } s,\ mn\in\Bbb Z\\ {\rm i.e.}\ \ \ x\!+\!y\!+\!z\, =\ \ &\!\! \frac{1}{2i} \!+\! \frac{1}{2\color{#c00}j}\!+\!\frac{1}{2k} \not\in \Bbb Z\,\text{ if exactly $\rm\color{#c00}{one}$ of $\,i,\color{#c00}j,k\,$ is even} \end{align}$

The prior line generalizes from $\,2\,$ to any prime $\,p,\,$ i.e. a sum of fractions is nonintegral if the highest power of $\,p\,$ in any denominator occurs in exactly $\rm\color{#c00}{one}$ denominator, and the above multiplicative form generalizes using this $ $ (replace $\,{-}1\,$ by any element of order $\,p,\,$ e.g. use $\,\zeta_p\,$ (a primitive $\:\!p$'th root of $1).\,$

This basic fact about fractions is ubiquitous in number theory but - curiously - it seems it is not widely taught in elementary courses (witness: this simple proof with that key idea got $> 300$ upvotes). That pedagogical gap will be remedied when one studies advanced number theory, where this method is a trivial prototypical example of local-global methods (valuation theory and $p$-adics). Further, group theory rigorously explains the analogy between the additive and multiplicative forms (see also posts on denominator and order ideals). After mastering these generalizations and abstractions, it is much easier to recognize such reformulations - whether their genesis is nature or a sneaky contest problem composer attempting to obfuscate such basic results to complicate solutions.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
  • This clarifies how the innate cyclic symmetry is exploited. – Bill Dubuque Jan 21 '24 at 21:11
  • Is a contradiction still necessary in this case since the congruence properties lead to the fact that $p$ can't divide $2$ so it must divide at least one of $a,b,c$ and the last cases of $p$ dividing the others follow immediately? It seems you don't have any cancellation like OP. – Derek Luna Jan 21 '24 at 23:50
  • @Derek Yes, of course we don't need to use contradiction (OP did so I stuck with that). – Bill Dubuque Jan 22 '24 at 00:44
  • 1
    Actually, this is an even better approach than the official solutions. – D S Jan 22 '24 at 06:07
  • In fact, I had seen both of these proofs before, but couldn't relate them during the exam... – D S Jan 23 '24 at 05:00
  • @DS Which proofs did you see before, and where? – Bill Dubuque Jan 23 '24 at 05:09
  • I had seen the "this simple proof" answer given by you before. As for the "denominator and order ideals", I had seen it in some book, probably Titu's "104 Number Theory Problems" – D S Jan 23 '24 at 05:17
  • @DS I'd be grateful for any precise citations to similar arguments. – Bill Dubuque Jan 23 '24 at 05:44
  • Actually, for the "denominator and order ideals", there was a question in the said book : "Prove that $\gcd(n^a-1,n^b-1) = n^{\gcd(a,b)}-1$", and I did it the same way you did in the second part of your answer here. – D S Jan 23 '24 at 05:49
  • I doubt it was Titu's book - that never mentions ideals (based on a search I just did). But possibly they use simpler equivalents (I am not familiar with that book - it didn't exist when I was a student). That gcd exercise is ubiquitous. – Bill Dubuque Jan 23 '24 at 05:50
3

Your solution is fine.

As to whether it will fetch full marks, because this is a very simple question for the INMO, they might be strict about the grading. Depending on what you actually wrote, they might get nitpicky with the following phrasing:

1.

$p$ does not divide all of them. $\Rightarrow p$ does not divide any of them (it can not divide exactly two or one of them).

which skipped a minor step.

I would have preferred an explicit $ p \mid a \Rightarrow p \mid b \Rightarrow p \mid c$ (and similar cyclic expressions).

Alternatively, you could have said "Assume $p \not \mid b$, then $ p \not \mid c, p \not \mid a$.

2.

makes sense to divide and multiply congruences

What you mean is that we can divide the congruences and still have them hold true. (We can always multiply.)

By saying "makes sense", I interpret that as your motivation for the approach, and so you have not shown awareness of this fact (which is admittedly obvious and trivial for the INMO).


An easier argument is, working mod $p$,

$ \begin{array} {l l} a^ { 2023 \times 2024 \times 2025} & \equiv (-b^{2023} ) ^{2024\times 2025} \\ & \equiv b^{2023 \times 2024 \times 2025} \\ & \equiv (b^{2024})^{2023 \times 2025} \\ & \equiv (-c^{2024})^{2023 \times 2025} \\ & \equiv -c^{2023 \times 2024 \times 2025} \\ & \equiv - (c^{2025} ) ^{2023 \times 2024} \\ & \equiv -(-a^{2025})^{2024 \times 2025} \\ &\equiv -a^{2023\times2024\times 2025} \end{array}$

Hence $ a \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$ for an odd prime.
Finally, $ p \mid a \Rightarrow p \mid b \Rightarrow p \mid c$

Note

  • Easier in the sense that the next step is motivated, and I didn't have to keep track of powers.
  • This also showcases why the important aspect is that two of the exponents are odd and one is even.
  • I suspect a similar question has been used before in a competition.
Calvin Lin
  • 68,864
  • Nice Approach! By "makes sense", I meant meaningful, although now I think about it, it sure sounds like motivation :(. – D S Jan 21 '24 at 17:42
  • @DS Hm, I'm very surprised that this was chosen as the third question of the first day (so they didn't intend for this to be a simple question). I literally just wrote that chain of equalities down, before reading what you wrote. I'm guessing that they had a much more convoluted approach. – Calvin Lin Jan 21 '24 at 17:50
  • As a matter of fact, in INMO, all 6 questions are in a single day (4.5 hours only). Although one contestant said they used primitive roots... – D S Jan 21 '24 at 17:51
  • Ah, I saw 6 questions and immediately assumed 2 days. Noted on the format. It's def simpler than questions 1 and 2, which take more time to read and understand. $\quad$ I'm almost willing to bet that there is a $a^3+b^3, b^4+c^4, c^5+a^5$ version of this question lying around. – Calvin Lin Jan 21 '24 at 17:54
  • @DS I would give your solution full marks for question 3. $\quad$ I also thought of using primitive roots to start, but because you have no control of $p-1$ (EG If $ p = 2023 \times 2024 \times 2025 (\times 2?) k + 1$), that makes it very very hard to continue. Also, ultimately their approach should end up similar to what I had. – Calvin Lin Jan 21 '24 at 18:03
  • @DS The key idea can be made more "meaningful" be translating the proof into additive language. Then it boils down to a basic fact about a sum of fractions being nonintegral - see the Remark in my answer. – Bill Dubuque Jan 22 '24 at 22:26
  • @CalvinLin btw I indeed got a perfect score in this question :) Turns out was just overthinking – D S Feb 17 '24 at 18:03
  • 1
    @DS Congrats!!! – Calvin Lin Feb 17 '24 at 18:45
1

My attempt, Let, $p$ doesn't divide any one of $a, b, c$ then it does not divide all of $a,b,c$ by the conditions of the problem given. Let $p>2$ and $g$ be the primitive root modulo $p$. Then $$a\equiv g^{k_1}\pmod p $$ $$b\equiv g^{k_2}\pmod p$$ $$c\equiv g^{k_3}\pmod p$$ Note that we can choose $k_1,k_2,k_3$ such that, $k_1\geq k_2\geq k_3$ cause of periodicity of modulo $p-1$ or that is to say for classes of the group $(\mathbb{Z}_p^{\times}, \times)$. Then the condition given will imply there exist positive integers, $l_1,l_2,l_3$ such that $$2\times 2023(k_1-k_2)=l_1(p-1)$$ $$2\times 2024(k_2-k_3)=l_2(p-1)$$ $$2\times 2025(k_1-k_3)=l_3(p-1)$$ as, $ord_{p} (g) =p-1=\phi(p)$ Then, $$\frac{l_1}{2023}+\frac{l_2}{2024}=\frac{l_3}{2025}$$, Note that,by rearranging this equation as $\gcd(2025,2024\times 2023)=1$ then $2025$ divides $l_3$, Similarly, $2023$ divides $l_1$ and $2024$ divides $l_2$ Hence, there exist integers $m_1,m_2,m_3$ such that, $$l_1=2023m_1,l_2=2024m_2,l_3=2025m_3$$ $$k_1-k_2=m_1(\frac{p-1}{2})$$ $$k_2-k_3=m_2(\frac{p-1}{2})\cdots (*)$$ $$k_1-k_3=m_3(\frac{p-1}{2})$$ Then by 2nd equation given in the question that is $p|b^{2024} +c^{2024} $ we have $p|g^{2024(k_2-k_3)}+1$ but by $(*)$ we have $p|g^{1012m_2(p-1)}+1$ which is a contradiction as $g$ is a primitive root and also $p>2$ $\blacksquare$

Remark: It doesn't matter what odd prime $p$ we choose we can choose $k_1,k_2,k_3$ such that $$2\times 2023(k_1-k_2)>(p-1)$$ $$2\times 2024(k_2-k_3)>(p-1)$$ $$2\times 2025(k_1-k_3)>(p-1)$$ But, due to the order of an integer modulo $p$ we must have $$2\times 2023(k_1-k_2)$$ $$2\times 2024(k_2-k_3)$$ $$2\times 2025(k_1-k_3)$$ a multiple of $p-1$. Hence the above result is truthful. Infact true for any prime of the form $p=2\times 2023\times 2024 \times 2025 \times s +1$, which exist due to dirichlet's theorem arithmetic progression of primes, but may not necessary for this problem.