3

Let $r,s\ge 1$ be integers and $a_0,a_1,\cdots, a_{r-1}, b_0,b_!,\cdots, b_{s-1}$ be real nonnegative numbers such that $(a_0 + a_1x+a_2x^2+\cdots + a_{r-1}x^{r-1} +x^r) (b_0 + b_1x+\cdots + x^s)= 1+x+x^2 + \cdots + x^{r+s}$. Prove that each $a_i$ and each $b_j$ equals 0 or 1.

Note that $a_0b_0 = 1$ and $a_0b_1+a_1b_0 = 1$ implies that $a_0,b_0\leq 1\Rightarrow a_0 = b_0 = 1.$ Clearly $r=s$ is impossible as otherwise the coefficient of $x^r$ is at least $a_0+b_0 = 2$. WLOG (the other case is similar), assume $r < s$. Also the coefficient of $x^k$ in the final product is equal to $\sum_{i=0}^k a_i b_{k-i},$ where $a_i = 0$ for $i > r, a_r=1, b_i = 0$ for $i > s, b_s=1$. All the $a_i$'s and $b_j$'s have magnitude at most 1 but even given $a_0=b_0=1$, I'm not sure how to prove $a_1, b_1$ are both either 0 or 1. It could be useful to use some sort of inequalities (e.g. if $a_i\leq M_i$ for all i and $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} a_i = \sum_{i=1}^{r-1} M_i,$ then $a_i = M_i$ for all i).

user33096
  • 2,081
  • 3
  • 12
  • 2
    FYI, using an Approach0 search, there's the AoPS thread IMC 2001 Problem 7. It indicates this problem is "IMC $2001$ Day $2$ Problem $1$", and also includes a link to the official solution. However, as discussed there, it appears that ... – John Omielan Nov 23 '22 at 03:12
  • (cont.) solution is at least somewhat incomplete & badly written. Nonetheless, it seems the various posts, especially post #$14$, rectify this issue to end up with, overall, a more complete & better written proof. – John Omielan Nov 23 '22 at 03:15
  • Thanks for searching @JohnOmielan. I could swear to having seen this question asked on our site earlier. May be it ended up deleted as nobody wanted to add anything to the AOPS answers (and the question was otherwise failing to make the grade). – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 23 '22 at 04:02
  • @JyrkiLahtonen You're welcome. I looked through the first several pages of the results, but I couldn't find anything even closely resembling this problem on our site. If you've seen the question earlier, it's possible it was deleted. However, I have sometimes seen Approach0 results which were deleted several years earlier (I don't know what sort of, if any, method is used to remove deleted Approach0 results), so it could still have been included. Alternatively, the question used somewhat different notation that Approach0 didn't pick up on with my search, at least not until some later page. – John Omielan Nov 23 '22 at 04:09
  • 2
    There is this. I seem to have upvoted there, which may explain my recollection. At least now the two incarnations are linked together :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 23 '22 at 04:10

1 Answers1

3

It does not seem that the official solution is wrong. I think it is just incomplete. Anyway, I am going to post a full answer. I hope it is helpful.

First of all, notice that each coefficient should be equal to or less than $1$. The reason is easy. If, for example $a_i \gt 1$, then the coefficient of $x^{i+s}$ is greater than $1$, which is a contradiction. Hence $a_0b_0=1$ implies $a_0=b_0=1.$ By considering the coefficient of $x$, we conclude $a_0b_1+a_1b_0=1 \implies a_1+b_1=1.$ In a similar way, by considering the coefficient of $x^{r+s-1}$, we conclude $ a_{r-1}+b_{s-1}=1.$

Now, by computing the coefficients of $x^s$ and $x^r$, we get:

$$a_0+a_1b_{s-1}+a_2 b_{s-2}+\ ... + =1,$$

and;

$$b_0+b_1a_{r-1}+b_2 a_{r-2}+\ ... + =1.$$

Since $a_0=b_0=1$, the relations above imply that:

$$a_ib_j=0 \ \ if\ \ j+i=s \\ a_ib_j=0\ \ if\ \ i+j=r.$$

Again, since $a_0=b_0=1$ and $a_1+b_1=1$, by the two relations above, if $a_1, b_1 \lt1$, then we should have $a_{r-1}=b_{s-1}=0$, which contradicts $a_{r-1}+b_{s-1}=1$. Therefore $a_1+b_1=1$ and $a_1b_1=0$, which means one of $a_1, b_1$ is one and the other one is zero. Moreover, we obtain that $a_1=a_{r-1}$ and $b_1=b_{s-1}$.

At this stage, let's use strong induction. Assume for every $i\lt k\le \min (r, s)-1$ we have: $a_i=a_{r-i}$ and $b_i=b_{s-i}$ and $a_i, b_i \in \{0,1\}.$ By computing the coefficients of $x^k$ and $x^{r+s-k}$ we get:

$$1=a_0b_k+a_1b_{k-1}+\ ... \ + a_k b_0 ,$$

and:

$$1=b_{s-k}+ b_{s-k+1}a_{r-1} + \ ... \ +a_{r-k};$$

hence $a_k+b_k \in \{0,1\}$ because $a_ib_{k-i}$, by our assumption, is either $0$ or $1$. Similarly, we will have: $a_{r-k}+b_{s-k}=a_k+b_k \in \{0,1\}$, which can be concluded from $a_i=a_{r-i}$ and $b_i=b_{s-i}$. This, together with:

$$a_ib_j=0 \ \ if\ \ j+i=s \\ a_ib_j=0\ \ if\ \ i+j=r;$$

shows that $a_k, b_k \in \{0,1\}$, and $a_k=a_{r-k}$ and $b_k=b_{s-k}$, which completes our claimed induction.

Of course, this argument is not complete (unless $r=s$), and we just showed the coefficients of terms with powers less than $\min (s,r)$ are either one or zero. However, the rest is easy. Assume $r\gt s$. Computing the coefficient of $x^s$ shows that $a_{s} \in \{0,1\}$ because the coefficient of $x^s$ is the sum of $a_s$ and some other numbers that are either one or zero. By repeating this process the claim is proved for $a_{s+1}, a_{s+2},\ ...a_{r-1} .$

Reza Rajaei
  • 6,236