MHB Proving Rationality of Squares of 9th Day 2 ARO 2004/2005 Numbers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the squares of ten mutually distinct non-zero real numbers are rational, given that for any two numbers, either their sum or their product is rational. Participants explore various cases and mathematical relationships, attempting to derive contradictions based on the assumptions of rationality. A key point raised is that if certain sums or products are rational, it leads to implications about the rationality of other combinations, ultimately affecting the original numbers. The complexity of the proof is acknowledged, with suggestions for considering multiple cases to reach a conclusion. The conversation highlights the challenge of navigating the conditions set by the problem while striving for a rigorous proof.
Smb
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Ten mutually distinct non-zero reals are given such that for any two, either their sum or their product is rational. Prove that squares of all these numbers are rational.
I tried using 3 of those numbers - a, b and c. And I checked each of the possible situations but I'm not sure if my maths teacher is going to accept it.
The problem is from the All-Russian Olympiad 2004/2005 9th Day 2.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Is this a homework assignment? If so, I recommend you post as much working as possible.
 
Joppy said:
Is this a homework assignment? If so, I recommend you post as much working as possible.

I worked out the answer easily but the method is slow.
I'll write for the first one because I don't have much time now:
a+b(-Q
b+c(-Q
a+c(-Q
ab+bc+ac+b^2(-Q
ab+bc+ac+c^2(-Q
(b-c)(b+c)(-Q
b-c(- Q Analogically we can do for each pair of numbers.
b^2-2bc+c^2-B^2-2bc-c^2(-Q
=> bc (- Q Analogically we can do for each pair of numbers. =>
b^2(- Q Analogically we can do for each pair of numbers.
 
Smb said:
I worked out the answer easily but the method is slow.
I'll write for the first one because I don't have much time now:
a+b(-Q
b+c(-Q
a+c(-Q
ab+bc+ac+b^2(-Q
ab+bc+ac+c^2(-Q
(b-c)(b+c)(-Q
b-c(- Q Analogically we can do for each pair of numbers.
b^2-2bc+c^2-B^2-2bc-c^2(-Q
=> bc (- Q Analogically we can do for each pair of numbers. =>
b^2(- Q Analogically we can do for each pair of numbers.

Hi Smb! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)Whatever way I can think of, it seems to be a number of cases, although I think we can do with fewer than you are suggesting.
Still, if we could cover all 8 similar cases we would be done, although I don't think we can.For starters, what you have now cannot occur, since if we start with $\def\inQ{\in\mathbb Q}
a+b, a+c \inQ$, then it follows that $(a+b)-(a+c) = (b-c) \inQ$.
Now suppose $b+c\inQ$, then $\frac 12((b+c)+(b-c))=b\inQ$ and similarly $c \inQ$, so that $bc\inQ$, which contradicts the either-or.
Therefore $b+c\not\inQ$.Let's start with assuming that we can find a triplet $(a,b,c)$ with $ab,ac\inQ$.
Then $\frac {ab}{ac}=\frac bc \inQ$, isn't it?
Now suppose $b+c\inQ$, then $\frac bc\cdot c + c = (\frac bc + 1)c \inQ$.
Can we figure out from there if any of $b$, $c$, and in particular $bc$ is rational? (Wondering)
And if so, can we find that $a^2\inQ$?
 
I like Serena said:
Hi Smb! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)Whatever way I can think of, it seems to be a number of cases, although I think we can do with fewer than you are suggesting.
Still, if we could cover all 8 similar cases we would be done, although I don't think we can.For starters, what you have now cannot occur, since if we start with $\def\inQ{\in\mathbb Q}
a+b, a+c \inQ$, then it follows that $(a+b)-(a+c) = (b-c) \inQ$.
Now suppose $b+c\inQ$, then $\frac 12((b+c)+(b-c))=b\inQ$ and similarly $c \inQ$, so that $bc\inQ$, which contradicts the either-or.
Therefore $b+c\not\inQ$.Let's start with assuming that we can find a triplet $(a,b,c)$ with $ab,ac\inQ$.
Then $\frac {ab}{ac}=\frac bc \inQ$, isn't it?
Now suppose $b+c\inQ$, then $\frac bc\cdot c + c = (\frac bc + 1)c \inQ$.
Can we figure out from there if any of $b$, $c$, and in particular $bc$ is rational? (Wondering)
And if so, can we find that $a^2\inQ$?
I forgot to rewrite it! I'm sorry for the misunderstanding it can be and/or.Both b +c(-Q and bc(-Q could be a case..
 
Smb said:
I forgot to rewrite it! I'm sorry for the misunderstanding it can be and/or.Both b +c(-Q and bc(-Q could be a case..

Fair enough. The proof doesn't really change though. Just a couple more cases to consider.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top