forum.virtualchallengemeets.com • View topic

Page 1 of 2

1984 IMO Proposal

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:54 pm

by zefuri

Let [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] be positive integers. Show that [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] can never be a square.

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:01 pm

by bradp

did you mean [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:02 pm

by stupidityismygam

ys he does...

i cant edit it, where are my MOD POWERS??? :'(

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:04 pm

by zefuri

WHERE ARE MY MOD POWERS. Anyway so far,

Clearly, m+n must be of the congruent to 0,3 mod 4 now where to go from there

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:05 pm

by bradp

do all proofs have to be bogged down by pretentious language like "Clearly,"?

Apparently it isn't enough to say
I know this.
We have to say
I know this and anyone who doesn't is stupid.

crap.. i said clearly in my attempt @ the APMO 1997 triangular number problem

hypocrite[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:07 pm

by stupidityismygam

we are saying that...

clearly is just short for all that stuff

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:16 pm

by zefuri

lol and i say clearly cuz im lazy =P

Well,
We assume that [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] is a square for sake of contradiction.

Since [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] is [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] and all squares are [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]

Because [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula], [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] must be [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula] to be congreunt to 0 or 1 respectively.

Now, isnt clearly much easier

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:19 pm

by stupidityismygam

then by a well known theorem this is trivial...[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]

note: read what i wrote in the other topic to see the humor

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:55 pm

by Quelloquialism

Dang it, Stephen! Why do you always refer to quantum electrodynamics at the ends of your proofs?!

=D

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:15 am

by zefuri

more like "Quit Eying Diana"

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:03 am

by stupidityismygam

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:48 am

by zefuri

LOLOL what did she say?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:27 pm

by stupidityismygam

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:31 pm

by bradp

yuhong got 1st... klein didn't.

and i dont want to hear about team this or team that

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:36 pm

by stupidityismygam

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:04 pm

by bradp

kinda

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:07 pm

by stupidityismygam

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:21 pm

by bradp

at the klein meet... i wasn't even thinking about taking the UIL A tests. i was just picturing myself in one of those rooms taking zillions of NS tests with all of the klein all-stars

oh what a great day

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:23 pm

by stupidityismygam

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:25 pm

by bradp

my englishi s horrible

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:29 pm

by stupidityismygam

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:33 pm

by bradp

before the 382 i had been to 3 other meets where klein was @... i was just lurking in the shadows preparing for the day i would overtake klein!

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:36 pm

by stupidityismygam

hehe, you surprised me...

i score a 373...YAY i won

brad 382...

WTFWTFWTF who the heck is brad

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:54 pm

by zefuri

when did this problem turn into UIL...this forum has been degraded...no Clements needs people who actually practice join clements

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:01 pm

by stupidityismygam

fine, the solution is..

by a strike of luck, you realize that if 4mn-m-n=x^2,then

16mn-4m-4n=(2x)^2, and then you own the problem

CLEARLY, it is trivial from here [unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]