{
  "index": "1988-B-3",
  "type": "NT",
  "tag": [
    "NT",
    "ANA"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "For every $n$ in the set $\\mathrm{N} = \\{1,2,\\dots \\}$ of positive integers,\nlet $r_n$ be the minimum value of $|c-d\\sqrt{3}|$ for all nonnegative\nintegers $c$ and $d$ with $c+d=n$. Find, with proof, the smallest\npositive real number $g$ with $r_n \\leq g$ for all $n \\in \\mathrm{N}$.",
  "solution": "Solution. Let \\( g=(1+\\sqrt{3}) / 2 \\). For each fixed \\( n \\), the sequence \\( n,(n-1)-\\sqrt{3} \\), \\( (n-2)-2 \\sqrt{3}, \\ldots,-n \\sqrt{3} \\) is an arithmetic sequence with common difference \\( -2 g \\) and with terms on both sides of 0 , so there exists a unique term \\( x_{n} \\) in it with \\( -g \\leq x_{n}<g \\). Then \\( r_{n}=\\left|x_{n}\\right| \\leq g \\).\n\nFor \\( x \\in \\mathbb{R} \\), let \" \\( x \\bmod 1 \\) \" denote \\( x-\\lfloor x\\rfloor \\in[0,1) \\). Since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational, \\( \\left\\{(-d \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1: d \\in \\mathbb{Z}^{+}\\right\\} \\)is dense in \\( [0,1) \\). (See the remark below.) Hence for any \\( \\epsilon>0 \\), we can find a positive integer \\( d \\) such that \\( ((-d \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1) \\in(g-1-\\epsilon, g-1) \\). Then \\( c-d \\sqrt{3} \\in(g-\\epsilon, g) \\) for some integer \\( c \\geq 0 \\). Let \\( n=c+d \\). Then \\( r_{n}=x_{n}=c-d \\sqrt{3}>g-\\epsilon \\) by the uniqueness of \\( x_{n} \\) above. Thus \\( g \\) cannot be lowered.\n\nRemark. Let \\( \\alpha \\) be irrational, and for \\( n \\geq 1 \\), let \\( a_{n}=(n \\alpha \\bmod 1) \\in[0,1) \\). Let us explain why \\( \\left\\{a_{n}: n=1,2, \\ldots\\right\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( \\alpha \\) is irrational. Given a large integer \\( N>0 \\), the Pigeonhole Principle [Lar1, Ch. 2.6] produces two integers \\( p, q \\in\\{1,2, \\ldots, N+1\\} \\) such that \\( a_{p} \\) and \\( a_{q} \\) fall into the same subinterval \\( [i / N,(i+1) / N) \\) for some \\( 0 \\leq i \\leq N-1 \\). Assume \\( q>p \\). Then \\( (q-p) \\alpha \\) is congruent modulo 1 to a real number \\( r \\) with \\( |r|<1 / N \\). Since \\( \\alpha \\) is irrational, \\( r \\neq 0 \\). The multiples of \\( (q-p) \\alpha \\), taken modulo 1 , will then pass within \\( 1 / N \\) of any number in \\( [0,1] \\). This argument applies for any \\( N \\), so any nonempty open subset of \\( [0,1] \\) will contain some \\( a_{n} \\).\n\nIn fact, one can prove more, namely that the sequence \\( a_{1}, a_{2}, \\ldots \\) is equidistributed in \\( [0,1] \\) : this means that for each subinterval \\( [a, b] \\subseteq[0,1] \\),\n\\[\n\\lim _{M \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{\\#\\left\\{n: 1 \\leq n \\leq M \\text { and } a_{n} \\in[a, b]\\right\\}}{M}=b-a .\n\\]\n\nOne way to show this is to observe that the range \\( \\{1, \\ldots, M\\} \\) can, up to an error of \\( o(M) \\) terms if \\( M \\) is much larger than \\( N(q-p) \\), be partitioned into \\( N \\)-term arithmetic sequences of the shape \\( c, c+(q-p), \\ldots, c+(N-1)(q-p) \\) (notation as in the previous paragraph), and the \\( a_{n} \\) for \\( n \\) in this sequence will be approximately evenly spaced over \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( N \\) is large.\n\nEquidistribution can also be deduced from Weyl's Equidistribution Theorem [Kör, Theorem 3.1'], which states that a sequence \\( a_{1}, a_{2}, \\ldots \\) of real numbers is equidistributed modulo 1 if and only if\n\\[\n\\lim _{n \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\sum_{h-1}^{n} \\chi_{m}\\left(a_{k}\\right)=0\n\\]\nfor all nonzero integers \\( m \\), where \\( \\chi_{m}(x)=e^{2 \\pi i m x} \\). In our application, if we set \\( \\omega=e^{2 \\pi i \\sqrt{3}} \\), then the limit in (1) is\n\\[\n\\lim _{n \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\omega^{k m}=\\lim _{n \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{n}\\left(\\frac{1-\\omega^{(n+1) m}}{1-\\omega^{m}}\\right)=0\n\\]\nsince \\( \\left|1-\\omega^{(n+1) m}\\right| \\leq 2 \\), while \\( 1-\\omega^{m} \\neq 0 \\), since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational. (See Solution 4 to 1990A2 for another application of the density result, and see Solution 2 to 1995B6 for an application of the equidistribution of \\( (n \\alpha \\bmod 1) \\) for irrational \\( \\alpha \\). See 1995B6 also for a multidimensional generalization of the equidistribution result.)",
  "vars": [
    "n",
    "N",
    "c",
    "d",
    "x",
    "x_n",
    "p",
    "q",
    "r",
    "r_n",
    "a",
    "b",
    "M",
    "m",
    "k",
    "h",
    "a_n",
    "a_p",
    "a_q",
    "\\\\chi_m"
  ],
  "params": [
    "g",
    "\\\\alpha",
    "\\\\epsilon",
    "\\\\omega"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [
    "e",
    "i"
  ],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "n": "indexvalue",
        "N": "upperlimit",
        "c": "countvar",
        "d": "diffvar",
        "x": "realvalue",
        "x_n": "sequencex",
        "p": "firstpick",
        "q": "secondpick",
        "r": "smallreal",
        "r_n": "minoffset",
        "a": "boundleft",
        "b": "boundright",
        "M": "samplemax",
        "m": "indexmode",
        "k": "loopindex",
        "h": "helperidx",
        "a_n": "seqvalue",
        "a_p": "seqatfirst",
        "a_q": "seqatsecond",
        "\\chi_m": "characterchi",
        "g": "boundgap",
        "\\alpha": "parameteralpha",
        "\\epsilon": "smallerror",
        "\\omega": "complexomega"
      },
      "question": "For every $indexvalue$ in the set $\\mathrm{upperlimit} = \\{1,2,\\dots \\}$ of positive integers,\nlet $minoffset$ be the minimum value of $|countvar-diffvar\\sqrt{3}|$ for all nonnegative\nintegers $countvar$ and $diffvar$ with $countvar+diffvar=indexvalue$. Find, with proof, the smallest\npositive real number $boundgap$ with $minoffset \\leq boundgap$ for all $indexvalue \\in \\mathrm{upperlimit}$.",
      "solution": "Solution. Let \\( boundgap=(1+\\sqrt{3}) / 2 \\). For each fixed \\( indexvalue \\), the sequence \\( indexvalue,(indexvalue-1)-\\sqrt{3} \\), \\( (indexvalue-2)-2 \\sqrt{3}, \\ldots,-indexvalue \\sqrt{3} \\) is an arithmetic sequence with common difference \\( -2 boundgap \\) and with terms on both sides of 0 , so there exists a unique term \\( sequencex \\) in it with \\( -boundgap \\leq sequencex<boundgap \\). Then \\( minoffset=\\left|sequencex\\right| \\leq boundgap \\).\n\nFor \\( realvalue \\in \\mathbb{R} \\), let \" \\( realvalue \\bmod 1 \\) \" denote \\( realvalue-\\lfloor realvalue\\rfloor \\in[0,1) \\). Since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational, \\( \\left\\{(-diffvar \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1: diffvar \\in \\mathbb{Z}^{+}\\right\\} \\)is dense in \\( [0,1) \\). (See the remark below.) Hence for any \\( smallerror>0 \\), we can find a positive integer \\( diffvar \\) such that \\( ((-diffvar \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1) \\in(boundgap-1-smallerror, boundgap-1) \\). Then \\( countvar-diffvar \\sqrt{3} \\in(boundgap-smallerror, boundgap) \\) for some integer \\( countvar \\geq 0 \\). Let \\( indexvalue=countvar+diffvar \\). Then \\( minoffset=sequencex=countvar-diffvar \\sqrt{3}>boundgap-smallerror \\) by the uniqueness of \\( sequencex \\) above. Thus \\( boundgap \\) cannot be lowered.\n\nRemark. Let \\( parameteralpha \\) be irrational, and for \\( indexvalue \\geq 1 \\), let \\( seqvalue=(indexvalue parameteralpha \\bmod 1) \\in[0,1) \\). Let us explain why \\( \\left\\{seqvalue: indexvalue=1,2, \\ldots\\right\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( parameteralpha \\) is irrational. Given a large integer \\( upperlimit>0 \\), the Pigeonhole Principle [Lar1, Ch. 2.6] produces two integers \\( firstpick, secondpick \\in\\{1,2, \\ldots, upperlimit+1\\} \\) such that \\( seqatfirst \\) and \\( seqatsecond \\) fall into the same subinterval \\( [i / upperlimit,(i+1) / upperlimit) \\) for some \\( 0 \\leq i \\leq upperlimit-1 \\). Assume \\( secondpick>firstpick \\). Then \\( (secondpick-firstpick) parameteralpha \\) is congruent modulo 1 to a real number \\( smallreal \\) with \\( |smallreal|<1 / upperlimit \\). Since \\( parameteralpha \\) is irrational, \\( smallreal \\neq 0 \\). The multiples of \\( (secondpick-firstpick) parameteralpha \\), taken modulo 1 , will then pass within \\( 1 / upperlimit \\) of any number in \\( [0,1] \\). This argument applies for any \\( upperlimit \\), so any nonempty open subset of \\( [0,1] \\) will contain some \\( seqvalue \\).\n\nIn fact, one can prove more, namely that the sequence \\( boundleft_{1}, boundleft_{2}, \\ldots \\) is equidistributed in \\( [0,1] \\) : this means that for each subinterval \\( [boundleft, boundright] \\subseteq[0,1] \\),\n\\[\n\\lim _{samplemax \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{\\#\\left\\{indexvalue: 1 \\leq indexvalue \\leq samplemax \\text { and } seqvalue \\in[boundleft, boundright]\\right\\}}{samplemax}=boundright-boundleft .\n\\]\n\nOne way to show this is to observe that the range \\( \\{1, \\ldots, samplemax\\} \\) can, up to an error of \\( o(samplemax) \\) terms if \\( samplemax \\) is much larger than \\( upperlimit(secondpick-firstpick) \\), be partitioned into \\( upperlimit \\)-term arithmetic sequences of the shape \\( countvar, countvar+(secondpick-firstpick), \\ldots, countvar+(upperlimit-1)(secondpick-firstpick) \\) (notation as in the previous paragraph), and the \\( seqvalue \\) for \\( indexvalue \\) in this sequence will be approximately evenly spaced over \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( upperlimit \\) is large.\n\nEquidistribution can also be deduced from Weyl's Equidistribution Theorem [Kör, Theorem 3.1'], which states that a sequence \\( boundleft_{1}, boundleft_{2}, \\ldots \\) of real numbers is equidistributed modulo 1 if and only if\n\\[\n\\lim _{indexvalue \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{indexvalue} \\sum_{helperidx-1}^{indexvalue} characterchi\\left(boundleft_{loopindex}\\right)=0\n\\]\nfor all nonzero integers \\( indexmode \\), where \\( characterchi(realvalue)=e^{2 \\pi i indexmode realvalue} \\). In our application, if we set \\( complexomega=e^{2 \\pi i \\sqrt{3}} \\), then the limit in (1) is\n\\[\n\\lim _{indexvalue \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{indexvalue} \\sum_{loopindex=1}^{indexvalue} complexomega^{loopindex indexmode}=\\lim _{indexvalue \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{indexvalue}\\left(\\frac{1-complexomega^{(indexvalue+1) indexmode}}{1-complexomega^{indexmode}}\\right)=0\n\\]\nsince \\( \\left|1-complexomega^{(indexvalue+1) indexmode}\\right| \\leq 2 \\), while \\( 1-complexomega^{indexmode} \\neq 0 \\), since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational. (See Solution 4 to 1990A2 for another application of the density result, and see Solution 2 to 1995B6 for an application of the equidistribution of \\( (indexvalue parameteralpha \\bmod 1) \\) for irrational \\( parameteralpha \\). See 1995B6 also for a multidimensional generalization of the equidistribution result.)"
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "n": "tangerine",
        "N": "watermelon",
        "c": "blueberry",
        "d": "strawberry",
        "x": "pineapple",
        "x_n": "blackberry",
        "p": "raspberry",
        "q": "cranberry",
        "r": "plantain",
        "r_n": "cantaloupe",
        "a": "honeydew",
        "b": "nectarine",
        "M": "persimmon",
        "m": "kumquats",
        "k": "passionfr",
        "h": "grapefruit",
        "a_n": "boysenberry",
        "a_p": "elderberry",
        "a_q": "mulberries",
        "\\\\chi_m": "cloudberry",
        "g": "dragonfruit",
        "\\\\alpha": "jackfruits",
        "\\\\epsilon": "acerolajam",
        "\\\\omega": "lycheecake"
      },
      "question": "For every $tangerine$ in the set $\\mathrm{watermelon} = \\{1,2,\\dots \\}$ of positive integers,\nlet $cantaloupe$ be the minimum value of $|blueberry-strawberry\\sqrt{3}|$ for all nonnegative\nintegers $blueberry$ and $strawberry$ with $blueberry+strawberry=tangerine$. Find, with proof, the smallest\npositive real number $dragonfruit$ with $cantaloupe \\leq dragonfruit$ for all $tangerine \\in \\mathrm{watermelon}$.",
      "solution": "Solution. Let \\( dragonfruit=(1+\\sqrt{3})/2 \\). For each fixed \\( tangerine \\), the sequence \\( tangerine,(tangerine-1)-\\sqrt{3},(tangerine-2)-2\\sqrt{3},\\ldots,-tangerine\\sqrt{3} \\) is an arithmetic sequence with common difference \\( -2\\,dragonfruit \\) and with terms on both sides of 0, so there exists a unique term \\( blackberry \\) in it with \\( -dragonfruit \\leq blackberry < dragonfruit \\). Then \\( cantaloupe=\\lvert blackberry\\rvert \\leq dragonfruit \\).\n\nFor \\( pineapple \\in \\mathbb{R} \\), let “\\( pineapple \\bmod 1 \\)” denote \\( pineapple-\\lfloor pineapple\\rfloor \\in [0,1) \\). Since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational, \\( \\{(-strawberry\\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1: strawberry \\in \\mathbb{Z}^{+}\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1) \\). Hence for any \\( acerolajam>0 \\) we can find a positive integer \\( strawberry \\) such that \\( ((-strawberry\\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1) \\in (dragonfruit-1-acerolajam,\\,dragonfruit-1) \\). Then \\( blueberry-strawberry\\sqrt{3} \\in (dragonfruit-acerolajam,\\,dragonfruit) \\) for some integer \\( blueberry \\ge 0 \\). Let \\( tangerine=blueberry+strawberry \\). Then \\( cantaloupe=blackberry=blueberry-strawberry\\sqrt{3} > dragonfruit-acerolajam \\) by the uniqueness of \\( blackberry \\) above. Thus \\( dragonfruit \\) cannot be lowered.\n\nRemark. Let \\( jackfruits \\) be irrational, and for \\( tangerine \\ge 1 \\) let \\( boysenberry=(tangerine\\,jackfruits \\bmod 1) \\in [0,1) \\). We explain why \\( \\{boysenberry: tangerine=1,2,\\ldots\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( jackfruits \\) is irrational. Given a large integer \\( watermelon>0 \\), the Pigeonhole Principle produces two integers \\( raspberry,cranberry \\in \\{1,2,\\ldots,watermelon+1\\} \\) such that \\( elderberry \\) and \\( mulberries \\) fall into the same subinterval \\( [i/watermelon,(i+1)/watermelon) \\) for some \\( 0 \\le i \\le watermelon-1 \\). Assume \\( cranberry>raspberry \\). Then \\( (cranberry-raspberry)\\,jackfruits \\) is congruent modulo 1 to a real number \\( plantain \\) with \\( |plantain|<1/watermelon \\). Since \\( jackfruits \\) is irrational, \\( plantain \\neq 0 \\). The multiples of \\( (cranberry-raspberry)\\,jackfruits \\), taken modulo 1, therefore pass within \\( 1/watermelon \\) of any number in \\( [0,1] \\). This argument applies for any \\( watermelon \\); hence any nonempty open subset of \\( [0,1] \\) contains some \\( boysenberry \\).\n\nIn fact, one can prove more, namely that the sequence \\( boysenberry \\) is equidistributed in \\( [0,1] \\): this means that for each subinterval \\( [honeydew,nectarine] \\subseteq [0,1] \\),\n\\[\n\\lim_{persimmon\\to\\infty}\\frac{\\#\\{tangerine:1\\le tangerine\\le persimmon\\text{ and } boysenberry\\in[honeydew,nectarine]\\}}{persimmon}=nectarine-honeydew.\n\\]\n\nOne way to show this is to observe that the range \\( \\{1,\\ldots,persimmon\\} \\) can, up to an error of \\( o(persimmon) \\) terms if \\( persimmon \\) is much larger than \\( watermelon(cranberry-raspberry) \\), be partitioned into \\( watermelon \\)-term arithmetic sequences of the form \\( blueberry,\\,blueberry+(cranberry-raspberry),\\ldots,\\,blueberry+(watermelon-1)(cranberry-raspberry) \\); the \\( boysenberry \\) for \\( tangerine \\) in such a sequence will be approximately evenly spaced over \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( watermelon \\) is large.\n\nEquidistribution can also be deduced from Weyl's Equidistribution Theorem, which states that a sequence \\( a_{1},a_{2},\\ldots \\) of real numbers is equidistributed modulo 1 if and only if\n\\[\n\\lim_{tangerine\\to\\infty}\\frac{1}{tangerine}\\sum_{grapefruit-1}^{tangerine} cloudberry\\!\\left(a_{passionfr}\\right)=0\n\\]\nfor all non-zero integers \\( kumquats \\), where \\( cloudberry(x)=e^{2\\pi i\\,kumquats x} \\). In our application, if we set \\( lycheecake=e^{2\\pi i\\sqrt{3}} \\), then the limit above is\n\\[\n\\lim_{tangerine\\to\\infty}\\frac{1}{tangerine}\\sum_{passionfr=1}^{tangerine} lycheecake^{passionfr\\,kumquats}\n =\\lim_{tangerine\\to\\infty}\\frac{1}{tangerine}\\left(\\frac{1-lycheecake^{(tangerine+1)\\,kumquats}}{1-lycheecake^{\\,kumquats}}\\right)=0,\n\\]\nsince \\( |1-lycheecake^{(tangerine+1)\\,kumquats}|\\le 2 \\) while \\( 1-lycheecake^{\\,kumquats}\\neq 0 \\) because \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational.\n\n(See Solution 4 to 1990A2 for another application of the density result, and see Solution 2 to 1995B6 for an application of the equidistribution of \\( (tangerine\\,jackfruits \\bmod 1) \\) for irrational \\( jackfruits \\). See 1995B6 also for a multidimensional generalization of the equidistribution result.)"
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "n": "scarcityindex",
        "N": "limitationmeasure",
        "c": "deficittotal",
        "d": "deprivation",
        "x": "knownstate",
        "x_n": "knownstatebatch",
        "p": "nextvalue",
        "q": "prevvalue",
        "r": "proximity",
        "r_n": "proximitybatch",
        "a": "endmarker",
        "b": "startmark",
        "M": "miniquantity",
        "m": "macrovalue",
        "k": "steadystate",
        "h": "motionless",
        "a_n": "endmarkerbatch",
        "a_p": "endmarkerprev",
        "a_q": "endmarkernext",
        "\\chi_m": "\\indifference",
        "g": "magnitudepeak",
        "\\alpha": "\\antirational",
        "\\epsilon": "\\gigantism",
        "\\omega": "\\triviality"
      },
      "question": "For every $scarcityindex$ in the set $\\mathrm{limitationmeasure} = \\{1,2,\\dots \\}$ of positive integers,\nlet $proximitybatch$ be the minimum value of $|deficittotal-deprivation\\sqrt{3}|$ for all nonnegative\nintegers $deficittotal$ and $deprivation$ with $deficittotal+deprivation=scarcityindex$. Find, with proof, the smallest\npositive real number $magnitudepeak$ with $proximitybatch \\leq magnitudepeak$ for all $scarcityindex \\in \\mathrm{limitationmeasure}$.",
      "solution": "Solution. Let \\( magnitudepeak=(1+\\sqrt{3}) / 2 \\). For each fixed \\( scarcityindex \\), the sequence \\( scarcityindex,(scarcityindex-1)-\\sqrt{3} \\), \\( (scarcityindex-2)-2 \\sqrt{3}, \\ldots,-scarcityindex \\sqrt{3} \\) is an arithmetic sequence with common difference \\( -2 magnitudepeak \\) and with terms on both sides of 0, so there exists a unique term \\( knownstatebatch \\) in it with \\( -magnitudepeak \\leq knownstatebatch<magnitudepeak \\). Then \\( proximitybatch=\\left|knownstatebatch\\right| \\leq magnitudepeak \\).\n\nFor \\( knownstate \\in \\mathbb{R} \\), let \"\\( knownstate \\bmod 1 \\)\" denote \\( knownstate-\\lfloor knownstate\\rfloor \\in[0,1) \\). Since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational, \\( \\left\\{(-deprivation \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1: deprivation \\in \\mathbb{Z}^{+}\\right\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1) \\). (See the remark below.) Hence for any \\( \\gigantism>0 \\), we can find a positive integer \\( deprivation \\) such that \\( ((-deprivation \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1) \\in(magnitudepeak-1-\\gigantism, magnitudepeak-1) \\). Then \\( deficittotal-deprivation \\sqrt{3} \\in(magnitudepeak-\\gigantism, magnitudepeak) \\) for some integer \\( deficittotal \\geq 0 \\). Let \\( scarcityindex=deficittotal+deprivation \\). Then \\( proximitybatch=knownstatebatch=deficittotal-deprivation \\sqrt{3}>magnitudepeak-\\gigantism \\) by the uniqueness of \\( knownstatebatch \\) above. Thus \\( magnitudepeak \\) cannot be lowered.\n\nRemark. Let \\( \\antirational \\) be irrational, and for \\( scarcityindex \\geq 1 \\), let \\( endmarkerbatch=(scarcityindex \\antirational \\bmod 1) \\in[0,1) \\). Let us explain why \\( \\left\\{endmarkerbatch: scarcityindex=1,2, \\ldots\\right\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( \\antirational \\) is irrational. Given a large integer \\( limitationmeasure>0 \\), the Pigeonhole Principle [Lar1, Ch. 2.6] produces two integers \\( nextvalue, prevvalue \\in\\{1,2, \\ldots, limitationmeasure+1\\} \\) such that \\( endmarkerprev \\) and \\( endmarkernext \\) fall into the same subinterval \\( [i / limitationmeasure,(i+1) / limitationmeasure) \\) for some \\( 0 \\leq i \\leq limitationmeasure-1 \\). Assume \\( prevvalue>nextvalue \\). Then \\( (prevvalue-nextvalue) \\antirational \\) is congruent modulo 1 to a real number \\( proximity \\) with \\( |proximity|<1 / limitationmeasure \\). Since \\( \\antirational \\) is irrational, \\( proximity \\neq 0 \\). The multiples of \\( (prevvalue-nextvalue) \\antirational \\), taken modulo 1 , will then pass within \\( 1 / limitationmeasure \\) of any number in \\( [0,1] \\). This argument applies for any \\( limitationmeasure \\), so any nonempty open subset of \\( [0,1] \\) will contain some \\( endmarkerbatch \\).\n\nIn fact, one can prove more, namely that the sequence \\( endmarker_{1}, endmarker_{2}, \\ldots \\) is equidistributed in \\( [0,1] \\) : this means that for each subinterval \\( [endmarker, startmark] \\subseteq[0,1] \\),\n\\[\n\\lim _{miniquantity \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{\\#\\left\\{scarcityindex: 1 \\leq scarcityindex \\leq miniquantity \\text { and } endmarkerbatch \\in[endmarker, startmark]\\right\\}}{miniquantity}=startmark-endmarker .\n\\]\n\nOne way to show this is to observe that the range \\{1, \\ldots, miniquantity\\} can, up to an error of \\( o(miniquantity) \\) terms if \\( miniquantity \\) is much larger than \\( limitationmeasure(prevvalue-nextvalue) \\), be partitioned into \\( limitationmeasure \\)-term arithmetic sequences of the shape \\( deficittotal, deficittotal+(prevvalue-nextvalue), \\ldots, deficittotal+(limitationmeasure-1)(prevvalue-nextvalue) \\) (notation as in the previous paragraph), and the \\( endmarkerbatch \\) for \\( scarcityindex \\) in this sequence will be approximately evenly spaced over \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( limitationmeasure \\) is large.\n\nEquidistribution can also be deduced from Weyl's Equidistribution Theorem [Kör, Theorem 3.1'], which states that a sequence \\( endmarker_{1}, endmarker_{2}, \\ldots \\) of real numbers is equidistributed modulo 1 if and only if\n\\[\n\\lim _{scarcityindex \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{scarcityindex} \\sum_{motionless-1}^{scarcityindex} \\indifference_{macrovalue}\\left(endmarker_{steadystate}\\right)=0\n\\]\nfor all nonzero integers \\( macrovalue \\), where \\( \\indifference_{macrovalue}(knownstate)=e^{2 \\pi i macrovalue knownstate} \\). In our application, if we set \\( \\triviality=e^{2 \\pi i \\sqrt{3}} \\), then the limit in (1) is\n\\[\n\\lim _{scarcityindex \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{scarcityindex} \\sum_{steadystate=1}^{scarcityindex} \\triviality^{steadystate macrovalue}=\\lim _{scarcityindex \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{scarcityindex}\\left(\\frac{1-\\triviality^{(scarcityindex+1) macrovalue}}{1-\\triviality^{macrovalue}}\\right)=0\n\\]\nsince \\( \\left|1-\\triviality^{(scarcityindex+1) macrovalue}\\right| \\leq 2 \\), while \\( 1-\\triviality^{macrovalue} \\neq 0 \\), since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "n": "qzxwvtnp",
        "N": "hjgrksla",
        "c": "pmdvlfqe",
        "d": "sxjzkrth",
        "x": "gnvlwryd",
        "x_n": "gnvlwrydtq",
        "p": "tblskqhd",
        "q": "vcrhwjys",
        "r": "xcmnqfte",
        "r_n": "xcmnqftetq",
        "a": "fsdzplmv",
        "b": "lqwgdkhn",
        "M": "bnvctwle",
        "m": "wdkfjqps",
        "k": "zmxnghrt",
        "h": "kfdjlsqm",
        "a_n": "fsdzplmvtq",
        "a_p": "fsdzplmvtb",
        "a_q": "fsdzplmvtv",
        "\\\\chi_m": "ufywnkqz",
        "g": "dqsmplgh",
        "\\\\alpha": "jczvwmnp",
        "\\\\epsilon": "qldhrxmv",
        "\\\\omega": "ptzkmvhs"
      },
      "question": "For every $qzxwvtnp$ in the set $\\mathrm{hjgrksla} = \\{1,2,\\dots \\}$ of positive integers,\nlet $xcmnqftetq$ be the minimum value of $|pmdvlfqe-sxjzkrth\\sqrt{3}|$ for all nonnegative\nintegers $pmdvlfqe$ and $sxjzkrth$ with $pmdvlfqe+sxjzkrth=qzxwvtnp$. Find, with proof, the smallest\npositive real number $dqsmplgh$ with $xcmnqftetq \\leq dqsmplgh$ for all $qzxwvtnp \\in \\mathrm{hjgrksla}$.",
      "solution": "Solution. Let \\( dqsmplgh=(1+\\sqrt{3}) / 2 \\). For each fixed \\( qzxwvtnp \\), the sequence \\( qzxwvtnp,(qzxwvtnp-1)-\\sqrt{3} \\), \\( (qzxwvtnp-2)-2 \\sqrt{3}, \\ldots,-qzxwvtnp \\sqrt{3} \\) is an arithmetic sequence with common difference \\( -2 dqsmplgh \\) and with terms on both sides of 0 , so there exists a unique term \\( gnvlwrydtq \\) in it with \\( -dqsmplgh \\leq gnvlwrydtq<dqsmplgh \\). Then \\( xcmnqftetq=\\left|gnvlwrydtq\\right| \\leq dqsmplgh \\).\n\nFor \\( gnvlwryd \\in \\mathbb{R} \\), let \" \\( gnvlwryd \\bmod 1 \\) \" denote \\( gnvlwryd-\\lfloor gnvlwryd\\rfloor \\in[0,1) \\). Since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational, \\( \\left\\{(-sxjzkrth \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1: sxjzkrth \\in \\mathbb{Z}^{+}\\right\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1) \\). (See the remark below.) Hence for any \\( qldhrxmv>0 \\), we can find a positive integer \\( sxjzkrth \\) such that \\( ((-sxjzkrth \\sqrt{3}) \\bmod 1) \\in(dqsmplgh-1-qldhrxmv, dqsmplgh-1) \\). Then \\( pmdvlfqe-sxjzkrth \\sqrt{3} \\in(dqsmplgh-qldhrxmv, dqsmplgh) \\) for some integer \\( pmdvlfqe \\geq 0 \\). Let \\( qzxwvtnp=pmdvlfqe+sxjzkrth \\). Then \\( xcmnqftetq=gnvlwrydtq=pmdvlfqe-sxjzkrth \\sqrt{3}>dqsmplgh-qldhrxmv \\) by the uniqueness of \\( gnvlwrydtq \\) above. Thus \\( dqsmplgh \\) cannot be lowered.\n\nRemark. Let \\( jczvwmnp \\) be irrational, and for \\( qzxwvtnp \\geq 1 \\), let \\( fsdzplmvtq=(qzxwvtnp jczvwmnp \\bmod 1) \\in[0,1) \\). Let us explain why \\( \\left\\{fsdzplmvtq: qzxwvtnp=1,2, \\ldots\\right\\} \\) is dense in \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( jczvwmnp \\) is irrational. Given a large integer \\( hjgrksla>0 \\), the Pigeonhole Principle [Lar1, Ch. 2.6] produces two integers \\( tblskqhd, vcrhwjys \\in\\{1,2, \\ldots, hjgrksla+1\\} \\) such that \\( fsdzplmvtb \\) and \\( fsdzplmvtv \\) fall into the same subinterval \\( [i / hjgrksla,(i+1) / hjgrksla) \\) for some \\( 0 \\leq i \\leq hjgrksla-1 \\). Assume \\( vcrhwjys>tblskqhd \\). Then \\( (vcrhwjys-tblskqhd) jczvwmnp \\) is congruent modulo 1 to a real number \\( xcmnqfte \\) with \\( |xcmnqfte|<1 / hjgrksla \\). Since \\( jczvwmnp \\) is irrational, \\( xcmnqfte \\neq 0 \\). The multiples of \\( (vcrhwjys-tblskqhd) jczvwmnp \\), taken modulo 1 , will then pass within \\( 1 / hjgrksla \\) of any number in \\( [0,1] \\). This argument applies for any \\( hjgrksla \\), so any nonempty open subset of \\( [0,1] \\) will contain some \\( fsdzplmvtq \\).\n\nIn fact, one can prove more, namely that the sequence \\( fsdzplmv_{1}, fsdzplmv_{2}, \\ldots \\) is equidistributed in \\( [0,1] \\) : this means that for each subinterval \\( [fsdzplmv, lqwgdkhn] \\subseteq[0,1] \\),\n\\[\n\\lim _{bnvctwle \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{\\#\\left\\{qzxwvtnp: 1 \\leq qzxwvtnp \\leq bnvctwle \\text { and } fsdzplmvtq \\in[fsdzplmv, lqwgdkhn]\\right\\}}{bnvctwle}=lqwgdkhn-fsdzplmv .\n\\]\n\nOne way to show this is to observe that the range \\( \\{1, \\ldots, bnvctwle\\} \\) can, up to an error of \\( o(bnvctwle) \\) terms if \\( bnvctwle \\) is much larger than \\( hjgrksla(vcrhwjys-tblskqhd) \\), be partitioned into \\( hjgrksla \\)-term arithmetic sequences of the shape \\( pmdvlfqe, pmdvlfqe+(vcrhwjys-tblskqhd), \\ldots, pmdvlfqe+(hjgrksla-1)(vcrhwjys-tblskqhd) \\) (notation as in the previous paragraph), and the \\( fsdzplmvtq \\) for \\( qzxwvtnp \\) in this sequence will be approximately evenly spaced over \\( [0,1] \\) when \\( hjgrksla \\) is large.\n\nEquidistribution can also be deduced from Weyl's Equidistribution Theorem [Kör, Theorem 3.1'], which states that a sequence \\( fsdzplmv_{1}, fsdzplmv_{2}, \\ldots \\) of real numbers is equidistributed modulo 1 if and only if\n\\[\n\\lim _{qzxwvtnp \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{qzxwvtnp} \\sum_{kfdjlsqm-1}^{qzxwvtnp} ufywnkqz\\left(fsdzplmvtq\\right)=0\n\\]\nfor all nonzero integers \\( wdkfjqps \\), where \\( ufywnkqz(gnvlwryd)=e^{2 \\pi i wdkfjqps gnvlwryd} \\). In our application, if we set \\( ptzkmvhs=e^{2 \\pi i \\sqrt{3}} \\), then the limit in (1) is\n\\[\n\\lim _{qzxwvtnp \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{qzxwvtnp} \\sum_{zmxnghrt=1}^{qzxwvtnp} ptzkmvhs^{zmxnghrt wdkfjqps}=\\lim _{qzxwvtnp \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1}{qzxwvtnp}\\left(\\frac{1-ptzkmvhs^{(qzxwvtnp+1) wdkfjqps}}{1-ptzkmvhs^{wdkfjqps}}\\right)=0\n\\]\nsince \\( \\left|1-ptzkmvhs^{(qzxwvtnp+1) wdkfjqps}\\right| \\leq 2 \\), while \\( 1-ptzkmvhs^{wdkfjqps} \\neq 0 \\), since \\( \\sqrt{3} \\) is irrational. (See Solution 4 to 1990A2 for another application of the density result, and see Solution 2 to 1995B6 for an application of the equidistribution of \\( (qzxwvtnp jczvwmnp \\bmod 1) \\) for irrational \\( jczvwmnp \\). See 1995B6 also for a multidimensional generalization of the equidistribution result.)"
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $m\\ge 2$ be a fixed integer and put  \n\\[\ns_{n}(m)\\;=\\;\n\\min\\Bigl\\{\\lvert a-b\\sqrt{3}\\rvert :\\;\na,b\\in\\mathbb Z_{\\ge 0},\\; a+mb=n\\Bigr\\},\n\\qquad \ng_{m}\\;=\\;\\sup_{n\\ge 1}s_{n}(m).\n\\]\n\n(a)  Prove that  \n\\[\n\\boxed{\\; g_{m}\\;=\\;\\max\\!\\Bigl\\{\\,m-1,\\;\\dfrac{m+\\sqrt{3}}{2}\\Bigr\\} \\;}\n\\tag{$\\star$}\n\\]\n\n(b)  Show that the set $\\{s_{n}(m):\\,n\\ge 1\\}$ is dense in the closed\ninterval $[0,g_{m}]$ if and only if $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$.\n\n(c)  Assume $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$.  Prove that the sequence\n$\\bigl(s_{n}(m)\\bigr)_{n\\ge 1}$ is equidistributed on $[0,g_{m}]$; that\nis, for every $0\\le\\alpha<\\beta\\le g_{m}$ one has  \n\\[\n\\lim_{N\\to\\infty}\\;\n\\frac{1}{N}\\,\n\\#\\Bigl\\{1\\le n\\le N:\\;\n  s_{n}(m)\\in(\\alpha,\\beta)\\Bigr\\}\n\\;=\\;\n\\frac{\\beta-\\alpha}{g_{m}}.\n\\]\n\n(d)  Deduce that for $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$ and every $\\varepsilon>0$ the\ninequality $s_{n}(m)>g_{m}-\\varepsilon$ is satisfied for infinitely many\n$n$, and that this assertion fails for every $m\\ge 4$.",
      "solution": "Throughout we abbreviate  \n\\[\n\\lambda:=m+\\sqrt{3},\\qquad\n\\gamma:=\\frac{\\lambda}{2}=\\frac{m+\\sqrt{3}}{2},\\qquad\nG:=m-1 .\n\\]\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n1.\\;Determination of $g_{m}$ – proof of $(\\star)$\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\n1.1\\;A trivial lower bound.  \nChoosing $b=0$ and $n=m-1$ gives\n$s_{m-1}(m)=m-1=G$, hence $g_{m}\\ge G$.\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n1.2\\;A $\\gamma$–bound valid for every $n\\ge m$.\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\nLemma 1.  \nFor every integer $n\\ge m$ there exists an admissible\n$b\\le n/m$ such that\n\\[\n\\lvert n-\\lambda b\\rvert\\le\\gamma .\n\\tag{1.1}\n\\]\n\nProof.  \nPut $B:=\\lfloor n/m\\rfloor\\;( \\ge 1)$ and consider the arithmetic\nprogression\n\\[\ny_{k}:=n-\\lambda k\\qquad(0\\le k\\le B).\n\\]\nOne has $y_{0}=n>0$, while\n\\[\ny_{B}\\;\\le\\;n-\\lambda\\,\\frac{n}{m}\n      \\;=\\;n\\Bigl(1-\\frac{\\lambda}{m}\\Bigr)\n      \\;=\\;-\\frac{n\\sqrt{3}}{m}\\;<0 .\n\\]\nConsequently there is an index $k_{0}$ with\n$y_{k_{0}}\\ge 0>y_{k_{0}+1}$.  Since\n$y_{k_{0}+1}=y_{k_{0}}-\\lambda$, at least one of\n$y_{k_{0}},y_{k_{0}+1}$ has absolute value at most\n$\\lambda/2=\\gamma$.  The corresponding $b\\in\\{k_{0},k_{0}+1\\}$ satisfies\n$b\\le B\\le n/m$, so it is admissible. \\hfill$\\square$\n\nConsequences.  \nFor every $n\\ge m$ we therefore have $s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma$.  Combining\nthis with $s_{n}(m)=n$ when $n<m$ yields the uniform estimate\n\\[\ns_{n}(m)\\le\n\\begin{cases}\nn,& n<m,\\\\[3pt]\n\\gamma,& n\\ge m.\n\\end{cases}\n\\tag{1.2}\n\\]\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n1.3\\;The case $m\\ge 4$.\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\nBecause $\\gamma<G$ for $m\\ge 4$, inequality (1.2) implies\n$s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma<G$ for every $n\\neq m-1$, while\n$s_{m-1}(m)=G$.  Hence $g_{m}=G$ for all $m\\ge 4$.\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n1.4\\;The case $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$.\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\nIn this range $G<\\gamma$.  We shall prove $g_{m}=\\gamma$.\n\nLower bound.  \nWrite $\\gamma=\\lfloor\\gamma\\rfloor+\\delta$ with $0<\\delta<1$.  Because\n$\\sqrt{3}$ is irrational, the fractional parts\n$\\{-b\\sqrt{3}\\}_{b\\ge 1}$ are dense in $(0,1)$.  Fix\n$\\varepsilon\\in(0,\\tfrac12)$ and pick $b\\in\\mathbb N$ such that\n\\[\n\\{-b\\sqrt{3}\\}\\in(\\delta-\\varepsilon,\\delta).\n\\]\nWrite $b\\sqrt{3}=\\lfloor b\\sqrt{3}\\rfloor+\\rho$ with\n$1-\\delta<\\rho<1-\\delta+\\varepsilon$.  Put\n\\[\na:=\\lfloor\\gamma\\rfloor+\\lfloor b\\sqrt{3}\\rfloor+1,\n\\qquad n:=a+mb .\n\\]\nThen $n\\ge m$ and\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\lvert a-b\\sqrt{3}\\rvert\n&=\\Bigl|\\lfloor \\gamma\\rfloor+1-\\rho\\Bigr|\n      =\\gamma-\\bigl(\\rho-(1-\\delta)\\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\n&\\in\\bigl(\\gamma-\\varepsilon,\\gamma\\bigr),\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nso $g_{m}\\ge\\gamma-\\varepsilon$.  Letting $\\varepsilon\\to 0^{+}$ we\nobtain $g_{m}\\ge\\gamma$.\n\nUpper bound.  \nInequality (1.2) already gives $s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma$ for all $n$.\nTherefore $g_{m}=\\gamma$ when $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$.\n\nCombining 1.3 and 1.4 establishes $(\\star)$.\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n2.\\;A closed formula for $s_{n}(m)$ when $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\nFrom now on we assume $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$, hence $g_{m}=\\gamma$ and\n$\\lambda=2\\gamma$ is irrational.  Define  \n\\[\nb(n):=\\Bigl\\lfloor\\frac{n}{\\lambda}+\\frac12\\Bigr\\rfloor\n      \\qquad(n\\ge 1).\n\\]\n\n2.1\\;The value $b(n)$ is admissible.  \nSet\n\\[\nn_{0}:=\\Bigl\\lceil\n        \\frac{m\\lambda}{2(\\lambda-m)}\n        \\Bigr\\rceil .\n\\]\nIf $n\\ge n_{0}$ then  \n\\[\n\\frac{n}{\\lambda}+\\frac12\n       \\le \\frac{n}{\\lambda}\n          +\\frac{n}{2}\\Bigl(\\frac{1}{n_{0}}\\Bigr)\n       \\le \\frac{n}{\\lambda}\n          +\\frac{n(\\lambda-m)}{m\\lambda}\n       = \\frac{n}{m},\n\\]\nso $b(n)\\le n/m$, i.e. $b(n)$ is admissible.  \nFor the finitely many integers $1\\le n<n_{0}$ we have\n$b(n)\\in\\{0,1\\}$, whence still $b(n)\\le n/m$.  Thus $b(n)$ is\nadmissible for every $n\\ge 1$.\n\n2.2\\;Evaluation of $s_{n}(m)$.  \nSet $x_{n}:=n-\\lambda b(n)$.  By the definition of $b(n)$ we have\n$\\lvert x_{n}\\rvert\\le\\lambda/2=\\gamma$.  Moreover each admissible\n$b\\neq b(n)$ satisfies $\\lvert n-\\lambda b\\rvert\\ge\\lvert x_{n}\\rvert$,\nso\n\\[\ns_{n}(m)=\\lvert x_{n}\\rvert\n       =\\lambda\\Bigl\\|\\frac{n}{\\lambda}\\Bigr\\|\n       =2\\gamma\\Bigl\\|\\frac{n}{2\\gamma}\\Bigr\\|.\n\\tag{2.1}\n\\]\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n3.\\;Density of $\\{s_{n}(m)\\}$ – proof of part (b)\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\n(a)\\;If $m=2$ or $m=3$.  \nBecause $2\\gamma=\\lambda$ is irrational, the fractional parts\n$\\{n/\\lambda\\}_{n\\ge 1}$ are dense in $[0,1]$.  Formula (2.1) therefore\nshows that $\\{s_{n}(m)\\}$ is dense in $[0,\\gamma]=[0,g_{m}]$.\n\n(b)\\;If $m\\ge 4$.  \nFrom (1.2) we know $s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma<G=g_{m}$ for all $n\\ge m$, while\n$s_{n}(m)\\in\\{1,\\dots ,m-1\\}$ when $1\\le n<m$.  Hence the open interval\n$(\\gamma,G)$ contains no element of $\\{s_{n}(m)\\}$, so the set is not\ndense.  Part (b) is proved.\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n4.\\;Equidistribution for $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$ – proof of part (c)\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\nPut $g:=g_{m}=\\gamma$ and define $f:[0,1)\\to[0,g]$ by\n$f(x)=2g\\,\\|x\\|$.  Equation (2.1) rewrites\n$s_{n}(m)=f(\\{n/\\lambda\\})$ with $\\lambda=2g$.  Since $\\lambda$ is\nirrational, the sequence $\\{\\{n/\\lambda\\}\\}_{n\\ge 1}$ is equidistributed\nin $[0,1)$ (Weyl’s criterion).  For\n$0\\le\\alpha<\\beta\\le g$ let\n\\[\nI_{\\alpha,\\beta}:=\n\\bigl\\{x\\in[0,1):f(x)\\in(\\alpha,\\beta)\\bigr\\}\n=\n\\Bigl(\\frac{\\alpha}{2g},\\frac{\\beta}{2g}\\Bigr)\\cup\n\\Bigl(1-\\frac{\\beta}{2g},1-\\frac{\\alpha}{2g}\\Bigr),\n\\]\nwhose total length is $(\\beta-\\alpha)/g$.  Equidistribution modulo $1$\ntherefore gives the asserted limit, proving part (c).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n5.\\;Near–maximal values – proof of part (d)\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n\nCase $m\\in\\{2,3\\}$.  \nApply part (c) with $\\alpha=g-\\varepsilon$ and $\\beta=g$:\n\\[\n\\lim_{N\\to\\infty}\\frac{1}{N}\n\\#\\bigl\\{1\\le n\\le N : s_{n}(m)>g-\\varepsilon\\bigr\\}\n=\\frac{\\varepsilon}{g}>0,\n\\]\nso infinitely many indices satisfy $s_{n}(m)>g_{m}-\\varepsilon$.\n\nCase $m\\ge 4$.  \nChoose $\\varepsilon\\in\\bigl(0,g_{m}-\\gamma\\bigr)$, i.e.\n$0<\\varepsilon<\\dfrac{m-2-\\sqrt{3}}{2}$.  Then\n$g_{m}-\\varepsilon>\\gamma$.  By (1.2) we have $s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma$ for\nall $n\\ge m$, while for $1\\le n\\le m-2$\n\\[\ns_{n}(m)=n\\le m-2<g_{m}-\\varepsilon .\n\\]\nThus $s_{n}(m)>g_{m}-\\varepsilon$ can occur only when $n=m-1$, so the\ninequality holds for at most one $n$.  Hence the assertion fails for\n$m\\ge 4$. \\hfill$\\square$",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.706447",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "• Extra parameter m≥2 couples the two variables through a non‐trivial\nlinear constraint a + m b = n, so the feasible set depends on 𝑚 and n\nsimultaneously; the solver must treat an infinite family of problems\nand isolate a closed‐form answer valid for every integer 𝑚.  \n• The common difference of the progression now equals m+√3, forcing a\ncareful optimisation that varies with 𝑚 rather than a single fixed\nnumber as in the original problem.  \n• The sharp lower bound demands an equidistribution argument that has\nto be uniform in 𝑚; the pigeonhole reasoning from the original problem\nis no longer sufficient and must be replaced by a density\nconsideration for fractional parts of multiples of √3, combined with\na translation that depends on 𝑚.  \n• Altogether the solver must juggle three interacting ideas—lattice\nprogressions, irrational density, and a parameter sweep—making the\nvariant substantially more technical and conceptually deeper than the\noriginal single-parameter situation."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $m\\ge 2$ be a fixed integer.  \nFor every positive integer $n$ put  \n\\[\ns_{n}(m)\\;=\\;\\min\\Bigl\\{\\lvert a-b\\sqrt{3}\\rvert\\;:\\;a,b\\in\\mathbb Z_{\\ge 0},\\;a+mb=n\\Bigr\\}\n\\]\nand define  \n\\[\ng_{m}\\;=\\;\\sup_{n\\ge 1}s_{n}(m).\n\\]\n\n(a)  Determine $g_{m}$ in closed form.\n\n(b)  Prove that the set $\\{s_{n}(m):n\\ge 1\\}$ is dense in the interval $[0,g_{m}]$.\n\n(c)  Show that $\\bigl(s_{n}(m)\\bigr)_{n\\ge 1}$ is \\emph{equidistributed} on $[0,g_{m}]$, i.e. for every $0\\le\\alpha<\\beta\\le g_{m}$  \n\\[\n\\lim_{N\\to\\infty}\\frac{1}{N}\\#\n\\Bigl\\{1\\le n\\le N:s_{n}(m)\\in(\\alpha,\\beta)\\Bigr\\}\n=\\frac{\\beta-\\alpha}{g_{m}}.\n\\]\n\n(d)  Deduce that for every $\\varepsilon>0$ the inequality $s_{n}(m)>g_{m}-\\varepsilon$ holds for infinitely many positive integers $n$.\n\nGive complete proofs of all claims.",
      "solution": "Fix an integer $m\\ge 2$ once and for all.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n1.  The extremal constant $g_{m}$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n1.1   A candidate.  \nSet\n\\[\n\\gamma:=\\frac{m+\\sqrt{3}}{2}\\quad\\text{and}\\quad g:=\\gamma .\n\\tag{1.1}\n\\]\n\n1.2   A uniform upper bound $s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma$.  \nFor a given $n\\ge 1$ any admissible pair is of the form\n\\[\n(a,b)=\\bigl(n-mb,b\\bigr),\\qquad b=0,1,\\dots ,\\bigl\\lfloor n/m\\bigr\\rfloor .\n\\]\nPut\n\\[\nx_{b}:=(n-mb)-b\\sqrt{3}=n-2\\gamma b,\\qquad 0\\le b\\le\\Bigl\\lfloor\\frac{n}{m}\\Bigr\\rfloor .\n\\tag{1.2}\n\\]\nThe sequence $(x_{b})$ is an arithmetic progression with common\ndifference $-2\\gamma$.\nConsequently the distance between two consecutive terms equals\n\\[\n\\lvert x_{b+1}-x_{b}\\rvert=2\\gamma .\n\\tag{1.3}\n\\]\n\nBecause the closed interval $[-\\gamma,\\gamma]$ has length $2\\gamma$, it\ncan contain \\emph{at most one} term $x_{b}$.\nWe now show that it indeed contains \\emph{some} term $x_{b}$, which will\nyield $s_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma$.\n\nWrite\n\\[\n\\frac{n}{2\\gamma}=q+\\theta,\\qquad q=\\Bigl\\lfloor\\frac{n}{2\\gamma}\\Bigr\\rfloor,\n\\;0\\le\\theta<1.\n\\]\nThere are two candidates that minimise $|n-2\\gamma b|$ among\n$b\\in\\mathbb Z$, namely\n\\[\nb_{1}:=q,\\qquad b_{2}:=q+1.\n\\tag{1.4}\n\\]\nBecause $2\\gamma>m$, both $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ are bounded above by\n\\[\n\\frac{n}{m}<\\frac{n}{2\\gamma}+1,\n\\]\nhence\n\\[\nb_{1},b_{2}\\le\\Bigl\\lfloor\\frac{n}{m}\\Bigr\\rfloor .\n\\tag{1.5}\n\\]\nConsequently \\emph{at least one} of $b_{1},b_{2}$ is admissible.  \nFor such a $b$ we have\n\\[\n|x_{b}|=\\bigl|\\,n-2\\gamma b\\bigr|\\le\\gamma ,\n\\]\nbecause $b$ is one of the two integers nearest to $n/(2\\gamma)$.  Thus\n\\[\ns_{n}(m)\\le\\gamma\\qquad(n\\ge 1).\n\\tag{1.6}\n\\]\n\n1.3   A matching lower bound.  \nLet $G=\\lfloor\\gamma\\rfloor$ and write $\\gamma=G+\\delta$ with\n$0<\\delta<1$.\nBecause $\\sqrt{3}$ is irrational, the set\n$\\{\\,\\{-b\\sqrt{3}\\}:b\\in\\mathbb N\\}\\subset[0,1)$ is dense.\nFix $\\varepsilon>0$ and choose $b\\in\\mathbb N$ such that\n\\[\n\\{-b\\sqrt{3}\\}\\in(\\delta-\\varepsilon,\\delta).\n\\]\nWrite $b\\sqrt{3}=\\lfloor b\\sqrt{3}\\rfloor+\\rho$ with $0<\\rho<1$; then\n$1-\\delta<\\rho<1-\\delta+\\varepsilon$.\nDefine\n\\[\nc:=G+\\bigl\\lceil b\\sqrt{3}\\rceil\n     =G+\\lfloor b\\sqrt{3}\\rfloor+1,\\qquad\nn:=c+mb .\n\\]\nThe pair $(c,b)$ is admissible.  Moreover\n\\[\n\\lvert c-b\\sqrt{3}\\rvert\n      =G+1-\\rho\n      =\\gamma-(\\rho-\\delta)\n      \\in(\\gamma-\\varepsilon,\\gamma).\n\\]\nAs $[-\\gamma,\\gamma]$ contains at most one $x_{t}$, that term must be\n$c-b\\sqrt{3}$, whence\n\\[\ns_{n}(m)=\\lvert c-b\\sqrt{3}\\rvert>\\gamma-\\varepsilon .\n\\]\nBecause $\\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary,\n\\[\ng_{m}\\ge\\gamma .\n\\tag{1.7}\n\\]\n\n1.4   Conclusion.  \nCombining (1.6) and (1.7) yields the exact value\n\\[\ng_{m}=g=\\boxed{\\dfrac{m+\\sqrt{3}}{2}}.\n\\]\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n2.  A convenient closed formula for $s_{n}(m)$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor each $n\\ge 1$ let\n\\[\nb(n):=\\operatorname{round}\\!\\Bigl(\\frac{n}{2g}\\Bigr)\n     =\\Bigl\\lfloor\\frac{n}{2g}+\\frac12\\Bigr\\rfloor .\n\\tag{2.1}\n\\]\nBy (1.5) this integer is always admissible, hence\n\\[\ns_{n}(m)=\\bigl|\\,n-2g\\,b(n)\\bigr|\n        =2g\\Bigl\\|\\frac{n}{2g}\\Bigr\\|,\n\\tag{2.2}\n\\]\nwhere $\\|x\\|:=\\min_{k\\in\\mathbb Z}\\lvert x-k\\rvert$ denotes distance to\nthe nearest integer.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n3.  Density of $\\{s_{n}(m)\\}$ in $[0,g]$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nBecause $2g=m+\\sqrt{3}$ is irrational, the fractional parts\n\\[\n\\Bigl\\{\\frac{n}{2g}\\Bigr\\}_{n\\ge 1}\n\\]\nare dense in $[0,1]$.  By (2.2) the map\n\\[\nx\\longmapsto 2g\\|x\\|\n\\]\ncarries these fractional parts onto $\\{s_{n}(m):n\\ge 1\\}$.  As the map\nis continuous and its image equals $[0,g]$, part (b) follows.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n4.  Equidistribution of $\\bigl(s_{n}(m)\\bigr)$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nDefine $f:[0,1)\\to[0,g]$ by $f(x):=2g\\,\\|x\\|$.\nThen $s_{n}(m)=f\\!\\bigl(\\{n/(2g)\\}\\bigr)$.\n\nThe sequence $\\bigl(\\{n/(2g)\\}\\bigr)_{n\\ge 1}$ is equidistributed on\n$[0,1)$ (Weyl’s criterion).  For $0\\le\\alpha<\\beta\\le g$ let\n\\[\nI_{\\alpha,\\beta}:=\\bigl\\{x\\in[0,1):f(x)\\in(\\alpha,\\beta)\\bigr\\}.\n\\]\nBecause $f$ is symmetric about $x=\\tfrac12$ and linear on\n$[0,\\tfrac12]$ and on $[\\tfrac12,1]$,\n\\[\nI_{\\alpha,\\beta}\n=\\Bigl(\\frac{\\alpha}{2g},\\frac{\\beta}{2g}\\Bigr)\\cup\n \\Bigl(1-\\frac{\\beta}{2g},1-\\frac{\\alpha}{2g}\\Bigr),\n\\]\nwhose total length equals $(\\beta-\\alpha)/g$.  Equidistribution modulo\n$1$ therefore gives\n\\[\n\\lim_{N\\to\\infty}\\frac1N\n\\#\\bigl\\{1\\le n\\le N:s_{n}(m)\\in(\\alpha,\\beta)\\bigr\\}\n=\\frac{\\beta-\\alpha}{g},\n\\]\nestablishing part (c).\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n5.  Infinitely many near–maximal values\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nPut $\\alpha=g-\\varepsilon$ and $\\beta=g$ in part (c).\nBecause $0<\\varepsilon<g$, the right–hand side equals\n$\\varepsilon/g>0$; hence the set\n\\[\n\\bigl\\{n\\in\\mathbb N:s_{n}(m)>g-\\varepsilon\\bigr\\}\n\\]\nhas positive natural density and is therefore infinite.  This is\nprecisely statement (d).  \\qed",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.551387",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "• Extra parameter m≥2 couples the two variables through a non‐trivial\nlinear constraint a + m b = n, so the feasible set depends on 𝑚 and n\nsimultaneously; the solver must treat an infinite family of problems\nand isolate a closed‐form answer valid for every integer 𝑚.  \n• The common difference of the progression now equals m+√3, forcing a\ncareful optimisation that varies with 𝑚 rather than a single fixed\nnumber as in the original problem.  \n• The sharp lower bound demands an equidistribution argument that has\nto be uniform in 𝑚; the pigeonhole reasoning from the original problem\nis no longer sufficient and must be replaced by a density\nconsideration for fractional parts of multiples of √3, combined with\na translation that depends on 𝑚.  \n• Altogether the solver must juggle three interacting ideas—lattice\nprogressions, irrational density, and a parameter sweep—making the\nvariant substantially more technical and conceptually deeper than the\noriginal single-parameter situation."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}