{
  "index": "1988-B-2",
  "type": "ALG",
  "tag": [
    "ALG",
    "ANA",
    "NT"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "Prove or disprove: If $x$ and $y$ are real numbers with $y\\geq0$ and\n$y(y+1) \\leq (x+1)^2$, then $y(y-1)\\leq x^2$.",
  "solution": "Solution 1. If \\( 0 \\leq y \\leq 1 \\), then \\( y(y-1) \\leq 0 \\leq x^{2} \\) as desired, so assume \\( y>1 \\). If \\( x \\leq y-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\ny(y-1)=y(y+1)-2 y \\leq(x+1)^{2}-2 y=x^{2}+2 x+1-2 y \\leq x^{2}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( x \\geq y-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nx^{2} \\geq y^{2}-y+1 / 4>y(y-1)\n\\]\n\nSolution 2. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( y>1 \\). We are given \\( y(y+1) \\leq(x+ \\) \\( 1)^{2} \\), so \\( |x+1| \\geq \\sqrt{y(y+1)} \\) and \\( |x| \\geq \\sqrt{y(y+1)}-1 \\geq \\sqrt{y(y-1)} \\). (The last inequality follows from taking \\( a=y-1 \\) and \\( b=y \\) in the inequality \\( \\sqrt{(a+1)(b+1)} \\geq \\sqrt{a b}+1 \\) for \\( a, b>0 \\), which is equivalent (via squaring) to \\( a+b \\geq 2 \\sqrt{a b} \\), the AM-GM Inequality mentioned at the end of 1985A2.) Squaring gives the result.\n\nSolution 3. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( y>1 \\). Let \\( f(y)=y^{2}-y \\) and \\( g(x)=x^{2} \\). For \\( y>1 \\), we are asked to prove that \\( f(y+1) \\leq g(x+1) \\) implies \\( f(y) \\leq g(x) \\), or equivalently that \\( f(y)>g(x) \\) implies \\( f(y+1)>g(x+1) \\).\n\nIn this paragraph we show that for any \\( x \\) and \\( y \\) with \\( y>1 \\), the inequality \\( f(y) \\geq g(x) \\) implies \\( f^{\\prime}(y)>g^{\\prime}(x) \\). If \\( y^{2}-y \\geq x^{2} \\) and \\( y>1 \\), then \\( (2 y-1)^{2}> \\) \\( 4 y^{2}-4 y \\geq 4 x^{2}=(2 x)^{2} \\) and \\( 2 y-1>0 \\), so \\( 2 y-1>|2 x| \\geq 2 x \\), i.e., \\( f^{\\prime}(y)>g^{\\prime}(x) \\).\n\nNow fix \\( x \\) and \\( y \\). Let \\( h(t)=f(y+t)-g(x+t) \\). Given \\( h(0)>0 \\), and that \\( h(t)>0 \\) implies \\( h^{\\prime}(t)>0 \\), we must show that \\( h(1)>0 \\). If \\( h(1) \\leq 0 \\), then by compactness there exists a smallest \\( u \\in[0,1] \\) such that \\( h(u) \\leq 0 \\). For \\( t \\in(0, u), h(t)>0 \\), so \\( h^{\\prime}(t)>0 \\). But \\( h(0)>0 \\geq h(u) \\), so \\( h \\) cannot be increasing on \\( [0, u] \\). This contradiction shows \\( h(1)>0 \\), i.e., \\( f(y+1)>g(x+1) \\).\n\nRemark. The problem is asking us to decide the truth of the first order sentence\n\\[\n\\forall x \\forall y((0 \\leq y) \\wedge(y(y+1) \\leq(x+1)(x+1))) \\Longrightarrow(y(y-1) \\leq x \\cdot x)\n\\]\nin the language \\( (\\mathbb{R}, 0,1,+,-, \\cdot, \\leq) \\). Roughly, a first order sentence in this language is an expression such as the above, involving logical operations \\( \\wedge \\) (\"and\"), \\( \\vee \\) (\"or\"), \\( \\neg( \\) \"not\"); binary operations,,\\( +- \\cdot ; \\) the relations \\( =, \\leq \\); variables \\( x, y, \\ldots \\) bound by quantifiers \\( \\exists \\) (\"there exists\") and \\( \\forall \\) (\"for all\"); and parentheses. For precise definitions, see Chapter II of [EFT].\n\nTarski [Tar] proved that the first order theory of the field \\( \\mathbb{R} \\) is decidable; this means that there exists a deterministic algorithm (i.e., Turing machine, computer program) that takes as input any first order sentence and outputs YES or NO according to whether it is true over the real numbers or not. On the other hand, the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Z} \\) is undecidable by the work of Gödel [Göd], and J. Robinson [Robi] combined Gödel's result and Hasse's work on quadratic forms to prove that the\nfirst order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) also is undecidable. Moreover, it is known that there is no algorithm for deciding the truth of first order sentences not involving \\( \\forall \\) or \\( \\neg \\) : this was Matiyasevich's negative solution of Hilbert's Tenth Problem [Mat]. The analogous question for \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) is still open. See [PZ] for more.",
  "vars": [
    "x",
    "y",
    "t",
    "u",
    "a",
    "b"
  ],
  "params": [
    "f",
    "g",
    "h"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "x": "realnumx",
        "y": "realnumy",
        "t": "realtvar",
        "u": "realuvar",
        "a": "auxvara",
        "b": "auxvarb",
        "f": "functf",
        "g": "functg",
        "h": "functh"
      },
      "question": "Prove or disprove: If $realnumx$ and $realnumy$ are real numbers with $realnumy\\geq0$ and\n$realnumy(realnumy+1) \\leq (realnumx+1)^2$, then $realnumy(realnumy-1)\\leq realnumx^2$.",
      "solution": "Solution 1. If \\( 0 \\leq realnumy \\leq 1 \\), then \\( realnumy(realnumy-1) \\leq 0 \\leq realnumx^{2} \\) as desired, so assume \\( realnumy>1 \\). If \\( realnumx \\leq realnumy-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nrealnumy(realnumy-1)=realnumy(realnumy+1)-2 realnumy \\leq(realnumx+1)^{2}-2 realnumy=realnumx^{2}+2 realnumx+1-2 realnumy \\leq realnumx^{2}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( realnumx \\geq realnumy-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nrealnumx^{2} \\geq realnumy^{2}-realnumy+1 / 4>realnumy(realnumy-1)\n\\]\n\nSolution 2. As in Solution 1, we may assume realnumy>1. We are given realnumy(realnumy+1) \\leq(realnumx+1)^{2}, so |realnumx+1| \\geq \\sqrt{realnumy(realnumy+1)} and |realnumx| \\geq \\sqrt{realnumy(realnumy+1)}-1 \\geq \\sqrt{realnumy(realnumy-1)}. (The last inequality follows from taking auxvara=realnumy-1 and auxvarb=realnumy in the inequality \\sqrt{(auxvara+1)(auxvarb+1)} \\geq \\sqrt{auxvara auxvarb}+1 for auxvara, auxvarb>0, which is equivalent (via squaring) to auxvara+auxvarb \\geq 2 \\sqrt{auxvara auxvarb}, the AM-GM Inequality mentioned at the end of 1985A2.) Squaring gives the result.\n\nSolution 3. As in Solution 1, we may assume realnumy>1. Let functf(realnumy)=realnumy^{2}-realnumy and functg(realnumx)=realnumx^{2}. For realnumy>1, we are asked to prove that functf(realnumy+1) \\leq functg(realnumx+1) implies functf(realnumy) \\leq functg(realnumx), or equivalently that functf(realnumy)>functg(realnumx) implies functf(realnumy+1)>functg(realnumx+1).\n\nIn this paragraph we show that for any realnumx and realnumy with realnumy>1, the inequality functf(realnumy) \\geq functg(realnumx) implies functf^{\\prime}(realnumy)>functg^{\\prime}(realnumx). If realnumy^{2}-realnumy \\geq realnumx^{2} and realnumy>1, then (2 realnumy-1)^{2}> 4 realnumy^{2}-4 realnumy \\geq 4 realnumx^{2}=(2 realnumx)^{2} and 2 realnumy-1>0, so 2 realnumy-1>|2 realnumx| \\geq 2 realnumx, i.e., functf^{\\prime}(realnumy)>functg^{\\prime}(realnumx).\n\nNow fix realnumx and realnumy. Let functh(realtvar)=functf(realnumy+realtvar)-functg(realnumx+realtvar). Given functh(0)>0, and that functh(realtvar)>0 implies functh^{\\prime}(realtvar)>0, we must show that functh(1)>0. If functh(1) \\leq 0, then by compactness there exists a smallest realuvar \\in[0,1] such that functh(realuvar) \\leq 0. For realtvar \\in(0, realuvar), functh(realtvar)>0, so functh^{\\prime}(realtvar)>0. But functh(0)>0 \\geq functh(realuvar), so functh cannot be increasing on [0, realuvar]. This contradiction shows functh(1)>0, i.e., functf(realnumy+1)>functg(realnumx+1).\n\nRemark. The problem is asking us to decide the truth of the first order sentence\n\\[\n\\forall realnumx \\forall realnumy((0 \\leq realnumy) \\wedge(realnumy(realnumy+1) \\leq(realnumx+1)(realnumx+1))) \\Longrightarrow(realnumy(realnumy-1) \\leq realnumx \\cdot realnumx)\n\\]\nin the language \\( (\\mathbb{R}, 0,1,+,-, \\cdot, \\leq) \\). Roughly, a first order sentence in this language is an expression such as the above, involving logical operations \\( \\wedge \\) (\"and\"), \\( \\vee \\) (\"or\"), \\( \\neg( \\) \"not\"); binary operations,,\\( +- \\cdot ; \\) the relations \\( =, \\leq \\); variables realnumx, realnumy, \\ldots bound by quantifiers \\( \\exists \\) (\"there exists\") and \\( \\forall \\) (\"for all\"); and parentheses. For precise definitions, see Chapter II of [EFT].\n\nTarski [Tar] proved that the first order theory of the field \\( \\mathbb{R} \\) is decidable; this means that there exists a deterministic algorithm (i.e., Turing machine, computer program) that takes as input any first order sentence and outputs YES or NO according to whether it is true over the real numbers or not. On the other hand, the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Z} \\) is undecidable by the work of Gödel [Göd], and J. Robinson [Robi] combined Gödel's result and Hasse's work on quadratic forms to prove that the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) also is undecidable. Moreover, it is known that there is no algorithm for deciding the truth of first order sentences not involving \\( \\forall \\) or \\( \\neg \\) : this was Matiyasevich's negative solution of Hilbert's Tenth Problem [Mat]. The analogous question for \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) is still open. See [PZ] for more."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "x": "longitude",
        "y": "altitude",
        "t": "tempests",
        "u": "velocity",
        "a": "radiance",
        "b": "pressure",
        "f": "spectrum",
        "g": "gravityfield",
        "h": "daylight"
      },
      "question": "Prove or disprove: If $longitude$ and $altitude$ are real numbers with $altitude\\geq0$ and\n$altitude(altitude+1) \\leq (longitude+1)^2$, then $altitude(altitude-1)\\leq longitude^2$.",
      "solution": "Solution 1. If \\( 0 \\leq altitude \\leq 1 \\), then \\( altitude(altitude-1) \\leq 0 \\leq longitude^{2} \\) as desired, so assume \\( altitude>1 \\). If \\( longitude \\leq altitude-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\naltitude(altitude-1)=altitude(altitude+1)-2 altitude \\leq(longitude+1)^{2}-2 altitude=longitude^{2}+2 longitude+1-2 altitude \\leq longitude^{2}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( longitude \\geq altitude-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nlongitude^{2} \\geq altitude^{2}-altitude+1 / 4>altitude(altitude-1)\n\\]\n\nSolution 2. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( altitude>1 \\). We are given \\( altitude(altitude+1) \\leq(longitude+ 1)^{2} \\), so \\( |longitude+1| \\geq \\sqrt{altitude(altitude+1)} \\) and \\( |longitude| \\geq \\sqrt{altitude(altitude+1)}-1 \\geq \\sqrt{altitude(altitude-1)} \\). (The last inequality follows from taking \\( radiance=altitude-1 \\) and \\( pressure=altitude \\) in the inequality \\( \\sqrt{(radiance+1)(pressure+1)} \\geq \\sqrt{radiance\\,pressure}+1 \\) for \\( radiance, pressure>0 \\), which is equivalent (via squaring) to \\( radiance+pressure \\geq 2 \\sqrt{radiance\\,pressure} \\), the AM-GM Inequality mentioned at the end of 1985A2.) Squaring gives the result.\n\nSolution 3. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( altitude>1 \\). Let \\( spectrum(altitude)=altitude^{2}-altitude \\) and \\( gravityfield(longitude)=longitude^{2} \\). For \\( altitude>1 \\), we are asked to prove that \\( spectrum(altitude+1) \\leq gravityfield(longitude+1) \\) implies \\( spectrum(altitude) \\leq gravityfield(longitude) \\), or equivalently that \\( spectrum(altitude)>gravityfield(longitude) \\) implies \\( spectrum(altitude+1)>gravityfield(longitude+1) \\).\n\nIn this paragraph we show that for any \\( longitude \\) and \\( altitude \\) with \\( altitude>1 \\), the inequality \\( spectrum(altitude) \\geq gravityfield(longitude) \\) implies \\( spectrum^{\\prime}(altitude)>gravityfield^{\\prime}(longitude) \\). If \\( altitude^{2}-altitude \\geq longitude^{2} \\) and \\( altitude>1 \\), then \\( (2 altitude-1)^{2}> 4 altitude^{2}-4 altitude \\geq 4 longitude^{2}=(2 longitude)^{2} \\) and \\( 2 altitude-1>0 \\), so \\( 2 altitude-1>|2 longitude| \\geq 2 longitude \\), i.e., \\( spectrum^{\\prime}(altitude)>gravityfield^{\\prime}(longitude) \\).\n\nNow fix \\( longitude \\) and \\( altitude \\). Let \\( daylight(tempests)=spectrum(altitude+tempests)-gravityfield(longitude+tempests) \\). Given \\( daylight(0)>0 \\), and that \\( daylight(tempests)>0 \\) implies \\( daylight^{\\prime}(tempests)>0 \\), we must show that \\( daylight(1)>0 \\). If \\( daylight(1) \\leq 0 \\), then by compactness there exists a smallest \\( velocity \\in[0,1] \\) such that \\( daylight(velocity) \\leq 0 \\). For \\( tempests \\in(0, velocity), daylight(tempests)>0 \\), so \\( daylight^{\\prime}(tempests)>0 \\). But \\( daylight(0)>0 \\geq daylight(velocity) \\), so \\( daylight \\) cannot be increasing on \\( [0, velocity] \\). This contradiction shows \\( daylight(1)>0 \\), i.e., \\( spectrum(altitude+1)>gravityfield(longitude+1) \\).\n\nRemark. The problem is asking us to decide the truth of the first order sentence\n\\[\n\\forall longitude \\forall altitude((0 \\leq altitude) \\wedge(altitude(altitude+1) \\leq(longitude+1)(longitude+1))) \\Longrightarrow(altitude(altitude-1) \\leq longitude \\cdot longitude)\n\\]\nin the language \\( (\\mathbb{R}, 0,1,+,-, \\cdot, \\leq) \\). Roughly, a first order sentence in this language is an expression such as the above, involving logical operations \\( \\wedge \\) (\"and\"), \\( \\vee \\) (\"or\"), \\( \\neg( \\) \"not\"); binary operations,,\\( +- \\cdot ; \\) the relations \\( =, \\leq \\); variables \\( longitude, altitude, \\ldots \\) bound by quantifiers \\( \\exists \\) (\"there exists\") and \\( \\forall \\) (\"for all\"); and parentheses. For precise definitions, see Chapter II of [EFT].\n\nTarski [Tar] proved that the first order theory of the field \\( \\mathbb{R} \\) is decidable; this means that there exists a deterministic algorithm (i.e., Turing machine, computer program) that takes as input any first order sentence and outputs YES or NO according to whether it is true over the real numbers or not. On the other hand, the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Z} \\) is undecidable by the work of Gödel [Göd], and J. Robinson [Robi] combined Gödel's result and Hasse's work on quadratic forms to prove that the\nfirst order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) also is undecidable. Moreover, it is known that there is no algorithm for deciding the truth of first order sentences not involving \\( \\forall \\) or \\( \\neg \\) : this was Matiyasevich's negative solution of Hilbert's Tenth Problem [Mat]. The analogous question for \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) is still open. See [PZ] for more."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "x": "constantval",
        "y": "staticscalar",
        "t": "fixedtime",
        "u": "frozenstep",
        "a": "settledvar",
        "b": "anchoredval",
        "f": "constantmap",
        "g": "stablemap",
        "h": "staticmap"
      },
      "question": "Prove or disprove: If $constantval$ and $staticscalar$ are real numbers with $staticscalar\\geq0$ and $staticscalar(staticscalar+1) \\leq (constantval+1)^2$, then $staticscalar(staticscalar-1)\\leq constantval^2$.",
      "solution": "Solution 1. If \\( 0 \\leq staticscalar \\leq 1 \\), then \\( staticscalar(staticscalar-1) \\leq 0 \\leq constantval^{2} \\) as desired, so assume \\( staticscalar>1 \\). If \\( constantval \\leq staticscalar-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nstaticscalar(staticscalar-1)=staticscalar(staticscalar+1)-2 staticscalar \\leq(constantval+1)^{2}-2 staticscalar=constantval^{2}+2 constantval+1-2 staticscalar \\leq constantval^{2}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( constantval \\geq staticscalar-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nconstantval^{2} \\geq staticscalar^{2}-staticscalar+1 / 4>staticscalar(staticscalar-1)\n\\]\n\nSolution 2. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( staticscalar>1 \\). We are given \\( staticscalar(staticscalar+1) \\leq(constantval+1)^{2} \\), so \\( |constantval+1| \\geq \\sqrt{staticscalar(staticscalar+1)} \\) and \\( |constantval| \\geq \\sqrt{staticscalar(staticscalar+1)}-1 \\geq \\sqrt{staticscalar(staticscalar-1)} \\). (The last inequality follows from taking \\( settledvar=staticscalar-1 \\) and \\( anchoredval=staticscalar \\) in the inequality \\( \\sqrt{(settledvar+1)(anchoredval+1)} \\geq \\sqrt{settledvar\\,anchoredval}+1 \\) for \\( settledvar, anchoredval>0 \\), which is equivalent (via squaring) to \\( settledvar+anchoredval \\geq 2 \\sqrt{settledvar\\,anchoredval} \\), the AM-GM Inequality mentioned at the end of 1985A2.) Squaring gives the result.\n\nSolution 3. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( staticscalar>1 \\). Let \\( constantmap(staticscalar)=staticscalar^{2}-staticscalar \\) and \\( stablemap(constantval)=constantval^{2} \\). For \\( staticscalar>1 \\), we are asked to prove that \\( constantmap(staticscalar+1) \\leq stablemap(constantval+1) \\) implies \\( constantmap(staticscalar) \\leq stablemap(constantval) \\), or equivalently that \\( constantmap(staticscalar)>stablemap(constantval) \\) implies \\( constantmap(staticscalar+1)>stablemap(constantval+1) \\).\n\nIn this paragraph we show that for any \\( constantval \\) and \\( staticscalar \\) with \\( staticscalar>1 \\), the inequality \\( constantmap(staticscalar) \\geq stablemap(constantval) \\) implies \\( constantmap^{\\prime}(staticscalar)>stablemap^{\\prime}(constantval) \\). If \\( staticscalar^{2}-staticscalar \\geq constantval^{2} \\) and \\( staticscalar>1 \\), then \\( (2 staticscalar-1)^{2}> 4 staticscalar^{2}-4 staticscalar \\geq 4 constantval^{2}=(2 constantval)^{2} \\) and \\( 2 staticscalar-1>0 \\), so \\( 2 staticscalar-1>|2 constantval| \\geq 2 constantval \\), i.e., \\( constantmap^{\\prime}(staticscalar)>stablemap^{\\prime}(constantval) \\).\n\nNow fix \\( constantval \\) and \\( staticscalar \\). Let \\( staticmap(fixedtime)=constantmap(staticscalar+fixedtime)-stablemap(constantval+fixedtime) \\). Given \\( staticmap(0)>0 \\), and that \\( staticmap(fixedtime)>0 \\) implies \\( staticmap^{\\prime}(fixedtime)>0 \\), we must show that \\( staticmap(1)>0 \\). If \\( staticmap(1) \\leq 0 \\), then by compactness there exists a smallest \\( frozenstep \\in[0,1] \\) such that \\( staticmap(frozenstep) \\leq 0 \\). For \\( fixedtime \\in(0, frozenstep), staticmap(fixedtime)>0 \\), so \\( staticmap^{\\prime}(fixedtime)>0 \\). But \\( staticmap(0)>0 \\geq staticmap(frozenstep) \\), so \\( staticmap \\) cannot be increasing on \\( [0, frozenstep] \\). This contradiction shows \\( staticmap(1)>0 \\), i.e., \\( constantmap(staticscalar+1)>stablemap(constantval+1) \\).\n\nRemark. The problem is asking us to decide the truth of the first order sentence\n\\[\n\\forall constantval \\forall staticscalar((0 \\leq staticscalar) \\wedge(staticscalar(staticscalar+1) \\leq(constantval+1)(constantval+1))) \\Longrightarrow(staticscalar(staticscalar-1) \\leq constantval \\cdot constantval)\n\\]\nin the language \\( (\\mathbb{R}, 0,1,+,-, \\cdot, \\leq) \\). Roughly, a first order sentence in this language is an expression such as the above, involving logical operations \\( \\wedge \\) (\"and\"), \\( \\vee \\) (\"or\"), \\( \\neg \\) (\"not\"); binary operations, \\( + - \\cdot \\); the relations \\( =, \\leq \\); variables \\( constantval, staticscalar, \\ldots \\) bound by quantifiers \\( \\exists \\) (\"there exists\") and \\( \\forall \\) (\"for all\"); and parentheses. For precise definitions, see Chapter II of [EFT].\n\nTarski [Tar] proved that the first order theory of the field \\( \\mathbb{R} \\) is decidable; this means that there exists a deterministic algorithm (i.e., Turing machine, computer program) that takes as input any first order sentence and outputs YES or NO according to whether it is true over the real numbers or not. On the other hand, the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Z} \\) is undecidable by the work of Gödel [Göd], and J. Robinson [Robi] combined Gödel's result and Hasse's work on quadratic forms to prove that the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) also is undecidable. Moreover, it is known that there is no algorithm for deciding the truth of first order sentences not involving \\( \\forall \\) or \\( \\neg \\) : this was Matiyasevich's negative solution of Hilbert's Tenth Problem [Mat]. The analogous question for \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) is still open. See [PZ] for more."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "x": "qzxwvtnp",
        "y": "hjgrksla",
        "t": "vndplqse",
        "u": "mtrsjkbo",
        "a": "frzlhdgu",
        "b": "pynxwcev",
        "f": "ksqnrmda",
        "g": "bhzlpvco",
        "h": "ndtqwgmi"
      },
      "question": "Prove or disprove: If $qzxwvtnp$ and $hjgrksla$ are real numbers with $hjgrksla\\geq0$ and\n$hjgrksla(hjgrksla+1) \\leq (qzxwvtnp+1)^2$, then $hjgrksla(hjgrksla-1)\\leq qzxwvtnp^2$.",
      "solution": "Solution 1. If \\( 0 \\leq hjgrksla \\leq 1 \\), then \\( hjgrksla(hjgrksla-1) \\leq 0 \\leq qzxwvtnp^{2} \\) as desired, so assume \\( hjgrksla>1 \\). If \\( qzxwvtnp \\leq hjgrksla-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nhjgrksla(hjgrksla-1)=hjgrksla(hjgrksla+1)-2 hjgrksla \\leq(qzxwvtnp+1)^{2}-2 hjgrksla=qzxwvtnp^{2}+2 qzxwvtnp+1-2 hjgrksla \\leq qzxwvtnp^{2}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( qzxwvtnp \\geq hjgrksla-1 / 2 \\) then\n\\[\nqzxwvtnp^{2} \\geq hjgrksla^{2}-hjgrksla+1 / 4>hjgrksla(hjgrksla-1)\n\\]\n\nSolution 2. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( hjgrksla>1 \\). We are given \\( hjgrksla(hjgrksla+1) \\leq(qzxwvtnp+1)^{2} \\), so \\( |qzxwvtnp+1| \\geq \\sqrt{hjgrksla(hjgrksla+1)} \\) and \\( |qzxwvtnp| \\geq \\sqrt{hjgrksla(hjgrksla+1)}-1 \\geq \\sqrt{hjgrksla(hjgrksla-1)} \\). (The last inequality follows from taking \\( frzlhdgu=hjgrksla-1 \\) and \\( pynxwcev=hjgrksla \\) in the inequality \\( \\sqrt{(frzlhdgu+1)(pynxwcev+1)} \\geq \\sqrt{frzlhdgu\\:pynxwcev}+1 \\) for \\( frzlhdgu, pynxwcev>0 \\), which is equivalent (via squaring) to \\( frzlhdgu+pynxwcev \\geq 2 \\sqrt{frzlhdgu\\:pynxwcev} \\), the AM-GM Inequality mentioned at the end of 1985A2.) Squaring gives the result.\n\nSolution 3. As in Solution 1, we may assume \\( hjgrksla>1 \\). Let \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla)=hjgrksla^{2}-hjgrksla \\) and \\( bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp)=qzxwvtnp^{2} \\). For \\( hjgrksla>1 \\), we are asked to prove that \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla+1) \\leq bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp+1) \\) implies \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla) \\leq bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp) \\), or equivalently that \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla)>bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp) \\) implies \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla+1)>bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp+1) \\).\n\nIn this paragraph we show that for any \\( qzxwvtnp \\) and \\( hjgrksla \\) with \\( hjgrksla>1 \\), the inequality \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla) \\geq bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp) \\) implies \\( ksqnrmda^{\\prime}(hjgrksla)>bhzlpvco^{\\prime}(qzxwvtnp) \\). If \\( hjgrksla^{2}-hjgrksla \\geq qzxwvtnp^{2} \\) and \\( hjgrksla>1 \\), then \\( (2 hjgrksla-1)^{2}> 4 hjgrksla^{2}-4 hjgrksla \\geq 4 qzxwvtnp^{2}=(2 qzxwvtnp)^{2} \\) and \\( 2 hjgrksla-1>0 \\), so \\( 2 hjgrksla-1>|2 qzxwvtnp| \\geq 2 qzxwvtnp \\), i.e., \\( ksqnrmda^{\\prime}(hjgrksla)>bhzlpvco^{\\prime}(qzxwvtnp) \\).\n\nNow fix \\( qzxwvtnp \\) and \\( hjgrksla \\). Let \\( ndtqwgmi(vndplqse)=ksqnrmda(hjgrksla+vndplqse)-bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp+vndplqse) \\). Given \\( ndtqwgmi(0)>0 \\), and that \\( ndtqwgmi(vndplqse)>0 \\) implies \\( ndtqwgmi^{\\prime}(vndplqse)>0 \\), we must show that \\( ndtqwgmi(1)>0 \\). If \\( ndtqwgmi(1) \\leq 0 \\), then by compactness there exists a smallest \\( mtrsjkbo \\in[0,1] \\) such that \\( ndtqwgmi(mtrsjkbo) \\leq 0 \\). For \\( vndplqse \\in(0, mtrsjkbo), ndtqwgmi(vndplqse)>0 \\), so \\( ndtqwgmi^{\\prime}(vndplqse)>0 \\). But \\( ndtqwgmi(0)>0 \\geq ndtqwgmi(mtrsjkbo) \\), so \\( ndtqwgmi \\) cannot be increasing on \\( [0, mtrsjkbo] \\). This contradiction shows \\( ndtqwgmi(1)>0 \\), i.e., \\( ksqnrmda(hjgrksla+1)>bhzlpvco(qzxwvtnp+1) \\).\n\nRemark. The problem is asking us to decide the truth of the first order sentence\n\\[\n\\forall qzxwvtnp \\forall hjgrksla((0 \\leq hjgrksla) \\wedge(hjgrksla(hjgrksla+1) \\leq(qzxwvtnp+1)(qzxwvtnp+1))) \\Longrightarrow(hjgrksla(hjgrksla-1) \\leq qzxwvtnp \\cdot qzxwvtnp)\n\\]\nin the language \\( (\\mathbb{R}, 0,1,+,-, \\cdot, \\leq) \\). Roughly, a first order sentence in this language is an expression such as the above, involving logical operations \\( \\wedge \\) (\"and\"), \\( \\vee \\) (\"or\"), \\( \\neg( \\) \"not\"); binary operations,,\\( +- \\cdot ; \\) the relations \\( =, \\leq \\); variables \\( qzxwvtnp, hjgrksla, \\ldots \\) bound by quantifiers \\( \\exists \\) (\"there exists\") and \\( \\forall \\) (\"for all\"); and parentheses. For precise definitions, see Chapter II of [EFT].\n\nTarski [Tar] proved that the first order theory of the field \\( \\mathbb{R} \\) is decidable; this means that there exists a deterministic algorithm (i.e., Turing machine, computer program) that takes as input any first order sentence and outputs YES or NO according to whether it is true over the real numbers or not. On the other hand, the first order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Z} \\) is undecidable by the work of Gödel [Göd], and J. Robinson [Robi] combined Gödel's result and Hasse's work on quadratic forms to prove that the\nfirst order theory of \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) also is undecidable. Moreover, it is known that there is no algorithm for deciding the truth of first order sentences not involving \\( \\forall \\) or \\( \\neg \\) : this was Matiyasevich's negative solution of Hilbert's Tenth Problem [Mat]. The analogous question for \\( \\mathbb{Q} \\) is still open. See [PZ] for more."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $x,y\\in\\mathbb R$ with $y\\ge 0$.  Assume\n\\[\n y\\bigl(y+3\\bigr)\\;\\le\\;(x+3)^2 .\n\\]\nShow that\n\\[\n y\\bigl(y-3\\bigr)\\;\\le\\;x^{2} .\n\\]",
      "solution": "We prove the desired inequality by following four systematic steps.\n\n1.  Small–y case (\"handle 0≤y≤3 trivially\").\n   For 0≤y≤3 we have y(y−3)≤0≤x², so the claim is true.  Henceforth assume y>3.\n\n2.  Relating x and y when y>3.\n   The hypothesis gives y(y+3)≤(x+3)².\n\n3.  Sub-case A: x≤y−3/2.\n   First rewrite\n   y(y−3)=y(y+3)−6y.\n   Using the hypothesis,\n   y(y−3)≤(x+3)²−6y = x²+6x+9−6y.\n   Because x≤y−3/2, we obtain 6x≤6y−9, hence\n   x²+6x+9−6y≤x².\n   Therefore y(y−3)≤x² in this sub-case.\n\n4.  Sub-case B: x≥y−3/2.\n   Then\n   x²≥(y−3/2)² = y²−3y+9/4 = y(y−3)+9/4 > y(y−3).\n   Hence y(y−3)≤x² also holds here.\n\nSince every possible relation between x and y (once y>3) falls into exactly one of the two sub-cases, the inequality y(y−3)≤x² is proved for all real x and all y≥0 satisfying the given hypothesis.",
      "_meta": {
        "core_steps": [
          "Case-split: handle 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 trivially since y(y−1) ≤ 0.",
          "For y > 1, use the hypothesis y(y+1) ≤ ( x+1 )² to relate x and y.",
          "Sub-case x ≤ y − 1⁄2: rewrite y(y−1)=y(y+1)−2y and bound with (x+1)²−2y ≤ x².",
          "Sub-case x ≥ y − 1⁄2: compare squares directly: x² ≥ (y−1⁄2)² > y(y−1)."
        ],
        "mutable_slots": {
          "slot1": {
            "description": "The positive shift constant that appears as “+1”, “−1”, ‘½’, and the coefficient 2 in the algebraic manipulation.  Replacing 1 by any fixed c > 0 (with corresponding c/2 and 2c) leaves the reasoning intact.",
            "original": "1"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}