{
  "index": "1946-A-2",
  "type": "ANA",
  "tag": [
    "ANA",
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "2. If \\( a(x), b(x), c(x) \\), and \\( d(x) \\) are polynomials in \\( x \\), show that\n\\[\n\\int_{1}^{x} a(x) c(x) d x \\cdot \\int_{1}^{x} b(x) d(x) d x-\\int_{1}^{x} a(x) d(x) d x \\cdot \\int_{1}^{x} b(x) c(x) d x\n\\]\nis divisible by \\( (x-1)^{4} \\).",
  "solution": "First Solution. Since \\( a, b, c, d \\) are polynomials, the expression above is also a polynomial, say \\( \\boldsymbol{F}(\\boldsymbol{x}) \\). For clarity we change the variable of integration to \\( t \\), so that\n\\[\nF(x)=\\int_{1}^{x} a c d t \\cdot \\int_{1}^{x} b d d t-\\int_{1}^{x} a d d t \\cdot \\int_{1}^{x} b c d t .\n\\]\n\nIt is obvious that \\( F(1)=0 \\), whence \\( F(x) \\) is divisible by \\( (x-1) \\). Furthermore\n\\[\nF^{\\prime}(x)=a c \\int_{1}^{x} b d d t+b d \\int_{1}^{x} a c d t-a d \\int_{1}^{x} b c d t-b c \\int_{1}^{x} a d d t,\n\\]\nand \\( F^{\\prime}(1)=0 \\). Also\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\nF^{\\prime \\prime}(x)=(a c)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} b d d t+(b d)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} a c d t-(a d)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} b c d t- \\\\\n(b c)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} a d d t+a c b d+b d a c-a d b c-b c a d\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand again \\( F^{\\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Finally\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nF^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(x)=(a c)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} b d d t+(b d)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} a c d t-(a d)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} b c d t- \\\\\n(b c)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{x} a d d t+(a c)^{\\prime} b d+(b d)^{\\prime} a c-(a d)^{\\prime} b c-(b c)^{\\prime} a d .\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe four terms not involving an integral are seen to be \\( [(a c)(b d)]^{\\prime} \\) \\( [(a d)(b c)]^{\\prime}=0 \\), and again \\( F^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Therefore \\( F(x) \\) is divisible by \\( (x-1)^{4} \\).\n\nSecond Solution. We prove a generalization. Suppose \\( p, q, r \\), and \\( s \\) are functions of class \\( C^{3} \\) such that \\( p(u)=q(u)=r(u)=s(u)=0 \\) for some fixed \\( u \\), and\n\\[\n\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\np^{\\prime} & q^{\\prime} \\\\\nr^{\\prime} & s^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|=0\n\\]\nidentically. Then\n\\[\nf=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\np & q \\\\\nr & s\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\]\nvanishes with its first three derivatives at \\( u \\).\nEvidently \\( f(u)=0 \\), and we have\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nf^{\\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\np^{\\prime} & q^{\\prime} \\\\\nr & s\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\np & q \\\\\nr^{\\prime} & s^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\nf^{\\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\np^{\\prime \\prime} & q^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nr & s\n\\end{array}\\right|+2\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\np^{\\prime} & q^{\\prime} \\\\\nr^{\\prime} & s^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\np & q \\\\\nr^{\\prime \\prime} & s^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\nf^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\np^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & q^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nr & s\n\\end{array}\\right|+3\\left\\{\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\np^{\\prime \\prime} & q^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nr^{\\prime} & s^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\np^{\\prime} & q^{\\prime} \\\\\nr^{\\prime \\prime} & s^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\\right\\}+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\np & q \\\\\nr^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & s^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe first and last determinants in each expression are zero at \\( u \\). The middle determinant in \\( f^{\\prime \\prime} \\) is identically zero by hypothesis, and the expression in braces is the derivative of the latter determinant, so it, too, is identically zero. Therefore, \\( f^{\\prime}(u)=f^{\\prime \\prime}(u)=f^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(u)=0 \\).\n\nThe problem posed is the special case with \\( u=1 \\),\n\\[\np=\\int_{1}^{x} a c, q=\\int_{1}^{x} a d, r=\\int_{1}^{x} b c, s=\\int_{1}^{x} b d .\n\\]\n\nThird Solution. A solution using linear algebra can be given. The mapping\n\\[\n\\phi:(a, b, c, d) \\mapsto F\n\\]\nis a multilinear map \\( P^{4} \\rightarrow P \\) where \\( P \\) is the space of polynomials. Since the set of polynomials divisible by \\( (x-1)^{4} \\) is a linear subspace of \\( P \\), it is sufficient to verify the result as the given polynomials \\( a, b, c \\), and \\( d \\) vary over a basis of \\( P \\).\nTake the basis \\( 1,(x-1),(x-1)^{2}, \\ldots \\). Then if \\( a(x)=(x-1)^{p} \\), \\( b(x)=(x-1)^{q}, c(x)=(x-1)^{r} \\), and \\( d(x)=(x-1)^{s} \\), we have \\( \\phi(a, b \\), \\( c, d)=F \\), where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nF(x) & =(x-1)^{p+q+r+s+2} \\times \\\\\n& {\\left[\\frac{1}{p+r+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{q+s+1}-\\frac{1}{p+s+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{q+r+1}\\right] . }\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( p+q+r+s \\geq 2 \\), then clearly \\( F(x) \\) is divisible by \\( (x-1)^{4} \\). If \\( p+q+r+s<2 \\), either all the exponents are zero or all but one are. In each of these cases, the bracketed expression in (1) vanishes, so \\( F(x)=0 \\) and is divisible by \\( (x-1)^{4} \\).",
  "vars": [
    "x",
    "t",
    "F",
    "f",
    "u"
  ],
  "params": [
    "a",
    "b",
    "c",
    "d",
    "p",
    "q",
    "r",
    "s",
    "C",
    "P",
    "\\\\phi"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "x": "independ",
        "t": "integvar",
        "F": "polyfunc",
        "f": "detfunc",
        "u": "anchorpt",
        "a": "polyone",
        "b": "polytwo",
        "c": "polythr",
        "d": "polyfour",
        "p": "funcone",
        "q": "functwo",
        "r": "functhr",
        "s": "funcfour",
        "C": "classsym",
        "P": "polyspace",
        "\\phi": "linearphi"
      },
      "question": "2. If polyone(independ), polytwo(independ), polythr(independ), and polyfour(independ) are polynomials in independ, show that\n\\[\n\\int_{1}^{independ} polyone(independ) \\, polythr(independ) \\, d independ \\cdot \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo(independ) \\, polyfour(independ) \\, d independ-\\int_{1}^{independ} polyone(independ) \\, polyfour(independ) \\, d independ \\cdot \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo(independ) \\, polythr(independ) \\, d independ\n\\]\nis divisible by \\( (independ-1)^{4} \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. Since polyone, polytwo, polythr, polyfour are polynomials, the expression above is also a polynomial, say \\boldsymbol{polyfunc}(\\boldsymbol{independ}). For clarity we change the variable of integration to integvar, so that\n\\[\npolyfunc(independ)=\n\\left( \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\, polythr \\, d \\integvar \\right)\n\\left( \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\, polyfour \\, d \\integvar \\right)\n-\n\\left( \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\, polyfour \\, d \\integvar \\right)\n\\left( \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\, polythr \\, d \\integvar \\right).\n\\]\n\nIt is obvious that \\( polyfunc(1)=0 \\), whence \\( polyfunc(independ) \\) is divisible by \\( (independ-1) \\). Furthermore\n\\[\npolyfunc^{\\prime}(independ)=\npolyone \\; polythr \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\; polyfour \\, d \\integvar\n+\npolytwo \\; polyfour \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\; polythr \\, d \\integvar\n-\npolyone \\; polyfour \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\; polythr \\, d \\integvar\n-\npolytwo \\; polythr \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\; polyfour \\, d \\integvar ,\n\\]\nand \\( polyfunc^{\\prime}(1)=0 \\). Also\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\npolyfunc^{\\prime \\prime}(independ)=&\n(polyone \\; polythr)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\; polyfour \\, d \\integvar\n+\n(polytwo \\; polyfour)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\; polythr \\, d \\integvar \\\\\n&-\n(polyone \\; polyfour)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\; polythr \\, d \\integvar\n-\n(polytwo \\; polythr)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\; polyfour \\, d \\integvar \\\\\n&+\npolyone \\; polythr \\; polytwo \\; polyfour\n+\npolytwo \\; polyfour \\; polyone \\; polythr\n-\npolyone \\; polyfour \\; polytwo \\; polythr\n-\npolytwo \\; polythr \\; polyone \\; polyfour ,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nand again \\( polyfunc^{\\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Finally\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\npolyfunc^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(independ)=&\n(polyone \\; polythr)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\; polyfour \\, d \\integvar\n+\n(polytwo \\; polyfour)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\; polythr \\, d \\integvar \\\\\n&-\n(polyone \\; polyfour)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\; polythr \\, d \\integvar\n-\n(polytwo \\; polythr)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\; polyfour \\, d \\integvar \\\\\n&+\n(polyone \\; polythr)^{\\prime} \\; polytwo \\; polyfour\n+\n(polytwo \\; polyfour)^{\\prime} \\; polyone \\; polythr \\\\\n&-\n(polyone \\; polyfour)^{\\prime} \\; polytwo \\; polythr\n-\n(polytwo \\; polythr)^{\\prime} \\; polyone \\; polyfour .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nThe four terms not involving an integral are seen to be \n\\(\n[(polyone \\; polythr)(polytwo \\; polyfour)]^{\\prime}-[(polyone \\; polyfour)(polytwo \\; polythr)]^{\\prime}=0,\n\\)\nand again \\( polyfunc^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Therefore \\( polyfunc(independ) \\) is divisible by \\( (independ-1)^{4} \\).\n\nSecond Solution. We prove a generalization. Suppose funcone, functwo, functhr, and funcfour are functions of class \\( classsym^{3} \\) such that \\( funcone(anchorpt)=functwo(anchorpt)=functhr(anchorpt)=funcfour(anchorpt)=0 \\) for some fixed anchorpt, and\n\\[\n\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nfuncone^{\\prime} & functwo^{\\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|=0\n\\]\nidentically. Then\n\\[\ndetfunc=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nfuncone & functwo \\\\\nfuncthr & funcfour\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\]\nvanishes with its first three derivatives at anchorpt.\nEvidently \\( detfunc(anchorpt)=0 \\), and we have\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\ndetfunc^{\\prime}&=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nfuncone^{\\prime} & functwo^{\\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr & funcfour\n\\end{array}\\right|\n+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nfuncone & functwo \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|,\\\\\ndetfunc^{\\prime \\prime}&=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nfuncone^{\\prime \\prime} & functwo^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr & funcfour\n\\end{array}\\right|\n+2\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nfuncone^{\\prime} & functwo^{\\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\n+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nfuncone & functwo \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime \\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|,\\\\\ndetfunc^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}&=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nfuncone^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & functwo^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr & funcfour\n\\end{array}\\right|\n+3\\left\\{\n\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nfuncone^{\\prime \\prime} & functwo^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\n+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nfuncone^{\\prime} & functwo^{\\prime} \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime \\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\right\\}\n+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nfuncone & functwo \\\\\nfuncthr^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & funcfour^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nThe first and last determinants in each expression are zero at anchorpt. The middle determinant in \\( detfunc^{\\prime \\prime} \\) is identically zero by hypothesis, and the expression in braces is the derivative of the latter determinant, so it, too, is identically zero. Therefore, \\( detfunc^{\\prime}(anchorpt)=detfunc^{\\prime \\prime}(anchorpt)=detfunc^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(anchorpt)=0 \\).\n\nThe problem posed is the special case with \\( anchorpt=1 \\),\n\\[\nfuncone=\\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\, polythr, \\qquad\nfunctwo=\\int_{1}^{independ} polyone \\, polyfour, \\qquad\nfuncthr=\\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\, polythr, \\qquad\nfuncfour=\\int_{1}^{independ} polytwo \\, polyfour .\n\\]\n\nThird Solution. A solution using linear algebra can be given. The mapping\n\\[\n\\operatorname{linearphi}:(polyone, polytwo, polythr, polyfour) \\mapsto polyfunc\n\\]\nis a multilinear map \\( polyspace^{4} \\rightarrow polyspace \\) where \\( polyspace \\) is the space of polynomials. Since the set of polynomials divisible by \\( (independ-1)^{4} \\) is a linear subspace of \\( polyspace \\), it is sufficient to verify the result as the given polynomials polyone, polytwo, polythr, and polyfour vary over a basis of \\( polyspace \\).\n\nTake the basis \\( 1,(independ-1),(independ-1)^{2}, \\ldots \\). Then if \\( polyone(independ)=(independ-1)^{funcone}, \\; polytwo(independ)=(independ-1)^{functwo}, \\; polythr(independ)=(independ-1)^{functhr}, \\; polyfour(independ)=(independ-1)^{funcfour}, \\) we have \\( \\operatorname{linearphi}(polyone, polytwo, polythr, polyfour)=polyfunc \\), where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\npolyfunc(independ) & =(independ-1)^{funcone+functwo+functhr+funcfour+2} \\times \\\\\n& \\left[\\frac{1}{funcone+functhr+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{functwo+funcfour+1}-\\frac{1}{funcone+funcfour+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{functwo+functhr+1}\\right] .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( funcone+functwo+functhr+funcfour \\geq 2 \\), then clearly \\( polyfunc(independ) \\) is divisible by \\( (independ-1)^{4} \\). If \\( funcone+functwo+functhr+funcfour<2 \\), either all the exponents are zero or all but one are. In each of these cases, the bracketed expression above vanishes, so \\( polyfunc(independ)=0 \\) and is divisible by \\( (independ-1)^{4} \\)."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "x": "marbleton",
        "t": "harmonica",
        "F": "serendity",
        "f": "meadowlark",
        "u": "caterpillar",
        "a": "hucklebee",
        "b": "luminance",
        "c": "quartzite",
        "d": "silhouette",
        "p": "tangerine",
        "q": "windchime",
        "r": "pendulous",
        "s": "nightfall",
        "C": "longitude",
        "P": "crossroad",
        "\\phi": "\\gondolier"
      },
      "question": "2. If \\( hucklebee(marbleton), luminance(marbleton), quartzite(marbleton), and silhouette(marbleton) \\) are polynomials in \\( marbleton \\), show that\n\\[\n\\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee(marbleton)\\, quartzite(marbleton)\\, d marbleton \\cdot \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance(marbleton)\\, silhouette(marbleton)\\, d marbleton-\\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee(marbleton)\\, silhouette(marbleton)\\, d marbleton \\cdot \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance(marbleton)\\, quartzite(marbleton)\\, d marbleton\n\\]\nis divisible by \\( (marbleton-1)^{4} \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. Since \\( hucklebee, luminance, quartzite, silhouette \\) are polynomials, the expression above is also a polynomial, say \\( \\boldsymbol{serendity}(\\boldsymbol{marbleton}) \\). For clarity we change the variable of integration to \\( harmonica \\), so that\n\\[\nserendity(marbleton)=\\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica \\cdot \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica-\\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica \\cdot \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica .\n\\]\n\nIt is obvious that \\( serendity(1)=0 \\), whence \\( serendity(marbleton) \\) is divisible by \\( (marbleton-1) \\). Furthermore\n\\[\nserendity^{\\prime}(marbleton)=hucklebee\\, quartzite \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica+luminance\\, silhouette \\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica-hucklebee\\, silhouette \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica-luminance\\, quartzite \\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica,\n\\]\nand \\( serendity^{\\prime}(1)=0 \\). Also\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\nserendity^{\\prime \\prime}(marbleton)=(hucklebee\\, quartzite)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica+(luminance\\, silhouette)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica-(hucklebee\\, silhouette)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica-\\\\\n(luminance\\, quartzite)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica+hucklebee\\, quartzite\\, luminance\\, silhouette+luminance\\, silhouette\\, hucklebee\\, quartzite-hucklebee\\, silhouette\\, luminance\\, quartzite-luminance\\, quartzite\\, hucklebee\\, silhouette\\end{array}\n\\]\nand again \\( serendity^{\\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Finally\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nserendity^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(marbleton)=(hucklebee\\, quartzite)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica+(luminance\\, silhouette)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica-(hucklebee\\, silhouette)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, quartzite\\, d harmonica-\\\\\n(luminance\\, quartzite)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, silhouette\\, d harmonica+(hucklebee\\, quartzite)^{\\prime}\\, luminance\\, silhouette+(luminance\\, silhouette)^{\\prime}\\, hucklebee\\, quartzite-(hucklebee\\, silhouette)^{\\prime}\\, luminance\\, quartzite-(luminance\\, quartzite)^{\\prime}\\, hucklebee\\, silhouette .\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe four terms not involving an integral are seen to be \\( [(hucklebee\\, quartzite)(luminance\\, silhouette)]^{\\prime} \\) \\( [(hucklebee\\, silhouette)(luminance\\, quartzite)]^{\\prime}=0 \\), and again \\( serendity^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Therefore \\( serendity(marbleton) \\) is divisible by \\( (marbleton-1)^{4} \\).\n\nSecond Solution. We prove a generalization. Suppose \\( tangerine, windchime, pendulous, nightfall \\) are functions of class \\( longitude^{3} \\) such that \\( tangerine(caterpillar)=windchime(caterpillar)=pendulous(caterpillar)=nightfall(caterpillar)=0 \\) for some fixed \\( caterpillar \\), and\n\\[\n\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ntangerine^{\\prime} & windchime^{\\prime} \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime}\\end{array}\\right|=0\n\\]\nidentically. Then\n\\[\nmeadowlark=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ntangerine & windchime \\\\\npendulous & nightfall\\end{array}\\right|\n\\]\nvanishes with its first three derivatives at \\( caterpillar \\).\nEvidently \\( meadowlark(caterpillar)=0 \\), and we have\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nmeadowlark^{\\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ntangerine^{\\prime} & windchime^{\\prime} \\\\\npendulous & nightfall\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ntangerine & windchime \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime}\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\nmeadowlark^{\\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ntangerine^{\\prime \\prime} & windchime^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\npendulous & nightfall\\end{array}\\right|+2\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ntangerine^{\\prime} & windchime^{\\prime} \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime}\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ntangerine & windchime \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime \\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime \\prime}\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\nmeadowlark^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ntangerine^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & windchime^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\npendulous & nightfall\\end{array}\\right|+3\\left\\{\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ntangerine^{\\prime \\prime} & windchime^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime}\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ntangerine^{\\prime} & windchime^{\\prime} \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime \\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime \\prime}\\end{array}\\right|\\right\\}+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ntangerine & windchime \\\\\npendulous^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & nightfall^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}\\end{array}\\right|\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe first and last determinants in each expression are zero at \\( caterpillar \\). The middle determinant in \\( meadowlark^{\\prime \\prime} \\) is identically zero by hypothesis, and the expression in braces is the derivative of the latter determinant, so it, too, is identically zero. Therefore, \\( meadowlark^{\\prime}(caterpillar)=meadowlark^{\\prime \\prime}(caterpillar)=meadowlark^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(caterpillar)=0 \\).\n\nThe problem posed is the special case with \\( caterpillar=1 \\),\n\\[\ntangerine=\\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, quartzite, \\quad windchime=\\int_{1}^{marbleton} hucklebee\\, silhouette, \\quad pendulous=\\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, quartzite, \\quad nightfall=\\int_{1}^{marbleton} luminance\\, silhouette .\\]\n\nThird Solution. A solution using linear algebra can be given. The mapping\n\\[\n\\gondolier:(hucklebee, luminance, quartzite, silhouette) \\mapsto serendity\n\\]\nis a multilinear map \\( crossroad^{4} \\rightarrow crossroad \\) where \\( crossroad \\) is the space of polynomials. Since the set of polynomials divisible by \\( (marbleton-1)^{4} \\) is a linear subspace of \\( crossroad \\), it is sufficient to verify the result as the given polynomials \\( hucklebee, luminance, quartzite \\), and \\( silhouette \\) vary over a basis of \\( crossroad \\).\nTake the basis \\( 1,(marbleton-1),(marbleton-1)^{2}, \\ldots \\). Then if \\( hucklebee(marbleton)=(marbleton-1)^{tangerine}, \\; luminance(marbleton)=(marbleton-1)^{windchime},\\; quartzite(marbleton)=(marbleton-1)^{pendulous}, \\) and \\( silhouette(marbleton)=(marbleton-1)^{nightfall} \\), we have \\( \\gondolier(hucklebee, luminance, quartzite, silhouette)=serendity \\), where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nserendity(marbleton) & =(marbleton-1)^{tangerine+windchime+pendulous+nightfall+2} \\times \\\\\n& \\left[\\frac{1}{tangerine+pendulous+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{windchime+nightfall+1}-\\frac{1}{tangerine+nightfall+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{windchime+pendulous+1}\\right] .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( tangerine+windchime+pendulous+nightfall \\ge 2 \\), then clearly \\( serendity(marbleton) \\) is divisible by \\( (marbleton-1)^{4} \\). If \\( tangerine+windchime+pendulous+nightfall<2 \\), either all the exponents are zero or all but one are. In each of these cases, the bracketed expression in (1) vanishes, so \\( serendity(marbleton)=0 \\) and is divisible by \\( (marbleton-1)^{4} \\)."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "x": "knownvalue",
        "t": "motionless",
        "F": "simplicity",
        "f": "fixednumber",
        "u": "mutablept",
        "a": "transcend",
        "b": "irrational",
        "c": "constant",
        "d": "staticity",
        "p": "discretefn",
        "q": "unstablefn",
        "r": "sporadicfn",
        "s": "chaoticfn",
        "C": "disjointset",
        "P": "nonpolyset",
        "\\phi": "voidmapping"
      },
      "question": "2. If \\( transcend(knownvalue), irrational(knownvalue), constant(knownvalue), staticity(knownvalue) \\) are polynomials in \\( knownvalue \\), show that\n\\[\n\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend(knownvalue)\\, constant(knownvalue)\\, d knownvalue \\cdot \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational(knownvalue)\\, staticity(knownvalue)\\, d knownvalue-\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend(knownvalue)\\, staticity(knownvalue)\\, d knownvalue \\cdot \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational(knownvalue)\\, constant(knownvalue)\\, d knownvalue\n\\]\nis divisible by \\( (knownvalue-1)^{4} \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. Since \\( transcend, irrational, constant, staticity \\) are polynomials, the expression above is also a polynomial, say \\( \\boldsymbol{simplicity}(\\boldsymbol{knownvalue}) \\). For clarity we change the variable of integration to \\( motionless \\), so that\n\\[\nsimplicity(knownvalue)=\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, constant\\, d motionless \\cdot \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, staticity\\, d motionless-\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, staticity\\, d motionless \\cdot \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, constant\\, d motionless .\n\\]\n\nIt is obvious that \\( simplicity(1)=0 \\), whence \\( simplicity(knownvalue) \\) is divisible by \\( (knownvalue-1) \\). Furthermore\n\\[\nsimplicity^{\\prime}(knownvalue)=transcend\\, constant \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, staticity\\, d motionless+irrational\\, staticity \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, constant\\, d motionless-transcend\\, staticity \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, constant\\, d motionless-irrational\\, constant \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, staticity\\, d motionless,\n\\]\nand \\( simplicity^{\\prime}(1)=0 \\). Also\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\nsimplicity^{\\prime \\prime}(knownvalue)=(transcend\\, constant)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, staticity\\, d motionless+(irrational\\, staticity)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, constant\\, d motionless-(transcend\\, staticity)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, constant\\, d motionless- \\\\\n(irrational\\, constant)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, staticity\\, d motionless+transcend\\, constant\\, irrational\\, staticity+irrational\\, staticity\\, transcend\\, constant-transcend\\, staticity\\, irrational\\, constant-irrational\\, constant\\, transcend\\, staticity\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand again \\( simplicity^{\\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Finally\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nsimplicity^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(knownvalue)=(transcend\\, constant)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, staticity\\, d motionless+(irrational\\, staticity)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, constant\\, d motionless-(transcend\\, staticity)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, constant\\, d motionless- \\\\\n(irrational\\, constant)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, staticity\\, d motionless+(transcend\\, constant)^{\\prime}\\, irrational\\, staticity+(irrational\\, staticity)^{\\prime}\\, transcend\\, constant-(transcend\\, staticity)^{\\prime}\\, irrational\\, constant-(irrational\\, constant)^{\\prime}\\, transcend\\, staticity .\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe four terms not involving an integral are seen to be \\( [(transcend\\, constant)(irrational\\, staticity)]^{\\prime} [(transcend\\, staticity)(irrational\\, constant)]^{\\prime}=0 \\), and again \\( simplicity^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Therefore \\( simplicity(knownvalue) \\) is divisible by \\( (knownvalue-1)^{4} \\).\n\nSecond Solution. We prove a generalization. Suppose \\( discretefn, unstablefn, sporadicfn \\), and \\( chaoticfn \\) are functions of class \\( disjointset^{3} \\) such that \\( discretefn(mutablept)=unstablefn(mutablept)=sporadicfn(mutablept)=chaoticfn(mutablept)=0 \\) for some fixed \\( mutablept \\), and\n\\[\n\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|=0\n\\]\nidentically. Then\n\\[\nfixednumber=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ndiscretefn & unstablefn \\\\\nsporadicfn & chaoticfn\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\]\nvanishes with its first three derivatives at \\( mutablept \\).\nEvidently \\( fixednumber(mutablept)=0 \\), and we have\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nfixednumber^{\\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn & chaoticfn\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ndiscretefn & unstablefn \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\nfixednumber^{\\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime \\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn & chaoticfn\n\\end{array}\\right|+2\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ndiscretefn & unstablefn \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime \\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\nfixednumber^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn & chaoticfn\n\\end{array}\\right|+3\\left\\{\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime \\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ndiscretefn^{\\prime} & unstablefn^{\\prime} \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime \\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\\right\\}+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\ndiscretefn & unstablefn \\\\\nsporadicfn^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & chaoticfn^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe first and last determinants in each expression are zero at \\( mutablept \\). The middle determinant in \\( fixednumber^{\\prime \\prime} \\) is identically zero by hypothesis, and the expression in braces is the derivative of the latter determinant, so it, too, is identically zero. Therefore, \\( fixednumber^{\\prime}(mutablept)=fixednumber^{\\prime \\prime}(mutablept)=fixednumber^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(mutablept)=0 \\).\n\nThe problem posed is the special case with \\( mutablept=1 \\),\n\\[\ndiscretefn=\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, constant, \\quad unstablefn=\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} transcend\\, staticity, \\quad sporadicfn=\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, constant, \\quad chaoticfn=\\int_{1}^{knownvalue} irrational\\, staticity .\n\\]\n\nThird Solution. A solution using linear algebra can be given. The mapping\n\\[\nvoidmapping:(transcend, irrational, constant, staticity) \\mapsto simplicity\n\\]\nis a multilinear map \\( nonpolyset^{4} \\rightarrow nonpolyset \\) where \\( nonpolyset \\) is the space of polynomials. Since the set of polynomials divisible by \\( (knownvalue-1)^{4} \\) is a linear subspace of \\( nonpolyset \\), it is sufficient to verify the result as the given polynomials \\( transcend, irrational, constant, staticity \\) vary over a basis of \\( nonpolyset \\).\nTake the basis \\( 1,(knownvalue-1),(knownvalue-1)^{2}, \\ldots \\). Then if \\( transcend(knownvalue)=(knownvalue-1)^{discretefn}, irrational(knownvalue)=(knownvalue-1)^{unstablefn}, constant(knownvalue)=(knownvalue-1)^{sporadicfn} \\), and \\( staticity(knownvalue)=(knownvalue-1)^{chaoticfn} \\), we have \\( voidmapping(transcend, irrational, constant, staticity)=simplicity \\), where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nsimplicity(knownvalue) & =(knownvalue-1)^{discretefn+unstablefn+sporadicfn+chaoticfn+2} \\times \\\\\n& {\\left[\\frac{1}{discretefn+sporadicfn+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{unstablefn+chaoticfn+1}-\\frac{1}{discretefn+chaoticfn+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{unstablefn+sporadicfn+1}\\right] . }\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( discretefn+unstablefn+sporadicfn+chaoticfn \\geq 2 \\), then clearly \\( simplicity(knownvalue) \\) is divisible by \\( (knownvalue-1)^{4} \\). If \\( discretefn+unstablefn+sporadicfn+chaoticfn<2 \\), either all the exponents are zero or all but one are. In each of these cases, the bracketed expression in (1) vanishes, so \\( simplicity(knownvalue)=0 \\) and is divisible by \\( (knownvalue-1)^{4} \\)."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "x": "qzxwvtnp",
        "t": "hjgrksla",
        "F": "lmnoprqs",
        "f": "tuvxyzab",
        "u": "cdefghij",
        "a": "klmnprstuv",
        "b": "wxyzabcdet",
        "c": "opqrstuvwx",
        "d": "yzabcdefgi",
        "p": "hijklmnopq",
        "q": "rstuvwxyza",
        "r": "bcdefghijk",
        "s": "lmnopqrstuv",
        "C": "selkruwqop",
        "P": "alqkzmxncb",
        "\\phi": "ngrhdktps"
      },
      "question": "2. If \\( klmnprstuv(qzxwvtnp), wxyzabcdet(qzxwvtnp), opqrstuvwx(qzxwvtnp), \\) and \\( yzabcdefgi(qzxwvtnp) \\) are polynomials in \\( qzxwvtnp \\), show that\n\\[\n\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv(qzxwvtnp) opqrstuvwx(qzxwvtnp) d qzxwvtnp \\cdot \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet(qzxwvtnp) yzabcdefgi(qzxwvtnp) d qzxwvtnp-\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv(qzxwvtnp) yzabcdefgi(qzxwvtnp) d qzxwvtnp \\cdot \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet(qzxwvtnp) opqrstuvwx(qzxwvtnp) d qzxwvtnp\n\\]\nis divisible by \\( (qzxwvtnp-1)^{4} \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. Since \\( klmnprstuv, wxyzabcdet, opqrstuvwx, yzabcdefgi \\) are polynomials, the expression above is also a polynomial, say \\( \\boldsymbol{lmnoprqs}(\\boldsymbol{qzxwvtnp}) \\). For clarity we change the variable of integration to \\( hjgrksla \\), so that\n\\[\nlmnoprqs(qzxwvtnp)=\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla \\cdot \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla-\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla \\cdot \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla .\n\\]\n\nIt is obvious that \\( lmnoprqs(1)=0 \\), whence \\( lmnoprqs(qzxwvtnp) \\) is divisible by \\( (qzxwvtnp-1) \\). Furthermore\n\\[\nlmnoprqs^{\\prime}(qzxwvtnp)=klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla+wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla-klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla-wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla,\n\\]\nand \\( lmnoprqs^{\\prime}(1)=0 \\). Also\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\nlmnoprqs^{\\prime \\prime}(qzxwvtnp)=(klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla+(wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla-(klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla- \\\\\n(wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx)^{\\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla+klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi+wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx-klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx-wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand again \\( lmnoprqs^{\\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Finally\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\nlmnoprqs^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(qzxwvtnp)=(klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla+(wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla-(klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx d hjgrksla- \\\\\n(wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx)^{\\prime \\prime} \\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi d hjgrksla+(klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx)^{\\prime} wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi+(wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi)^{\\prime} klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx-(klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi)^{\\prime} wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx-(wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx)^{\\prime} klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi .\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe four terms not involving an integral are seen to be \\( [(klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx)(wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi)]^{\\prime} \\) \\( [(klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi)(wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx)]^{\\prime}=0 \\), and again \\( lmnoprqs^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(1)=0 \\). Therefore \\( lmnoprqs(qzxwvtnp) \\) is divisible by \\( (qzxwvtnp-1)^{4} \\).\n\nSecond Solution. We prove a generalization. Suppose \\( hijklmnopq, rstuvwxyza, bcdefghijk, \\) and \\( lmnopqrstuv \\) are functions of class \\( selkruwqop^{3} \\) such that \\( hijklmnopq(cdefghij)=rstuvwxyza(cdefghij)=bcdefghijk(cdefghij)=lmnopqrstuv(cdefghij)=0 \\) for some fixed \\( cdefghij \\), and\n\\[\n\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|=0\n\\]\nidentically. Then\n\\[\ntuvxyzab=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nhijklmnopq & rstuvwxyza \\\\\nbcdefghijk & lmnopqrstuv\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\]\nvanishes with its first three derivatives at \\( cdefghij \\).\nEvidently \\( tuvxyzab(cdefghij)=0 \\), and we have\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{l}\ntuvxyzab^{\\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk & lmnopqrstuv\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nhijklmnopq & rstuvwxyza \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\ntuvxyzab^{\\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime \\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk & lmnopqrstuv\n\\end{array}\\right|+2\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nhijklmnopq & rstuvwxyza \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime \\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right| \\\\\ntuvxyzab^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}=\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk & lmnopqrstuv\n\\end{array}\\right|+3\\left\\{\\left|\\begin{array}{ll}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime \\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime \\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nhijklmnopq^{\\prime} & rstuvwxyza^{\\prime} \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime \\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\\right\\}+\\left|\\begin{array}{cc}\nhijklmnopq & rstuvwxyza \\\\\nbcdefghijk^{\\prime \\prime \\prime} & lmnopqrstuv^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}\n\\end{array}\\right|\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nThe first and last determinants in each expression are zero at \\( cdefghij \\). The middle determinant in \\( tuvxyzab^{\\prime \\prime} \\) is identically zero by hypothesis, and the expression in braces is the derivative of the latter determinant, so it, too, is identically zero. Therefore, \\( tuvxyzab^{\\prime}(cdefghij)=tuvxyzab^{\\prime \\prime}(cdefghij)=tuvxyzab^{\\prime \\prime \\prime}(cdefghij)=0 \\).\n\nThe problem posed is the special case with \\( cdefghij=1 \\),\n\\[\nhijklmnopq=\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv opqrstuvwx, \\quad rstuvwxyza=\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} klmnprstuv yzabcdefgi, \\quad bcdefghijk=\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet opqrstuvwx, \\quad lmnopqrstuv=\\int_{1}^{qzxwvtnp} wxyzabcdet yzabcdefgi .\n\\]\n\nThird Solution. A solution using linear algebra can be given. The mapping\n\\[\nngrhdktps:(klmnprstuv, wxyzabcdet, opqrstuvwx, yzabcdefgi) \\mapsto lmnoprqs\n\\]\nis a multilinear map \\( alqkzmxncb^{4} \\rightarrow alqkzmxncb \\) where \\( alqkzmxncb \\) is the space of polynomials. Since the set of polynomials divisible by \\( (qzxwvtnp-1)^{4} \\) is a linear subspace of \\( alqkzmxncb \\), it is sufficient to verify the result as the given polynomials \\( klmnprstuv, wxyzabcdet, opqrstuvwx, \\) and \\( yzabcdefgi \\) vary over a basis of \\( alqkzmxncb \\).\nTake the basis \\( 1,(qzxwvtnp-1),(qzxwvtnp-1)^{2}, \\ldots \\). Then if \\( klmnprstuv(qzxwvtnp)=(qzxwvtnp-1)^{hijklmnopq}, wxyzabcdet(qzxwvtnp)=(qzxwvtnp-1)^{rstuvwxyza}, opqrstuvwx(qzxwvtnp)=(qzxwvtnp-1)^{bcdefghijk} \\), and \\( yzabcdefgi(qzxwvtnp)=(qzxwvtnp-1)^{lmnopqrstuv} \\), we have \\( ngrhdktps(klmnprstuv, wxyzabcdet, opqrstuvwx, yzabcdefgi)=lmnoprqs \\), where\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nlmnoprqs(qzxwvtnp) & =(qzxwvtnp-1)^{hijklmnopq+rstuvwxyza+bcdefghijk+lmnopqrstuv+2} \\times \\\\\n& {\\left[\\frac{1}{hijklmnopq+bcdefghijk+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{rstuvwxyza+lmnopqrstuv+1}-\\frac{1}{hijklmnopq+lmnopqrstuv+1} \\cdot \\frac{1}{rstuvwxyza+bcdefghijk+1}\\right] . }\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nIf \\( hijklmnopq+rstuvwxyza+bcdefghijk+lmnopqrstuv \\geq 2 \\), then clearly \\( lmnoprqs(qzxwvtnp) \\) is divisible by \\( (qzxwvtnp-1)^{4} \\). If \\( hijklmnopq+rstuvwxyza+bcdefghijk+lmnopqrstuv<2 \\), either all the exponents are zero or all but one are. In each of these cases, the bracketed expression in (1) vanishes, so \\( lmnoprqs(qzxwvtnp)=0 \\) and is divisible by \\( (qzxwvtnp-1)^{4} \\)."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let  \n\n\\[\na_{1}(x),\\;a_{2}(x),\\;a_{3}(x)\\qquad\\text{and}\\qquad  \nb_{1}(x),\\;b_{2}(x),\\;b_{3}(x)\n\\]\n\nbe real–analytic functions on an open interval \\(I\\subset\\mathbb{R}\\) that\ncontains the point \\(\\pi\\).\nFor an analytic function \\(f\\) put  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}f\\;:=\\;\n\\min\\Bigl\\{m\\ge 0\\;\\Bigm|\\;\n\\dfrac{f^{(m)}(\\pi)}{m!}\\neq 0\\Bigr\\},\n\\qquad\n\\bigl(\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}0:=+\\infty\\bigr).\n\\]\n\nAssume that the triple \\((b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})\\) is \\emph{not}\nidentically zero and set  \n\n\\[\nk:=\\min\\Bigl\\{\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{1},\\;\n              \\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{2},\\;\n              \\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{3}\\Bigr\\}.\n\\]\nAfter a possible permutation we may (and do) suppose  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{1}=k. \\tag{\\(\\diamondsuit\\)}\n\\]\n\nFor \\(x\\in I\\) define the \\(3\\times3\\) matrix  \n\n\\[\nM(x)=\\bigl(m_{ij}(x)\\bigr)_{1\\le i,j\\le 3},\n\\qquad\nm_{ij}(x):=\\int_{\\pi}^{x} a_{i}(t)\\,b_{j}(t)\\,dt ,\n\\]\nand denote \\(\\displaystyle\\Delta(x):=\\det M(x)\\).\n\na)  Prove the \\emph{universal} estimate  \n\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta\\;\\ge\\;3k+7\\;} . \\tag{\\(*\\)}\n\\]\n\nb)  Show that the bound \\((*)\\) is optimal:  \nfor every fixed \\(k\\in\\mathbb{N}\\cup\\{0\\}\\) there exist analytic sextuples  \n\n\\[\n\\bigl(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3};\\,b_{1},b_{2},b_{3}\\bigr)\\qquad\n\\text{with}\\quad\n\\min_{j}\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{j}=k\n\\]\nsuch that  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7 .\n\\]\n\nConsequently, when \\(k=0\\) the determinant \\(\\Delta(x)\\) is always\ndivisible by \\((x-\\pi)^{7}\\), and the exponent \\(7\\) cannot be reduced.",
      "solution": "Throughout write  \n\n\\[\n\\varepsilon:=x-\\pi,\\qquad \n\\tau:=t-\\pi,\n\\]\nand use the \\(O(\\,\\cdot\\,)\\)-notation component–wise for vectors and\nmatrices.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nPart (a) – Proof of the inequality \\((*)\\).\n\nStep 0.  Taylor expansions.  \nWrite  \n\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nb_{j}(t)&=\\tau^{k}\\sum_{r\\ge 0}\\beta_{j,r}\\,\\tau^{r},\n&\\qquad& \\beta_{1,0}\\neq 0\\;(\\text{by }(\\diamondsuit)),\\\\[2mm]\na_{i}(t)&=\\sum_{s\\ge 0}\\alpha_{i,s}\\,\\tau^{s},\n\\qquad 1\\le i\\le 3.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nPut  \n\n\\[\ns:=\\min\\Bigl\\{s\\ge 0\\mid\\exists\\,i:\\alpha_{i,s}\\neq 0\\Bigr\\},\\qquad \n\\widehat u:=(\\alpha_{1,s},\\alpha_{2,s},\\alpha_{3,s})^{\\mathsf T}\\neq 0 .\n\\]\n\nStep 1.  The first column \\(C_{1}\\).  \nFor \\(j=1\\) the integrand is \\(\\tau^{k}\\tau^{s}= \\tau^{k+s}\\); hence  \n\n\\[\nC_{1}:=\n\\begin{bmatrix}m_{11}\\\\m_{21}\\\\m_{31}\\end{bmatrix}\n=\\varepsilon^{k+1+s}\\bigl(\\widehat u+\\varepsilon u_{1}+O(\\varepsilon^{2})\\bigr). \\tag{1}\n\\]\n\nStep 2.  Raising the order of the remaining columns.  \nPut \\(\\lambda_{j}:=\\beta_{j,0}/\\beta_{1,0}\\;(j=2,3)\\) and perform the\nelementary column operations \\(C_{j}\\longleftarrow C_{j}-\\lambda_{j}C_{1}\\).\nBecause \\(b_{j}-\\lambda_{j}b_{1}\\) vanishes to order \\(k+1\\) at\n\\(t=\\pi\\), the transformed columns satisfy  \n\n\\[\nC_{j}= \\varepsilon^{k+2+s}\\bigl(v_{j}+\\varepsilon w_{j}+O(\\varepsilon^{2})\\bigr),\n\\qquad v_{j}=c_{j}\\,\\widehat u,\\;c_{j}\\in\\mathbb{R}. \\tag{2}\n\\]\n\nStep 3.  Extracting the obvious overall power of \\(\\varepsilon\\).  \nWith (1)–(2) we can factor  \n\n\\[\n\\Delta(x)=\\varepsilon^{3k+5+3s}\\,\nB(\\varepsilon),\n\\]\nwhere  \n\n\\[\nB(\\varepsilon):=\n\\det\\!\\bigl[\\widehat u+\\varepsilon u_{1}+O(\\varepsilon^{2}),\n               \\;v_{2}+\\varepsilon w_{2}+O(\\varepsilon^{2}),\n               \\;v_{3}+\\varepsilon w_{3}+O(\\varepsilon^{2})\\bigr]. \\tag{3}\n\\]\n\nStep 4.  Vanishing of the constant and linear terms in \\(B\\).  \nAt \\(\\varepsilon=0\\) the three column–vectors inside the determinant in\n(3) are all multiples of \\(\\widehat u\\), hence the determinant vanishes.  \nBecause each of the two vectors \\(v_{2},v_{3}\\) is a multiple of the\nfirst one, every first–order term in the expansion of \\(B(\\varepsilon)\\)\nstill contains two proportional columns and therefore also vanishes.\nConsequently  \n\n\\[\nB(\\varepsilon)=\\varepsilon^{2}\\,B_{2}+O\\!\\bigl(\\varepsilon^{3}\\bigr) \\qquad(\\varepsilon\\to 0). \\tag{4}\n\\]\n\nInequalities (3)–(4) give  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta\n\\;\\ge\\;3k+5+3s+2\n\\;=\\;3k+7+3s\n\\;\\ge\\;3k+7 ,\n\\]\n\nwhich is exactly the universal estimate \\((*)\\).\n(Note that when \\(s>0\\) the obtained bound is in fact stronger.)\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nOptional remark on the coefficient \\(B_{2}\\).  \nFormula (4) shows that \\(\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta\\) will jump to at\nleast \\(3k+8+3s\\) precisely when the scalar \\(B_{2}\\) vanishes.  One can\ncheck that \\(B_{2}\\) is a non–trivial analytic function of the\ncoefficients \\(\\{\\alpha_{i,r}\\},\\{\\beta_{j,r}\\}\\); hence \\(B_{2}=0\\) is a\n\\emph{codimension–$1$} condition in the space of analytic sextuples.\nFor a “generic’’ choice of the six functions one therefore has\n\\(B_{2}\\neq 0\\) and the stronger bound\n\\(\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7+3s\\).  This observation is not\nneeded for part (a), but it explains why the equality examples in part\n(b) (which have \\(s=0\\)) do realise the exact exponent \\(3k+7\\).\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nPart (b) – Sharpness of the bound \\((*)\\).\n\nFix \\(k\\ge 0\\) and take  \n\n\\[\n\\boxed{%\n\\begin{aligned}\na_{1}(t)&:=1,\\\\\na_{2}(t)&:=1+\\tau,\\\\\na_{3}(t)&:=\\tau,\\\\\nb_{1}(t)&:=\\tau^{k},\\\\\nb_{2}(t)&:=\\tau^{k}\\bigl(1+\\tau\\bigr),\\\\\nb_{3}(t)&:=\\tau^{k+1}\\bigl(1+\\tau\\bigr).\n\\end{aligned}}\n\\tag{5}\n\\]\nHere \\(s=0\\) and \\(\\min_{j}\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{j}=k\\); condition\n\\((\\diamondsuit)\\) is satisfied.\n\nA straightforward (though routine) Taylor computation of the nine\nintegrals shows  \n\n\\[\n\\Delta(\\pi+\\varepsilon)=\n\\frac{k+3}{12(k+1)(k+2)}\\,\\varepsilon^{3k+7}\n\\,+\\,O\\!\\bigl(\\varepsilon^{3k+8}\\bigr),\\qquad (\\varepsilon\\to 0). \\tag{6}\n\\]\nSince the leading coefficient in (6) is\n\\(\\displaystyle\\frac{k+3}{12(k+1)(k+2)}\\neq 0\\) for every \\(k\\ge 0\\),  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7,\n\\]\nestablishing the optimality of the exponent in \\((*)\\).  In particular,\nfor \\(k=0\\) one obtains  \n\n\\[\n\\Delta(x)=\\frac{(x-\\pi)^{7}}{8}+O\\!\\bigl((x-\\pi)^{8}\\bigr),\n\\]\nand the power \\(7\\) cannot be lowered.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nRemarks.  \n\n1.  If \\(b_{1}\\equiv b_{2}\\equiv b_{3}\\equiv 0\\) then\n\\(k=+\\infty\\) and \\(\\Delta\\equiv 0\\); otherwise the estimate \\((*)\\) is\nvalid.  \n\n2.  The explicit family (5) is only one concrete realisation with\nequality.  Small analytic perturbations of any of the six functions by\nterms of order \\(\\ge k+2\\) keep the equality, so the set\n\\(\\{\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7\\}\\) is Zariski–open in the space\nof analytic sextuples.",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.400732",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "1. Higher dimension: The problem escalates from a single 2 × 2 expression to\n   the determinant of a 3 × 3 matrix whose entries are integrals, introducing\n   nine interacting objects instead of four.\n\n2. Additional constraints:  Careful use of analytic expansions,\n   column operations, and rank considerations are all required; simple\n   differentiation no longer suffices.\n\n3. Deeper structure:  The proof exploits subtle cancellations that arise\n   only after eliminating leading terms in two entire columns, something that\n   is invisible in the original 2 × 2 setting.\n\n4. Multi-step reasoning:  One must combine Taylor expansions, linear-algebra\n   manipulations that leave determinants invariant, and order bookkeeping to\n   track five powers of (x–π).  Each part is elementary in isolation, but\n   their coordination is substantially more sophisticated than in the\n   original problem, where four successive derivatives were enough.\n\n5. Non-trivial sharpness:  Showing that the exponent 5 is optimal in the\n   generic case adds an extra theoretical layer beyond merely proving\n   divisibility.\n\nCollectively these enhancements push the problem well beyond the scope of\ndirect pattern-matching or routine calculations, satisfying the requirement\nthat the kernel variant be significantly harder than both earlier versions."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let  \n\n\\[\na_{1}(x),\\;a_{2}(x),\\;a_{3}(x)\\qquad\\text{and}\\qquad  \nb_{1}(x),\\;b_{2}(x),\\;b_{3}(x)\n\\]\n\nbe real–analytic functions on an open interval \\(I\\subset\\mathbb{R}\\) that\ncontains the point \\(\\pi\\).\nFor an analytic function \\(f\\) put  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}f\\;:=\\;\n\\min\\Bigl\\{m\\ge 0\\;\\Bigm|\\;\n\\dfrac{f^{(m)}(\\pi)}{m!}\\neq 0\\Bigr\\},\n\\qquad\n\\bigl(\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}0:=+\\infty\\bigr).\n\\]\n\nAssume that the triple \\((b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})\\) is \\emph{not}\nidentically zero and set  \n\n\\[\nk:=\\min\\Bigl\\{\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{1},\\;\n              \\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{2},\\;\n              \\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{3}\\Bigr\\}.\n\\]\nAfter a possible permutation we may (and do) suppose  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{1}=k. \\tag{\\(\\diamondsuit\\)}\n\\]\n\nFor \\(x\\in I\\) define the \\(3\\times3\\) matrix  \n\n\\[\nM(x)=\\bigl(m_{ij}(x)\\bigr)_{1\\le i,j\\le 3},\n\\qquad\nm_{ij}(x):=\\int_{\\pi}^{x} a_{i}(t)\\,b_{j}(t)\\,dt ,\n\\]\nand denote \\(\\displaystyle\\Delta(x):=\\det M(x)\\).\n\na)  Prove the \\emph{universal} estimate  \n\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta\\;\\ge\\;3k+7\\;} . \\tag{\\(*\\)}\n\\]\n\nb)  Show that the bound \\((*)\\) is optimal:  \nfor every fixed \\(k\\in\\mathbb{N}\\cup\\{0\\}\\) there exist analytic sextuples  \n\n\\[\n\\bigl(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3};\\,b_{1},b_{2},b_{3}\\bigr)\\qquad\n\\text{with}\\quad\n\\min_{j}\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{j}=k\n\\]\nsuch that  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7 .\n\\]\n\nConsequently, when \\(k=0\\) the determinant \\(\\Delta(x)\\) is always\ndivisible by \\((x-\\pi)^{7}\\), and the exponent \\(7\\) cannot be reduced.",
      "solution": "Throughout write  \n\n\\[\n\\varepsilon:=x-\\pi,\\qquad \n\\tau:=t-\\pi,\n\\]\nand use the \\(O(\\,\\cdot\\,)\\)-notation component–wise for vectors and\nmatrices.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nPart (a) – Proof of the inequality \\((*)\\).\n\nStep 0.  Taylor expansions.  \nWrite  \n\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\nb_{j}(t)&=\\tau^{k}\\sum_{r\\ge 0}\\beta_{j,r}\\,\\tau^{r},\n&\\qquad& \\beta_{1,0}\\neq 0\\;(\\text{by }(\\diamondsuit)),\\\\[2mm]\na_{i}(t)&=\\sum_{s\\ge 0}\\alpha_{i,s}\\,\\tau^{s},\n\\qquad 1\\le i\\le 3.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nPut  \n\n\\[\ns:=\\min\\Bigl\\{s\\ge 0\\mid\\exists\\,i:\\alpha_{i,s}\\neq 0\\Bigr\\},\\qquad \n\\widehat u:=(\\alpha_{1,s},\\alpha_{2,s},\\alpha_{3,s})^{\\mathsf T}\\neq 0 .\n\\]\n\nStep 1.  The first column \\(C_{1}\\).  \nFor \\(j=1\\) the integrand is \\(\\tau^{k}\\tau^{s}= \\tau^{k+s}\\); hence  \n\n\\[\nC_{1}:=\n\\begin{bmatrix}m_{11}\\\\m_{21}\\\\m_{31}\\end{bmatrix}\n=\\varepsilon^{k+1+s}\\bigl(\\widehat u+\\varepsilon u_{1}+O(\\varepsilon^{2})\\bigr). \\tag{1}\n\\]\n\nStep 2.  Raising the order of the remaining columns.  \nPut \\(\\lambda_{j}:=\\beta_{j,0}/\\beta_{1,0}\\;(j=2,3)\\) and perform the\nelementary column operations \\(C_{j}\\longleftarrow C_{j}-\\lambda_{j}C_{1}\\).\nBecause \\(b_{j}-\\lambda_{j}b_{1}\\) vanishes to order \\(k+1\\) at\n\\(t=\\pi\\), the transformed columns satisfy  \n\n\\[\nC_{j}= \\varepsilon^{k+2+s}\\bigl(v_{j}+\\varepsilon w_{j}+O(\\varepsilon^{2})\\bigr),\n\\qquad v_{j}=c_{j}\\,\\widehat u,\\;c_{j}\\in\\mathbb{R}. \\tag{2}\n\\]\n\nStep 3.  Extracting the obvious overall power of \\(\\varepsilon\\).  \nWith (1)–(2) we can factor  \n\n\\[\n\\Delta(x)=\\varepsilon^{3k+5+3s}\\,\nB(\\varepsilon),\n\\]\nwhere  \n\n\\[\nB(\\varepsilon):=\n\\det\\!\\bigl[\\widehat u+\\varepsilon u_{1}+O(\\varepsilon^{2}),\n               \\;v_{2}+\\varepsilon w_{2}+O(\\varepsilon^{2}),\n               \\;v_{3}+\\varepsilon w_{3}+O(\\varepsilon^{2})\\bigr]. \\tag{3}\n\\]\n\nStep 4.  Vanishing of the constant and linear terms in \\(B\\).  \nAt \\(\\varepsilon=0\\) the three column–vectors inside the determinant in\n(3) are all multiples of \\(\\widehat u\\), hence the determinant vanishes.  \nBecause each of the two vectors \\(v_{2},v_{3}\\) is a multiple of the\nfirst one, every first–order term in the expansion of \\(B(\\varepsilon)\\)\nstill contains two proportional columns and therefore also vanishes.\nConsequently  \n\n\\[\nB(\\varepsilon)=\\varepsilon^{2}\\,B_{2}+O\\!\\bigl(\\varepsilon^{3}\\bigr) \\qquad(\\varepsilon\\to 0). \\tag{4}\n\\]\n\nInequalities (3)–(4) give  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta\n\\;\\ge\\;3k+5+3s+2\n\\;=\\;3k+7+3s\n\\;\\ge\\;3k+7 ,\n\\]\n\nwhich is exactly the universal estimate \\((*)\\).\n(Note that when \\(s>0\\) the obtained bound is in fact stronger.)\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nOptional remark on the coefficient \\(B_{2}\\).  \nFormula (4) shows that \\(\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta\\) will jump to at\nleast \\(3k+8+3s\\) precisely when the scalar \\(B_{2}\\) vanishes.  One can\ncheck that \\(B_{2}\\) is a non–trivial analytic function of the\ncoefficients \\(\\{\\alpha_{i,r}\\},\\{\\beta_{j,r}\\}\\); hence \\(B_{2}=0\\) is a\n\\emph{codimension–$1$} condition in the space of analytic sextuples.\nFor a “generic’’ choice of the six functions one therefore has\n\\(B_{2}\\neq 0\\) and the stronger bound\n\\(\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7+3s\\).  This observation is not\nneeded for part (a), but it explains why the equality examples in part\n(b) (which have \\(s=0\\)) do realise the exact exponent \\(3k+7\\).\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nPart (b) – Sharpness of the bound \\((*)\\).\n\nFix \\(k\\ge 0\\) and take  \n\n\\[\n\\boxed{%\n\\begin{aligned}\na_{1}(t)&:=1,\\\\\na_{2}(t)&:=1+\\tau,\\\\\na_{3}(t)&:=\\tau,\\\\\nb_{1}(t)&:=\\tau^{k},\\\\\nb_{2}(t)&:=\\tau^{k}\\bigl(1+\\tau\\bigr),\\\\\nb_{3}(t)&:=\\tau^{k+1}\\bigl(1+\\tau\\bigr).\n\\end{aligned}}\n\\tag{5}\n\\]\nHere \\(s=0\\) and \\(\\min_{j}\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}b_{j}=k\\); condition\n\\((\\diamondsuit)\\) is satisfied.\n\nA straightforward (though routine) Taylor computation of the nine\nintegrals shows  \n\n\\[\n\\Delta(\\pi+\\varepsilon)=\n\\frac{k+3}{12(k+1)(k+2)}\\,\\varepsilon^{3k+7}\n\\,+\\,O\\!\\bigl(\\varepsilon^{3k+8}\\bigr),\\qquad (\\varepsilon\\to 0). \\tag{6}\n\\]\nSince the leading coefficient in (6) is\n\\(\\displaystyle\\frac{k+3}{12(k+1)(k+2)}\\neq 0\\) for every \\(k\\ge 0\\),  \n\n\\[\n\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7,\n\\]\nestablishing the optimality of the exponent in \\((*)\\).  In particular,\nfor \\(k=0\\) one obtains  \n\n\\[\n\\Delta(x)=\\frac{(x-\\pi)^{7}}{8}+O\\!\\bigl((x-\\pi)^{8}\\bigr),\n\\]\nand the power \\(7\\) cannot be lowered.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\nRemarks.  \n\n1.  If \\(b_{1}\\equiv b_{2}\\equiv b_{3}\\equiv 0\\) then\n\\(k=+\\infty\\) and \\(\\Delta\\equiv 0\\); otherwise the estimate \\((*)\\) is\nvalid.  \n\n2.  The explicit family (5) is only one concrete realisation with\nequality.  Small analytic perturbations of any of the six functions by\nterms of order \\(\\ge k+2\\) keep the equality, so the set\n\\(\\{\\operatorname{ord}_{\\pi}\\Delta=3k+7\\}\\) is Zariski–open in the space\nof analytic sextuples.",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.342927",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "1. Higher dimension: The problem escalates from a single 2 × 2 expression to\n   the determinant of a 3 × 3 matrix whose entries are integrals, introducing\n   nine interacting objects instead of four.\n\n2. Additional constraints:  Careful use of analytic expansions,\n   column operations, and rank considerations are all required; simple\n   differentiation no longer suffices.\n\n3. Deeper structure:  The proof exploits subtle cancellations that arise\n   only after eliminating leading terms in two entire columns, something that\n   is invisible in the original 2 × 2 setting.\n\n4. Multi-step reasoning:  One must combine Taylor expansions, linear-algebra\n   manipulations that leave determinants invariant, and order bookkeeping to\n   track five powers of (x–π).  Each part is elementary in isolation, but\n   their coordination is substantially more sophisticated than in the\n   original problem, where four successive derivatives were enough.\n\n5. Non-trivial sharpness:  Showing that the exponent 5 is optimal in the\n   generic case adds an extra theoretical layer beyond merely proving\n   divisibility.\n\nCollectively these enhancements push the problem well beyond the scope of\ndirect pattern-matching or routine calculations, satisfying the requirement\nthat the kernel variant be significantly harder than both earlier versions."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}