{
  "index": "1961-A-2",
  "type": "ANA",
  "tag": [
    "ANA",
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "2. For a real-valued function \\( f(x, y) \\) of the two positive real variables \\( x \\) and \\( y \\), define \\( f(x, y) \\) to be linearly bounded if and only if there exists a positive number \\( K \\) such that \\( |f(x, y)|<(x+y) K \\) for all positive \\( x \\) and \\( y \\). Find necessary and sufficient conditions on the real numbers \\( \\alpha \\) and \\( \\beta \\) such that \\( x^{\\alpha} y^{\\beta} \\) is linearly bounded.",
  "solution": "Solution. Suppose \\( x^{a} y^{3}<(x+y) K \\) for all positive \\( x, y \\). Setting \\( x=y \\) \\( =t \\). we find \\( t^{n+3-1}<2 K \\) for all positive \\( t \\). It follows that \\( \\alpha+\\beta=1 \\). Now set \\( x=s . y=1-s \\). Then \\( s^{\\prime \\prime}(1-s)^{\\beta}<K \\) for \\( 0<s<1 \\). Letting \\( s \\rightarrow 0 \\). we see that \\( \\alpha \\geq 0 \\). letting \\( s \\rightarrow 1 \\), we find \\( \\beta \\geq 0 \\). Thus, in order that \\( x^{-1} y^{3} \\) be linearly bounded it is necessary that \\( \\alpha \\geq 0, \\beta \\geq 0 \\), and \\( \\alpha+ \\) \\( \\beta=1 \\).\n\nConversely. suppose \\( \\alpha \\geq 0, \\beta \\geq 0, \\alpha+\\beta=1 \\). Then for \\( 0<t<1 \\), it is obvious that\n\\[\nt^{\\alpha x}(1-t)^{\\beta}<1^{\\alpha} \\cdot 1^{\\beta}=1\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\nx^{(x)} y^{\\beta}=\\left(\\frac{x}{x+y}\\right)^{\\alpha}\\left(1-\\frac{x}{x+y}\\right)^{\\beta}(x+y)<x+y\n\\]\nfor any positive \\( x \\) and \\( y \\), so \\( x^{\\alpha} \\boldsymbol{y}^{\\beta} \\) is linearly bounded with \\( K=1 \\). Thus the conditions stated are both necessary and sufficient.",
  "vars": [
    "x",
    "y",
    "t",
    "s"
  ],
  "params": [
    "\\\\alpha",
    "\\\\beta",
    "K",
    "a",
    "n",
    "f"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "x": "horizal",
        "y": "vertical",
        "t": "tempvar",
        "s": "segment",
        "\\alpha": "alphacoef",
        "\\beta": "betacoef",
        "K": "boundup",
        "a": "expaparam",
        "n": "counter",
        "f": "mapfunc"
      },
      "question": "2. For a real-valued function \\( mapfunc(horizal, vertical) \\) of the two positive real variables \\( horizal \\) and \\( vertical \\), define \\( mapfunc(horizal, vertical) \\) to be linearly bounded if and only if there exists a positive number \\( boundup \\) such that \\( |mapfunc(horizal, vertical)|<(horizal+vertical) boundup \\) for all positive \\( horizal \\) and \\( vertical \\). Find necessary and sufficient conditions on the real numbers \\( alphacoef \\) and \\( betacoef \\) such that \\( horizal^{alphacoef} vertical^{betacoef} \\) is linearly bounded.",
      "solution": "Solution. Suppose \\( horizal^{expaparam} vertical^{3}<(horizal+vertical) boundup \\) for all positive \\( horizal, vertical \\). Setting \\( horizal=vertical =tempvar \\). we find \\( tempvar^{counter+3-1}<2 boundup \\) for all positive \\( tempvar \\). It follows that \\( alphacoef+betacoef=1 \\). Now set \\( horizal=segment . vertical=1-segment \\). Then \\( segment^{\\prime \\prime}(1-segment)^{betacoef}<boundup \\) for \\( 0<segment<1 \\). Letting \\( segment \\rightarrow 0 \\). we see that \\( alphacoef \\geq 0 \\). letting \\( segment \\rightarrow 1 \\), we find \\( betacoef \\geq 0 \\). Thus, in order that \\( horizal^{-1} vertical^{3} \\) be linearly bounded it is necessary that \\( alphacoef \\geq 0, betacoef \\geq 0 \\), and \\( alphacoef+ betacoef=1 \\).\n\nConversely. suppose \\( alphacoef \\geq 0, betacoef \\geq 0, alphacoef+betacoef=1 \\). Then for \\( 0<tempvar<1 \\), it is obvious that\n\\[\ntempvar^{alphacoef horizal}(1-tempvar)^{betacoef}<1^{alphacoef} \\cdot 1^{betacoef}=1\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\nhorizal^{(horizal)} vertical^{betacoef}=\\left(\\frac{horizal}{horizal+vertical}\\right)^{alphacoef}\\left(1-\\frac{horizal}{horizal+vertical}\\right)^{betacoef}(horizal+vertical)<horizal+vertical\n\\]\nfor any positive \\( horizal \\) and \\( vertical \\), so \\( horizal^{alphacoef} \\boldsymbol{vertical}^{betacoef} \\) is linearly bounded with \\( boundup=1 \\). Thus the conditions stated are both necessary and sufficient."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "x": "riverbank",
        "y": "sunflower",
        "t": "rainstorm",
        "s": "thunderclap",
        "\\\\alpha": "pendulum",
        "\\\\beta": "marigold",
        "K": "blueberry",
        "a": "lighthouse",
        "n": "pineapple",
        "f": "butterfly"
      },
      "question": "2. For a real-valued function \\( butterfly(riverbank, sunflower) \\) of the two positive real variables \\( riverbank \\) and \\( sunflower \\), define \\( butterfly(riverbank, sunflower) \\) to be linearly bounded if and only if there exists a positive number \\( blueberry \\) such that \\( |butterfly(riverbank, sunflower)|<(riverbank+sunflower)\\,blueberry \\) for all positive \\( riverbank \\) and \\( sunflower \\). Find necessary and sufficient conditions on the real numbers \\( pendulum \\) and \\( marigold \\) such that \\( riverbank^{pendulum} sunflower^{marigold} \\) is linearly bounded.",
      "solution": "Solution. Suppose \\( riverbank^{lighthouse} sunflower^{3}<(riverbank+sunflower)\\,blueberry \\) for all positive \\( riverbank, sunflower \\). Setting \\( riverbank=sunflower =rainstorm \\). we find \\( rainstorm^{pineapple+3-1}<2\\,blueberry \\) for all positive \\( rainstorm \\). It follows that \\( pendulum+marigold=1 \\). Now set \\( riverbank=thunderclap ,\\; sunflower=1-thunderclap \\). Then \\( thunderclap^{\\prime\\prime}(1-thunderclap)^{marigold}<blueberry \\) for \\( 0<thunderclap<1 \\). Letting \\( thunderclap \\rightarrow 0 \\). we see that \\( pendulum \\geq 0 \\). letting \\( thunderclap \\rightarrow 1 \\), we find \\( marigold \\geq 0 \\). Thus, in order that \\( riverbank^{-1} sunflower^{3} \\) be linearly bounded it is necessary that \\( pendulum \\geq 0, marigold \\geq 0 \\), and \\( pendulum+ marigold=1 \\).\n\nConversely. suppose \\( pendulum \\geq 0, marigold \\geq 0, pendulum+marigold=1 \\). Then for \\( 0<rainstorm<1 \\), it is obvious that\n\\[\nrainstorm^{pendulum\\,riverbank}(1-rainstorm)^{marigold}<1^{pendulum} \\cdot 1^{marigold}=1\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\nriverbank^{(riverbank)} sunflower^{marigold}=\\left(\\frac{riverbank}{riverbank+sunflower}\\right)^{pendulum}\\left(1-\\frac{riverbank}{riverbank+sunflower}\\right)^{marigold}(riverbank+sunflower)<riverbank+sunflower\n\\]\nfor any positive \\( riverbank \\) and \\( sunflower \\), so \\( riverbank^{pendulum} \\boldsymbol{sunflower}^{marigold} \\) is linearly bounded with \\( blueberry=1 \\). Thus the conditions stated are both necessary and sufficient."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "x": "constantval",
        "y": "fixednumbr",
        "t": "immutable",
        "s": "stationary",
        "\\alpha": "rootvalue",
        "\\beta": "logfactor",
        "K": "unbounded",
        "a": "rootcoef",
        "n": "rootindex",
        "f": "inputdata"
      },
      "question": "For a real-valued function \\( inputdata(constantval, fixednumbr) \\) of the two positive real variables \\( constantval \\) and \\( fixednumbr \\), define \\( inputdata(constantval, fixednumbr) \\) to be linearly bounded if and only if there exists a positive number \\( unbounded \\) such that \\( |inputdata(constantval, fixednumbr)|<(constantval+fixednumbr) unbounded \\) for all positive \\( constantval \\) and \\( fixednumbr \\). Find necessary and sufficient conditions on the real numbers \\( rootvalue \\) and \\( logfactor \\) such that \\( constantval^{rootvalue} fixednumbr^{logfactor} \\) is linearly bounded.",
      "solution": "Solution. Suppose \\( constantval^{rootcoef} fixednumbr^{3}<(constantval+fixednumbr) unbounded \\) for all positive \\( constantval, fixednumbr \\). Setting \\( constantval=fixednumbr \\) \\( =immutable \\). we find \\( immutable^{rootindex+3-1}<2 unbounded \\) for all positive \\( immutable \\). It follows that \\( rootvalue+logfactor=1 \\). Now set \\( constantval=stationary . fixednumbr=1-stationary \\). Then \\( stationary^{\\prime \\prime}(1-stationary)^{logfactor}<unbounded \\) for \\( 0<stationary<1 \\). Letting \\( stationary \\rightarrow 0 \\). we see that \\( rootvalue \\geq 0 \\). letting \\( stationary \\rightarrow 1 \\), we find \\( logfactor \\geq 0 \\). Thus, in order that \\( constantval^{-1} fixednumbr^{3} \\) be linearly bounded it is necessary that \\( rootvalue \\geq 0, logfactor \\geq 0 \\), and \\( rootvalue+ \\) \\( logfactor=1 \\).\n\nConversely. suppose \\( rootvalue \\geq 0, logfactor \\geq 0, rootvalue+logfactor=1 \\). Then for \\( 0<immutable<1 \\), it is obvious that\n\\[\nimmutable^{rootvalue constantval}(1-immutable)^{logfactor}<1^{rootvalue} \\cdot 1^{logfactor}=1\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\nconstantval^{(constantval)} fixednumbr^{logfactor}=\\left(\\frac{constantval}{constantval+fixednumbr}\\right)^{rootvalue}\\left(1-\\frac{constantval}{constantval+fixednumbr}\\right)^{logfactor}(constantval+fixednumbr)<constantval+fixednumbr\n\\]\nfor any positive \\( constantval \\) and \\( fixednumbr \\), so \\( constantval^{rootvalue} \\boldsymbol{fixednumbr}^{logfactor} \\) is linearly bounded with \\( unbounded=1 \\). Thus the conditions stated are both necessary and sufficient."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "x": "qzxwvtnp",
        "y": "hjgrksla",
        "t": "mxcvbhjk",
        "s": "plokijmn",
        "\\alpha": "asdfghjk",
        "\\beta": "qwertyui",
        "K": "zxcvbnml",
        "a": "poiuytre",
        "n": "lkjhgfds",
        "f": "qazwsxed"
      },
      "question": "2. For a real-valued function \\( qazwsxed(qzxwvtnp, hjgrksla) \\) of the two positive real variables \\( qzxwvtnp \\) and \\( hjgrksla \\), define \\( qazwsxed(qzxwvtnp, hjgrksla) \\) to be linearly bounded if and only if there exists a positive number \\( zxcvbnml \\) such that \\( |qazwsxed(qzxwvtnp, hjgrksla)|<(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla) zxcvbnml \\) for all positive \\( qzxwvtnp \\) and \\( hjgrksla \\). Find necessary and sufficient conditions on the real numbers \\( asdfghjk \\) and \\( qwertyui \\) such that \\( qzxwvtnp^{asdfghjk} hjgrksla^{qwertyui} \\) is linearly bounded.",
      "solution": "Solution. Suppose \\( qzxwvtnp^{poiuytre} hjgrksla^{3}<(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla) zxcvbnml \\) for all positive \\( qzxwvtnp, hjgrksla \\). Setting \\( qzxwvtnp=hjgrksla=mxcvbhjk \\), we find \\( mxcvbhjk^{lkjhgfds+3-1}<2 zxcvbnml \\) for all positive \\( mxcvbhjk \\). It follows that \\( asdfghjk+qwertyui=1 \\). Now set \\( qzxwvtnp=plokijmn \\), \\( hjgrksla=1-plokijmn \\). Then \\( plokijmn^{\\prime \\prime}(1-plokijmn)^{qwertyui}<zxcvbnml \\) for \\( 0<plokijmn<1 \\). Letting \\( plokijmn \\rightarrow 0 \\), we see that \\( asdfghjk \\geq 0 \\); letting \\( plokijmn \\rightarrow 1 \\), we find \\( qwertyui \\geq 0 \\). Thus, in order that \\( qzxwvtnp^{-1} hjgrksla^{3} \\) be linearly bounded it is necessary that \\( asdfghjk \\geq 0, qwertyui \\geq 0 \\), and \\( asdfghjk+qwertyui=1 \\).\n\nConversely, suppose \\( asdfghjk \\geq 0, qwertyui \\geq 0, asdfghjk+qwertyui=1 \\). Then for \\( 0<mxcvbhjk<1 \\), it is obvious that\n\\[\nmxcvbhjk^{asdfghjk qzxwvtnp}(1-mxcvbhjk)^{qwertyui}<1^{asdfghjk} \\cdot 1^{qwertyui}=1 .\n\\]\nHence\n\\[\nqzxwvtnp^{(qzxwvtnp)} hjgrksla^{qwertyui}=\\left(\\frac{qzxwvtnp}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}\\right)^{asdfghjk}\\left(1-\\frac{qzxwvtnp}{qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla}\\right)^{qwertyui}(qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla)<qzxwvtnp+hjgrksla ,\n\\]\nfor any positive \\( qzxwvtnp \\) and \\( hjgrksla \\), so \\( qzxwvtnp^{asdfghjk} \\boldsymbol{hjgrksla}^{qwertyui} \\) is linearly bounded with \\( zxcvbnml=1 \\). Thus the conditions stated are both necessary and sufficient."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "A monomial in three positive real variables is said to be quadratically controllable if there exists a constant  \n\\(L>0\\) such that  \n\\[\n\\bigl|x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\\bigr|\n\\;<\\;L\\,(x+y+z)\\,\\sqrt{xy+yz+zx}\\qquad\n\\text{for every }(x,y,z)\\in(0,\\infty)^3 .\n\\]\n\nDetermine exactly those triples of real numbers \\((\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma)\\) for which the monomial  \n\\[\nm_{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma}(x,y,z)=x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\n\\]\nis quadratically controllable.",
      "solution": "We show that  \n\\[\nx^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\\;\\text{ is quadratically controllable }\n\\Longleftrightarrow\n\\begin{cases}\n\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\ge 0,\\\\[2pt]\n\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2,\\\\[2pt]\n\\alpha+\\beta\\ge \\dfrac12,\\;\n\\beta+\\gamma\\ge\\dfrac12,\\;\n\\gamma+\\alpha\\ge\\dfrac12 .\n\\end{cases}\\tag{$*$}\n\\]\n\nStep 1.  Homogeneity forces \\(\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2\\).\n\nPut \\(x=y=z=t>0\\).  The inequality becomes  \n\\(t^{\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma}<3\\sqrt3\\,Lt^{2}\\).\nSending \\(t\\to\\infty\\) and \\(t\\to0^{+}\\) gives\n\\(\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2\\).\n\nStep 2.  All exponents are non–negative.\n\nAssume, say, \\(\\alpha<0\\).  Fix \\(y=z=1\\) and let \\(x\\to0^{+}\\):\n\\(x^{\\alpha}\\to\\infty\\) while the right–hand side stays bounded,\ncontradiction.  Hence \\(\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\ge0\\).\n\nStep 3.  Two–at–a–vertex test ⇒ the three pairwise conditions.\n\nTake the path  \n\\((x,y,z)=(t,t,1)\\) and let \\(t\\to0^{+}\\):\n\\[\nt^{\\alpha+\\beta}\\;<\\;L(2t+1)\\sqrt{t^2+2t}=L\\sqrt2\\,t^{1/2}(1+o(1)),\n\\]\nso we must have \\(\\alpha+\\beta\\ge\\dfrac12\\).\nCyclic permutation yields the other two inequalities in \\((*)\\).\n\n(Equivalently, \\((*)\\) implies \\(\\max\\{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\}\\le\\frac32\\) because  \n\\(\\alpha=\\tfrac12\\bigl((\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma)+(\\alpha-\\beta-\\gamma)\\bigr)\n        =2-(\\beta+\\gamma)\\le\\frac32\\).)\n\nStep 4.  Sufficiency of \\((*)\\).\n\nWrite  \n\\[\nS=x+y+z,\\qquad\nu=\\frac{x}{S},\\;v=\\frac{y}{S},\\;w=\\frac{z}{S},\n\\qquad(u,v,w)\\in\\Delta:=\\{u,v,w>0,\\;u+v+w=1\\}.\n\\]\nBecause \\(\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2\\),\n\\[\n\\frac{x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}}\n     {(x+y+z)\\sqrt{xy+yz+zx}}\n   \\;=\\;\n   \\frac{u^{\\alpha}v^{\\beta}w^{\\gamma}}\n        {\\sqrt{uv+vw+wu}}\n   \\;=:F(u,v,w).\n\\]\n\nOnly the behaviour of \\(F\\) near the boundary of the closed simplex  \n\\(\\overline\\Delta\\) must be checked.\n\n•  One coordinate tends to 0 (edge of \\(\\Delta\\)).  \nSuppose \\(u\\to0^{+}\\) while \\(v,w>0\\) and \\(v+w=1\\).  \nThen \\(uv+vw+wu\\ge vw>0\\); hence \\(F\\) stays bounded because\neither \\(\\alpha>0\\) (numerator → 0) or \\(\\alpha=0\\) (numerator constant).\n\n•  Two coordinates tend to 0 (vertex of \\(\\Delta\\)).  \nWithout loss of generality let  \n\\((u,v,w)=(\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2,1-\\varepsilon_1-\\varepsilon_2)\\)\nwith \\(\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2\\downarrow0\\).\nThen\n\\[\nuv+vw+wu=\\varepsilon_1(1-\\varepsilon_1-\\varepsilon_2)\n          +\\varepsilon_2(1-\\varepsilon_1-\\varepsilon_2)\n          +\\varepsilon_1\\varepsilon_2\n        \\sim\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2,\n\\]\nand\n\\[\nF\\;\\sim\\;\n\\frac{\\varepsilon_1^{\\alpha}\\varepsilon_2^{\\beta}}\n     {\\sqrt{\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2}}\n     \\;\\le\\;\nC\\,(\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2)^{\\alpha+\\beta-\\frac12},\n\\]\nfor some universal \\(C\\).\nCondition \\(\\alpha+\\beta\\ge\\frac12\\) ensures the exponent of\n\\(\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2\\) is non–negative, so the right‐hand side\nremains bounded as \\(\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2\\to0\\).\nThe same argument applies at the other two vertices.\n\nHence \\(F\\) is continuous on the compact set\n\\(\\overline\\Delta\\) and attains a finite maximum \\(M\\).\nChoosing \\(L=M\\) establishes the desired inequality, proving sufficiency.\n\nStep 5.  Conclusion.\n\nThe monomial \\(x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\\) is quadratically controllable\niff the triple \\((\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma)\\) satisfies the six linear inequalities\nlisted in \\((*)\\).  Equivalently,\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\n\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\ge0,\\quad\n\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2,\\quad\n\\max\\{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\}\\le\\frac32\n\\;}\n\\]\n(the last condition is redundant but often convenient).",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.526639",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "1. Higher dimension: the problem moves from two to three variables, introducing the full second elementary symmetric polynomial \\(xy+yz+zx\\) as part of the control term.\n2. Additional constraints: the right–hand side is no longer linear but has total degree 2 and involves a square root, leading to subtler degree comparisons and boundary cases.\n3. Deeper theory: the solution needs homogeneous scaling arguments, asymptotic one-variable blow-ups, and a compactness/continuity argument on a 2-simplex—not required in the original.\n4. Multiple interacting concepts: degree matching, individual exponent bounds, and behaviour on the faces of a simplex all interact; overlooking any one yields an incomplete or wrong answer.\n5. More steps: four distinct necessity arguments plus a non-trivial sufficiency proof are required, each using different advanced techniques. Together these make the variant significantly harder than both the original problem and the current kernel variant."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "A monomial in three positive real variables is said to be quadratically controllable if there exists a constant  \n\\(L>0\\) such that  \n\\[\n\\bigl|x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\\bigr|\n\\;<\\;L\\,(x+y+z)\\,\\sqrt{xy+yz+zx}\\qquad\n\\text{for every }(x,y,z)\\in(0,\\infty)^3 .\n\\]\n\nDetermine exactly those triples of real numbers \\((\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma)\\) for which the monomial  \n\\[\nm_{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma}(x,y,z)=x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\n\\]\nis quadratically controllable.",
      "solution": "We show that  \n\\[\nx^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\\;\\text{ is quadratically controllable }\n\\Longleftrightarrow\n\\begin{cases}\n\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\ge 0,\\\\[2pt]\n\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2,\\\\[2pt]\n\\alpha+\\beta\\ge \\dfrac12,\\;\n\\beta+\\gamma\\ge\\dfrac12,\\;\n\\gamma+\\alpha\\ge\\dfrac12 .\n\\end{cases}\\tag{$*$}\n\\]\n\nStep 1.  Homogeneity forces \\(\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2\\).\n\nPut \\(x=y=z=t>0\\).  The inequality becomes  \n\\(t^{\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma}<3\\sqrt3\\,Lt^{2}\\).\nSending \\(t\\to\\infty\\) and \\(t\\to0^{+}\\) gives\n\\(\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2\\).\n\nStep 2.  All exponents are non–negative.\n\nAssume, say, \\(\\alpha<0\\).  Fix \\(y=z=1\\) and let \\(x\\to0^{+}\\):\n\\(x^{\\alpha}\\to\\infty\\) while the right–hand side stays bounded,\ncontradiction.  Hence \\(\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\ge0\\).\n\nStep 3.  Two–at–a–vertex test ⇒ the three pairwise conditions.\n\nTake the path  \n\\((x,y,z)=(t,t,1)\\) and let \\(t\\to0^{+}\\):\n\\[\nt^{\\alpha+\\beta}\\;<\\;L(2t+1)\\sqrt{t^2+2t}=L\\sqrt2\\,t^{1/2}(1+o(1)),\n\\]\nso we must have \\(\\alpha+\\beta\\ge\\dfrac12\\).\nCyclic permutation yields the other two inequalities in \\((*)\\).\n\n(Equivalently, \\((*)\\) implies \\(\\max\\{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\}\\le\\frac32\\) because  \n\\(\\alpha=\\tfrac12\\bigl((\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma)+(\\alpha-\\beta-\\gamma)\\bigr)\n        =2-(\\beta+\\gamma)\\le\\frac32\\).)\n\nStep 4.  Sufficiency of \\((*)\\).\n\nWrite  \n\\[\nS=x+y+z,\\qquad\nu=\\frac{x}{S},\\;v=\\frac{y}{S},\\;w=\\frac{z}{S},\n\\qquad(u,v,w)\\in\\Delta:=\\{u,v,w>0,\\;u+v+w=1\\}.\n\\]\nBecause \\(\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2\\),\n\\[\n\\frac{x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}}\n     {(x+y+z)\\sqrt{xy+yz+zx}}\n   \\;=\\;\n   \\frac{u^{\\alpha}v^{\\beta}w^{\\gamma}}\n        {\\sqrt{uv+vw+wu}}\n   \\;=:F(u,v,w).\n\\]\n\nOnly the behaviour of \\(F\\) near the boundary of the closed simplex  \n\\(\\overline\\Delta\\) must be checked.\n\n•  One coordinate tends to 0 (edge of \\(\\Delta\\)).  \nSuppose \\(u\\to0^{+}\\) while \\(v,w>0\\) and \\(v+w=1\\).  \nThen \\(uv+vw+wu\\ge vw>0\\); hence \\(F\\) stays bounded because\neither \\(\\alpha>0\\) (numerator → 0) or \\(\\alpha=0\\) (numerator constant).\n\n•  Two coordinates tend to 0 (vertex of \\(\\Delta\\)).  \nWithout loss of generality let  \n\\((u,v,w)=(\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2,1-\\varepsilon_1-\\varepsilon_2)\\)\nwith \\(\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2\\downarrow0\\).\nThen\n\\[\nuv+vw+wu=\\varepsilon_1(1-\\varepsilon_1-\\varepsilon_2)\n          +\\varepsilon_2(1-\\varepsilon_1-\\varepsilon_2)\n          +\\varepsilon_1\\varepsilon_2\n        \\sim\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2,\n\\]\nand\n\\[\nF\\;\\sim\\;\n\\frac{\\varepsilon_1^{\\alpha}\\varepsilon_2^{\\beta}}\n     {\\sqrt{\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2}}\n     \\;\\le\\;\nC\\,(\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2)^{\\alpha+\\beta-\\frac12},\n\\]\nfor some universal \\(C\\).\nCondition \\(\\alpha+\\beta\\ge\\frac12\\) ensures the exponent of\n\\(\\varepsilon_1+\\varepsilon_2\\) is non–negative, so the right‐hand side\nremains bounded as \\(\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2\\to0\\).\nThe same argument applies at the other two vertices.\n\nHence \\(F\\) is continuous on the compact set\n\\(\\overline\\Delta\\) and attains a finite maximum \\(M\\).\nChoosing \\(L=M\\) establishes the desired inequality, proving sufficiency.\n\nStep 5.  Conclusion.\n\nThe monomial \\(x^{\\alpha}y^{\\beta}z^{\\gamma}\\) is quadratically controllable\niff the triple \\((\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma)\\) satisfies the six linear inequalities\nlisted in \\((*)\\).  Equivalently,\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\n\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\ge0,\\quad\n\\alpha+\\beta+\\gamma=2,\\quad\n\\max\\{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma\\}\\le\\frac32\n\\;}\n\\]\n(the last condition is redundant but often convenient).",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.440488",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "1. Higher dimension: the problem moves from two to three variables, introducing the full second elementary symmetric polynomial \\(xy+yz+zx\\) as part of the control term.\n2. Additional constraints: the right–hand side is no longer linear but has total degree 2 and involves a square root, leading to subtler degree comparisons and boundary cases.\n3. Deeper theory: the solution needs homogeneous scaling arguments, asymptotic one-variable blow-ups, and a compactness/continuity argument on a 2-simplex—not required in the original.\n4. Multiple interacting concepts: degree matching, individual exponent bounds, and behaviour on the faces of a simplex all interact; overlooking any one yields an incomplete or wrong answer.\n5. More steps: four distinct necessity arguments plus a non-trivial sufficiency proof are required, each using different advanced techniques. Together these make the variant significantly harder than both the original problem and the current kernel variant."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}