{
  "index": "1991-A-3",
  "type": "ALG",
  "tag": [
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "Find all real polynomials $p(x)$ of degree $n \\geq 2$ for which there\nexist real numbers $r_1 < r_2 < \\cdots < r_n$ such that\n\\begin{enumerate}\n    \\item $p(r_i) = 0, \\qquad i = 1, 2, \\dots, n,$ and\n    \\item $p' \\left( \\frac{r_i + r_{i+1}}{2} \\right) = 0 \\qquad i = 1, 2,\n    \\dots, n-1,$\n\\end{enumerate}\nwhere $p'(x)$ denotes the derivative of $p(x)$.",
  "solution": "Solution.\nAll degree 2 polynomials with 2 distinct real zeros work. If \\( p(x)=a x^{2}+b x+c \\) has two real zeros \\( r_{1}<r_{2} \\) (i.e., \\( b^{2}-4 a c>0 \\) ), then\n\\[\np(x)=a\\left(x-r_{1}\\right)\\left(x-r_{2}\\right) ;\n\\]\ncomparing coefficients of \\( x \\), we get \\( -b / a=r_{1}+r_{2} \\), from which\n\\[\np^{\\prime}(x)=2 a\\left(x-\\left(r_{1}+r_{2}\\right) / 2\\right) .\n\\]\n\nGeometrically, this is clearer: \\( y=p(x) \\) is a parabola, symmetric about some vertical axis \\( x=d \\), and \\( p^{\\prime}(d)=0 \\). The zeros \\( x=r_{1}, x=r_{2} \\) must also be symmetric about the axis, so \\( d=\\left(r_{1}+r_{2}\\right) / 2 \\).\n\nNo polynomial of higher degree works. Suppose \\( r_{1}<\\cdots<r_{n} \\) are all real and \\( n>2 \\), so\n\\[\np(x)=a\\left(x-r_{1}\\right)\\left(x-r_{2}\\right) \\cdots\\left(x-r_{n}\\right) .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( r=\\left(r_{n-1}+r_{n}\\right) / 2 \\).\nFrom here, we can follow two (similar) approaches.\nApproach 1 uses the following exercise: If \\( p(x) \\) is a degree \\( n \\) polynomial with zeros \\( r_{1}, \\ldots, r_{n} \\), then\n\\[\np^{\\prime}(x)=p(x)\\left(\\frac{1}{x-r_{1}}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{x-r_{n}}\\right)\n\\]\nfor \\( x \\notin\\left\\{r_{1}, \\ldots, r_{n}\\right\\} \\). (This can be shown using the product rule for derivatives, or more directly by computing \\( \\frac{d}{d x} \\ln p(x) \\) in two ways. This useful equation also comes up in 1992A2.) Since \\( p(r) \\neq 0 \\),\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{p^{\\prime}(r)}{p(r)} & =\\frac{1}{r-r_{1}}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{r-r_{n-2}}+\\frac{1}{r-r_{n-1}}+\\frac{1}{r-r_{n}} \\\\\n& =\\frac{1}{r-r_{1}}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{r-r_{n-2}} \\quad\\left(\\text { since } r-r_{n}=-\\left(r-r_{n-1}\\right)\\right) \\\\\n& >0,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nso \\( p^{\\prime}(r) \\neq 0 \\).\nApproach 2 is the following: let \\( q(x)=\\left(x-r_{1}\\right) \\cdots\\left(x-r_{n-2}\\right) \\) so\n\\[\np(x)=\\left(x-r_{1}\\right)\\left(x-r_{2}\\right) \\cdot q(x),\n\\]\nand apply the product rule to obtain\n\\[\np^{\\prime}(x)=a \\cdot 2(x-r) q(x)+a\\left(x-r_{n-1}\\right)\\left(x-r_{n}\\right) q^{\\prime}(x) .\n\\]\n\nRolle's Theorem (see remark below) implies that all the zeros of \\( q^{\\prime}(x) \\) lie between \\( r_{1} \\) and \\( r_{n-2} \\). Hence \\( \\left(r_{n-1}+r_{n}\\right) / 2 \\) is not a zero of \\( q^{\\prime}(x) \\), so \\( p(x) \\) does not satisfy the hypotheses of the problem.",
  "vars": [
    "x",
    "p",
    "i",
    "r",
    "r_1",
    "r_2",
    "r_n",
    "r_i",
    "r_i+1",
    "r_n-1",
    "r_n-2",
    "d",
    "q",
    "y"
  ],
  "params": [
    "a",
    "b",
    "c",
    "n"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "x": "varinput",
        "p": "polyfunc",
        "i": "indexiter",
        "r": "medianroot",
        "r_1": "rootfirst",
        "r_2": "rootsecond",
        "r_n": "rootfinal",
        "r_i": "rootiter",
        "r_i+1": "rootnext",
        "r_n-1": "rootprev",
        "r_n-2": "rootpreprev",
        "d": "axispoint",
        "q": "auxipoly",
        "y": "ordinate",
        "a": "coefalpha",
        "b": "coefbravo",
        "c": "coefcharlie",
        "n": "degreeint"
      },
      "question": "Find all real polynomials $polyfunc(varinput)$ of degree $degreeint \\geq 2$ for which there\nexist real numbers $rootfirst < rootsecond < \\cdots < rootfinal$ such that\n\\begin{enumerate}\n    \\item $polyfunc(rootiter) = 0, \\qquad indexiter = 1, 2, \\dots, degreeint,$ and\n    \\item $polyfunc' \\left( \\frac{rootiter + rootnext}{2} \\right) = 0 \\qquad indexiter = 1, 2,\n    \\dots, degreeint-1,$\n\\end{enumerate}\nwhere $polyfunc'(varinput)$ denotes the derivative of $polyfunc(varinput)$.",
      "solution": "Solution.\nAll degree 2 polynomials with 2 distinct real zeros work. If \\( polyfunc(varinput)=coefalpha varinput^{2}+coefbravo varinput+coefcharlie \\) has two real zeros \\( rootfirst<rootsecond \\) (i.e., \\( coefbravo^{2}-4 coefalpha coefcharlie>0 \\) ), then\n\\[\npolyfunc(varinput)=coefalpha\\left(varinput-rootfirst\\right)\\left(varinput-rootsecond\\right) ;\n\\]\ncomparing coefficients of \\( varinput \\), we get \\( -coefbravo / coefalpha=rootfirst+rootsecond \\), from which\n\\[\npolyfunc^{\\prime}(varinput)=2 coefalpha\\left(varinput-\\left(rootfirst+rootsecond\\right) / 2\\right) .\n\\]\n\nGeometrically, this is clearer: \\( ordinate=polyfunc(varinput) \\) is a parabola, symmetric about some vertical axis \\( varinput=axispoint \\), and \\( polyfunc^{\\prime}(axispoint)=0 \\). The zeros \\( varinput=rootfirst, varinput=rootsecond \\) must also be symmetric about the axis, so \\( axispoint=\\left(rootfirst+rootsecond\\right) / 2 \\).\n\nNo polynomial of higher degree works. Suppose \\( rootfirst<\\cdots<rootfinal \\) are all real and \\( degreeint>2 \\), so\n\\[\npolyfunc(varinput)=coefalpha\\left(varinput-rootfirst\\right)\\left(varinput-rootsecond\\right) \\cdots\\left(varinput-rootfinal\\right) .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( medianroot=\\left(rootprev+rootfinal\\right) / 2 \\).\nFrom here, we can follow two (similar) approaches.\nApproach 1 uses the following exercise: If \\( polyfunc(varinput) \\) is a degree \\( degreeint \\) polynomial with zeros \\( rootfirst, \\ldots, rootfinal \\), then\n\\[\npolyfunc^{\\prime}(varinput)=polyfunc(varinput)\\left(\\frac{1}{varinput-rootfirst}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{varinput-rootfinal}\\right)\n\\]\nfor \\( varinput \\notin\\left\\{rootfirst, \\ldots, rootfinal\\right\\} \\). (This can be shown using the product rule for derivatives, or more directly by computing \\( \\frac{axispoint}{axispoint varinput} \\ln polyfunc(varinput) \\) in two ways. This useful equation also comes up in 1992A2.) Since \\( polyfunc(medianroot) \\neq 0 \\),\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{polyfunc^{\\prime}(medianroot)}{polyfunc(medianroot)} & =\\frac{1}{medianroot-rootfirst}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{medianroot-rootpreprev}+\\frac{1}{medianroot-rootprev}+\\frac{1}{medianroot-rootfinal} \\\\\n& =\\frac{1}{medianroot-rootfirst}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{medianroot-rootpreprev} \\quad\\left(\\text { since } medianroot-rootfinal=-\\left(medianroot-rootprev\\right)\\right) \\\\\n& >0,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nso \\( polyfunc^{\\prime}(medianroot) \\neq 0 \\).\n\nApproach 2 is the following: let \\( auxipoly(varinput)=\\left(varinput-rootfirst\\right) \\cdots\\left(varinput-rootpreprev\\right) \\) so\n\\[\npolyfunc(varinput)=\\left(varinput-rootfirst\\right)\\left(varinput-rootsecond\\right) \\cdot auxipoly(varinput),\n\\]\nand apply the product rule to obtain\n\\[\npolyfunc^{\\prime}(varinput)=coefalpha \\cdot 2(varinput-medianroot) auxipoly(varinput)+coefalpha\\left(varinput-rootprev\\right)\\left(varinput-rootfinal\\right) auxipoly^{\\prime}(varinput) .\n\\]\n\nRolle's Theorem (see remark below) implies that all the zeros of \\( auxipoly^{\\prime}(varinput) \\) lie between \\( rootfirst \\) and \\( rootpreprev \\). Hence \\( \\left(rootprev+rootfinal\\right) / 2 \\) is not a zero of \\( auxipoly^{\\prime}(varinput) \\), so \\( polyfunc(varinput) \\) does not satisfy the hypotheses of the problem."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "x": "galaxies",
        "p": "waterfall",
        "i": "lanterns",
        "r": "sailboat",
        "r_1": "pinecone",
        "r_2": "drumline",
        "r_n": "snowflake",
        "r_i": "firewood",
        "r_i+1": "gemstone",
        "r_n-1": "paintbox",
        "r_n-2": "clockface",
        "d": "moonbeam",
        "q": "sandstorm",
        "y": "arrowhead",
        "a": "riverbank",
        "b": "starfruit",
        "c": "cloudship",
        "n": "honeycomb"
      },
      "question": "Find all real polynomials $waterfall(galaxies)$ of degree $honeycomb \\geq 2$ for which there\nexist real numbers $pinecone < drumline < \\cdots < snowflake$ such that\n\\begin{enumerate}\n    \\item $waterfall(firewood) = 0, \\qquad lanterns = 1, 2, \\dots, honeycomb,$ and\n    \\item $waterfall' \\left( \\frac{firewood + gemstone}{2} \\right) = 0 \\qquad lanterns = 1, 2,\n    \\dots, honeycomb-1,$\n\\end{enumerate}\nwhere $waterfall'(galaxies)$ denotes the derivative of $waterfall(galaxies)$.",
      "solution": "Solution.\nAll degree 2 polynomials with 2 distinct real zeros work. If \\( waterfall(galaxies)=riverbank galaxies^{2}+starfruit galaxies+cloudship \\) has two real zeros \\( pinecone<drumline \\) (i.e., \\( starfruit^{2}-4 riverbank cloudship>0 \\) ), then\n\\[\nwaterfall(galaxies)=riverbank\\left(galaxies-pinecone\\right)\\left(galaxies-drumline\\right) ;\n\\]\ncomparing coefficients of \\( galaxies \\), we get \\( -starfruit / riverbank=pinecone+drumline \\), from which\n\\[\nwaterfall^{\\prime}(galaxies)=2 riverbank\\left(galaxies-\\left(pinecone+drumline\\right) / 2\\right) .\n\\]\n\nGeometrically, this is clearer: \\( arrowhead=waterfall(galaxies) \\) is a parabola, symmetric about some vertical axis \\( galaxies=moonbeam \\), and \\( waterfall^{\\prime}(moonbeam)=0 \\). The zeros \\( galaxies=pinecone, galaxies=drumline \\) must also be symmetric about the axis, so \\( moonbeam=\\left(pinecone+drumline\\right) / 2 \\).\n\nNo polynomial of higher degree works. Suppose \\( pinecone<\\cdots<snowflake \\) are all real and \\( honeycomb>2 \\), so\n\\[\nwaterfall(galaxies)=riverbank\\left(galaxies-pinecone\\right)\\left(galaxies-drumline\\right) \\cdots\\left(galaxies-snowflake\\right) .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( sailboat=\\left(paintbox+snowflake\\right) / 2 \\).\nFrom here, we can follow two (similar) approaches.\nApproach 1 uses the following exercise: If \\( waterfall(galaxies) \\) is a degree \\( honeycomb \\) polynomial with zeros \\( pinecone, \\ldots, snowflake \\), then\n\\[\nwaterfall^{\\prime}(galaxies)=waterfall(galaxies)\\left(\\frac{1}{galaxies-pinecone}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{galaxies-snowflake}\\right)\n\\]\nfor \\( galaxies \\notin\\left\\{pinecone, \\ldots, snowflake\\right\\} \\). (This can be shown using the product rule for derivatives, or more directly by computing \\( \\frac{moonbeam}{moonbeam galaxies} \\ln waterfall(galaxies) \\) in two ways. This useful equation also comes up in 1992A2.) Since \\( waterfall(sailboat) \\neq 0 \\),\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{waterfall^{\\prime}(sailboat)}{waterfall(sailboat)} & =\\frac{1}{sailboat-pinecone}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{sailboat-clockface}+\\frac{1}{sailboat-paintbox}+\\frac{1}{sailboat-snowflake} \\\\\n& =\\frac{1}{sailboat-pinecone}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{sailboat-clockface} \\quad\\left(\\text { since } sailboat-snowflake=-\\left(sailboat-paintbox\\right)\\right) \\\\\n& >0,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nso \\( waterfall^{\\prime}(sailboat) \\neq 0 \\).\nApproach 2 is the following: let \\( sandstorm(galaxies)=\\left(galaxies-pinecone\\right) \\cdots\\left(galaxies-clockface\\right) \\) so\n\\[\nwaterfall(galaxies)=\\left(galaxies-pinecone\\right)\\left(galaxies-drumline\\right) \\cdot sandstorm(galaxies),\n\\]\nand apply the product rule to obtain\n\\[\nwaterfall^{\\prime}(galaxies)=riverbank \\cdot 2(galaxies-sailboat) sandstorm(galaxies)+riverbank\\left(galaxies-paintbox\\right)\\left(galaxies-snowflake\\right) sandstorm^{\\prime}(galaxies) .\n\\]\n\nRolle's Theorem (see remark below) implies that all the zeros of \\( sandstorm^{\\prime}(galaxies) \\) lie between \\( pinecone \\) and \\( clockface \\). Hence \\( \\left(paintbox+snowflake\\right) / 2 \\) is not a zero of \\( sandstorm^{\\prime}(galaxies) \\), so \\( waterfall(galaxies) \\) does not satisfy the hypotheses of the problem."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "x": "fixedvalue",
        "p": "antipolynomial",
        "i": "aggregate",
        "r": "peakpoint",
        "r_1": "summitone",
        "r_2": "summittwo",
        "r_n": "summitlast",
        "r_i": "summitindex",
        "r_i+1": "summitnext",
        "r_n-1": "summitprev",
        "r_n-2": "summitpreprev",
        "d": "skewline",
        "q": "antiproduct",
        "y": "horizontal",
        "a": "trailercoeff",
        "b": "outercoeff",
        "c": "variableterm",
        "n": "nodegree"
      },
      "question": "Find all real polynomials $antipolynomial(fixedvalue)$ of degree $nodegree \\geq 2$ for which there\nexist real numbers $summitone < summittwo < \\cdots < summitlast$ such that\n\\begin{enumerate}\n    \\item $antipolynomial(summitindex) = 0, \\qquad aggregate = 1, 2, \\dots, nodegree,$ and\n    \\item $antipolynomial' \\left( \\frac{summitindex + summitnext}{2} \\right) = 0 \\qquad aggregate = 1, 2,\n    \\dots, nodegree-1,$\n\\end{enumerate}\nwhere $antipolynomial'(fixedvalue)$ denotes the derivative of $antipolynomial(fixedvalue)$.",
      "solution": "Solution.\nAll degree 2 polynomials with 2 distinct real zeros work. If \\( antipolynomial(fixedvalue)=trailercoeff fixedvalue^{2}+outercoeff fixedvalue+variableterm \\) has two real zeros \\( summitone<summittwo \\) (i.e., \\( outercoeff^{2}-4 trailercoeff variableterm>0 \\) ), then\n\\[\nantipolynomial(fixedvalue)=trailercoeff\\left(fixedvalue-summitone\\right)\\left(fixedvalue-summittwo\\right) ;\n\\]\ncomparing coefficients of \\( fixedvalue \\), we get \\( -outercoeff / trailercoeff=summitone+summittwo \\), from which\n\\[\nantipolynomial^{\\prime}(fixedvalue)=2 trailercoeff\\left(fixedvalue-\\left(summitone+summittwo\\right) / 2\\right) .\n\\]\n\nGeometrically, this is clearer: \\( horizontal=antipolynomial(fixedvalue) \\) is a parabola, symmetric about some vertical axis \\( fixedvalue=skewline \\), and \\( antipolynomial^{\\prime}(skewline)=0 \\). The zeros \\( fixedvalue=summitone, fixedvalue=summittwo \\) must also be symmetric about the axis, so \\( skewline=\\left(summitone+summittwo\\right) / 2 \\).\n\nNo polynomial of higher degree works. Suppose \\( summitone<\\cdots<summitlast \\) are all real and \\( nodegree>2 \\), so\n\\[\nantipolynomial(fixedvalue)=trailercoeff\\left(fixedvalue-summitone\\right)\\left(fixedvalue-summittwo\\right) \\cdots\\left(fixedvalue-summitlast\\right) .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( peakpoint=\\left(summitprev+ summitlast\\right) / 2 \\).\nFrom here, we can follow two (similar) approaches.\nApproach 1 uses the following exercise: If \\( antipolynomial(fixedvalue) \\) is a degree \\( nodegree \\) polynomial with zeros \\( summitone, \\ldots, summitlast \\), then\n\\[\nantipolynomial^{\\prime}(fixedvalue)=antipolynomial(fixedvalue)\\left(\\frac{1}{fixedvalue-summitone}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{fixedvalue-summitlast}\\right)\n\\]\nfor \\( fixedvalue \\notin\\left\\{summitone, \\ldots, summitlast\\right\\} \\). (This can be shown using the product rule for derivatives, or more directly by computing \\( \\frac{d}{d fixedvalue} \\ln antipolynomial(fixedvalue) \\) in two ways. This useful equation also comes up in 1992A2.) Since \\( antipolynomial(peakpoint) \\neq 0 \\),\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{antipolynomial^{\\prime}(peakpoint)}{antipolynomial(peakpoint)} & =\\frac{1}{peakpoint-summitone}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{peakpoint-summitpreprev}+\\frac{1}{peakpoint-summitprev}+\\frac{1}{peakpoint-summitlast} \\\\\n& =\\frac{1}{peakpoint-summitone}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{peakpoint-summitpreprev} \\quad\\left(\\text { since } peakpoint-summitlast=-\\left(peakpoint-summitprev\\right)\\right) \\\\\n& >0,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nso \\( antipolynomial^{\\prime}(peakpoint) \\neq 0 \\).\nApproach 2 is the following: let \\( antiproduct(fixedvalue)=\\left(fixedvalue-summitone\\right) \\cdots\\left(fixedvalue-summitpreprev\\right) \\) so\n\\[\nantipolynomial(fixedvalue)=\\left(fixedvalue-summitone\\right)\\left(fixedvalue-summittwo\\right) \\cdot antiproduct(fixedvalue),\n\\]\nand apply the product rule to obtain\n\\[\nantipolynomial^{\\prime}(fixedvalue)=trailercoeff \\cdot 2(fixedvalue-peakpoint) antiproduct(fixedvalue)+trailercoeff\\left(fixedvalue-summitprev\\right)\\left(fixedvalue-summitlast\\right) antiproduct^{\\prime}(fixedvalue) .\n\\]\n\nRolle's Theorem (see remark below) implies that all the zeros of \\( antiproduct^{\\prime}(fixedvalue) \\) lie between \\( summitone \\) and \\( summitpreprev \\). Hence \\( \\left(summitprev+ summitlast\\right) / 2 \\) is not a zero of \\( antiproduct^{\\prime}(fixedvalue) \\), so \\( antipolynomial(fixedvalue) \\) does not satisfy the hypotheses of the problem."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "x": "ztgfwhnq",
        "p": "lkvmdsazo",
        "i": "hrfqeujb",
        "r": "oqzjfhxk",
        "r_1": "mkdlsaeu",
        "r_2": "snvgrtpo",
        "r_n": "cqhufyal",
        "r_i": "jplxrfew",
        "r_i+1": "bsdmhkij",
        "r_n-1": "vtaxogre",
        "r_n-2": "wipjskel",
        "d": "urqhsmnt",
        "q": "lsnzkvdo",
        "y": "pvneqair",
        "a": "nmhegqiv",
        "b": "rzukcdal",
        "c": "yjtfmsep",
        "n": "spqwzodr"
      },
      "question": "Find all real polynomials $lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)$ of degree $spqwzodr \\geq 2$ for which there exist real numbers $mkdlsaeu < snvgrtpo < \\cdots < cqhufyal$ such that\n\\begin{enumerate}\n    \\item $lkvmdsazo(jplxrfew) = 0, \\qquad hrfqeujb = 1, 2, \\dots, spqwzodr,$ and\n    \\item $lkvmdsazo' \\left( \\frac{jplxrfew + bsdmhkij}{2} \\right) = 0 \\qquad hrfqeujb = 1, 2,\n    \\dots, spqwzodr-1,$\n\\end{enumerate}\nwhere $lkvmdsazo'(ztgfwhnq)$ denotes the derivative of $lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)$.",
      "solution": "Solution.\nAll degree 2 polynomials with 2 distinct real zeros work. If \\( lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)=nmhegqiv \\, ztgfwhnq^{2}+rzukcdal \\, ztgfwhnq+yjtfmsep \\) has two real zeros \\( mkdlsaeu<snvgrtpo \\) (i.e., \\( rzukcdal^{2}-4 nmhegqiv yjtfmsep>0 \\) ), then\n\\[\nlkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)=nmhegqiv\\left(ztgfwhnq-mkdlsaeu\\right)\\left(ztgfwhnq-snvgrtpo\\right) ;\n\\]\ncomparing coefficients of \\( ztgfwhnq \\), we get \\( -rzukcdal / nmhegqiv=mkdlsaeu+snvgrtpo \\), from which\n\\[\nlkvmdsazo^{\\prime}(ztgfwhnq)=2 nmhegqiv\\left(ztgfwhnq-\\left(mkdlsaeu+snvgrtpo\\right) / 2\\right) .\n\\]\n\nGeometrically, this is clearer: \\( pvneqair=lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq) \\) is a parabola, symmetric about some vertical axis \\( ztgfwhnq=urqhsmnt \\), and \\( lkvmdsazo^{\\prime}(urqhsmnt)=0 \\). The zeros \\( ztgfwhnq=mkdlsaeu, ztgfwhnq=snvgrtpo \\) must also be symmetric about the axis, so \\( urqhsmnt=\\left(mkdlsaeu+snvgrtpo\\right) / 2 \\).\n\nNo polynomial of higher degree works. Suppose \\( mkdlsaeu<\\cdots<cqhufyal \\) are all real and \\( spqwzodr>2 \\), so\n\\[\nlkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)=nmhegqiv\\left(ztgfwhnq-mkdlsaeu\\right)\\left(ztgfwhnq-snvgrtpo\\right) \\cdots\\left(ztgfwhnq-cqhufyal\\right) .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( oqzjfhxk=\\left(vtaxogre+cqhufyal\\right) / 2 \\).\nFrom here, we can follow two (similar) approaches.\nApproach 1 uses the following exercise: If \\( lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq) \\) is a degree \\( spqwzodr \\) polynomial with zeros \\( mkdlsaeu, \\ldots, cqhufyal \\), then\n\\[\nlkvmdsazo^{\\prime}(ztgfwhnq)=lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)\\left(\\frac{1}{ztgfwhnq-mkdlsaeu}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{ztgfwhnq-cqhufyal}\\right)\n\\]\nfor \\( ztgfwhnq \\notin\\left\\{mkdlsaeu, \\ldots, cqhufyal\\right\\} \\). (This can be shown using the product rule for derivatives, or more directly by computing \\( \\frac{d}{d ztgfwhnq} \\\\ln lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq) \\) in two ways. This useful equation also comes up in 1992A2.) Since \\( lkvmdsazo(oqzjfhxk) \\neq 0 \\),\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{lkvmdsazo^{\\prime}(oqzjfhxk)}{lkvmdsazo(oqzjfhxk)} & =\\frac{1}{oqzjfhxk-mkdlsaeu}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{oqzjfhxk-wipjskel}+\\frac{1}{oqzjfhxk-vtaxogre}+\\frac{1}{oqzjfhxk-cqhufyal} \\\\\n& =\\frac{1}{oqzjfhxk-mkdlsaeu}+\\cdots+\\frac{1}{oqzjfhxk-wipjskel} \\\\quad\\left(\\text { since } oqzjfhxk-cqhufyal=-\\left(oqzjfhxk-vtaxogre\\right)\\right) \\\\\n& >0,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nso \\( lkvmdsazo^{\\prime}(oqzjfhxk) \\neq 0 \\).\nApproach 2 is the following: let \\( lsnzkvdo(ztgfwhnq)=\\left(ztgfwhnq-mkdlsaeu\\right) \\cdots\\left(ztgfwhnq-wipjskel\\right) \\) so\n\\[\nlkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq)=\\left(ztgfwhnq-mkdlsaeu\\right)\\left(ztgfwhnq-snvgrtpo\\right) \\cdot lsnzkvdo(ztgfwhnq),\n\\]\nand apply the product rule to obtain\n\\[\nlkvmdsazo^{\\prime}(ztgfwhnq)=nmhegqiv \\cdot 2(ztgfwhnq-oqzjfhxk) lsnzkvdo(ztgfwhnq)+nmhegqiv\\left(ztgfwhnq-vtaxogre\\right)\\left(ztgfwhnq-cqhufyal\\right) lsnzkvdo^{\\prime}(ztgfwhnq) .\n\\]\n\nRolle's Theorem (see remark below) implies that all the zeros of \\( lsnzkvdo^{\\prime}(ztgfwhnq) \\) lie between \\( mkdlsaeu \\) and \\( wipjskel \\). Hence \\( \\left(vtaxogre+cqhufyal\\right) / 2 \\) is not a zero of \\( lsnzkvdo^{\\prime}(ztgfwhnq) \\), so \\( lkvmdsazo(ztgfwhnq) \\) does not satisfy the hypotheses of the problem."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let  \n\\[\np(x)=a_{n}x^{\\,n}+a_{n-1}x^{\\,n-1}+\\dots +a_{1}x+a_{0},\n\\qquad a_{n}\\neq 0,\\; n\\ge 3 ,\n\\]  \nbe a real polynomial whose \\(n\\) zeros are real, simple and ordered  \n\\[\nr_{1}<r_{2}<\\dots <r_{n}.\n\\]  \nFor each index \\(i\\in\\{1,\\dots ,n-2\\}\\) denote the barycentre of the three\nconsecutive zeros \\(r_{i},r_{i+1},r_{i+2}\\) by  \n\\[\n\\mu_{i}\\;:=\\;\\frac{r_{i}+r_{i+1}+r_{i+2}}{3}.\n\\]  \nAssume that  \n\n\\[\np''\\!\\bigl(\\mu_{i}\\bigr)=0,\n\\qquad i=1,2,\\dots ,n-2. \\tag{$\\star$}\n\\]\n\nDetermine all real polynomials \\(p\\) that satisfy \\((\\star)\\).\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%",
      "solution": "Throughout write the monic factorisation  \n\\[\np(x)=a\\prod_{j=1}^{n}(x-r_{j}),\n\\qquad a:=a_{n}\\neq 0,\n\\quad n\\ge 3 ,\n\\]\nso every root \\(r_{j}\\) is real and pairwise different.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n1.  A useful rational identity  \n\nFor  \n\\(\nx\\notin\\{r_{1},\\dots ,r_{n}\\}\n\\)   put  \n\\[\nS(x):=\\frac{p'(x)}{p(x)}=\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{x-r_{j}} .\n\\]\nDifferentiating we obtain  \n\\[\n\\frac{p''(x)}{p(x)}\n      \\;=\\;S'(x)+S(x)^{2}\n      \\;=\\;\n      -\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{(x-r_{j})^{2}}\n        +\\Bigl(\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{x-r_{j}}\\Bigr)^{2}. \\tag{1}\n\\]\nHence  \n\\[\np''(x)=0\n\\;\\Longleftrightarrow\\;\n\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{(x-r_{j})^{2}}\n      \\;=\\;\n      \\Bigl(\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{x-r_{j}}\\Bigr)^{2}.       \\tag{2}\n\\]\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n2.  What (2) really says  \n\nPut  \n\\(u_{j}:=\\dfrac{1}{\\mu_{i}-r_{j}}\\;(1\\le j\\le n)\\).\nEvaluating (2) at \\(x=\\mu_{i}\\) gives  \n\\[\n\\sum_{j=1}^{n}u_{j}^{2}\\;=\\;\\Bigl(\\sum_{j=1}^{n}u_{j}\\Bigr)^{2}.\n\\tag{3}\n\\]\nExpanding the right–hand side and rearranging yields  \n\\[\n\\sum_{1\\le j<k\\le n}u_{j}u_{k}=0.                         \\tag{4}\n\\]\nBecause the \\(u_{j}\\) come with both signs (there are roots on either\nside of \\(\\mu_{i}\\)), identity (4) is highly restrictive.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n3.  Specialising to the two extreme triples  \n\nWe distinguish two cases.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------\nCase A.  \\(n=3\\).  \n\nThen there is only one barycentre,\n\\(\\displaystyle\\mu_{1}=\\tfrac{r_{1}+r_{2}+r_{3}}{3}\\).\nWriting \\(p(x)=a(x-r_{1})(x-r_{2})(x-r_{3})\\) we find  \n\\[\np''(x)=6a\\bigl(x-\\mu_{1}\\bigr),\n\\]\nso \\(p''(\\mu_{1})=0\\) is automatically true.\nEvery cubic with three distinct real zeros therefore satisfies\n\\((\\star)\\).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------\nCase B.  \\(n\\ge 4\\).  \n\nChoose the \\emph{first} triple\n\\(r_{1},r_{2},r_{3}\\) and its barycentre\n\\(\\displaystyle\\mu_{1}=\\tfrac{r_{1}+r_{2}+r_{3}}{3}\\).\nAmong the denominators\n\\(\\mu_{1}-r_{j}\\)\nappearing in (4) the following signs occur:\n\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c|ccc|c}\nj & 1 & 2 & 3 & j\\ge4\\\\\\hline\n\\mu_{1}-r_{j} & >0 & \\ge 0 & <0 & <0\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n(The strict inequality at \\(j=2\\) follows from\n\\(r_{2}\\neq\\mu_{1}\\); otherwise \\(r_{1},r_{2},r_{3}\\)\nwould form an arithmetic progression, forcing\n\\(p''(\\mu_{1})\\) to be undefined.)\n\nHence\n\\[\nu_{1},u_{2}>0,\\quad u_{3},u_{4},\\dots ,u_{n}<0 .\n\\]\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n3.1  Two preliminary inequalities  \n\nBecause \\(r_{3}<r_{j}\\;(j\\ge4)\\) we have\n\\(\n0<\\mu_{1}-r_{3}<\\mu_{1}-r_{j}\n\\),\nwhence\n\\[\n|u_{j}|=\\frac{1}{|\\,\\mu_{1}-r_{j}\\,|}\n        <\\frac{1}{\\mu_{1}-r_{3}}\n        =|u_{3}|,\n        \\qquad j\\ge4.                                           \\tag{5}\n\\]\nMoreover \\(r_{1}<r_{2}<\\mu_{1}\\) implies\n\\[\n0<\\mu_{1}-r_{1}<\\mu_{1}-r_{2}\n\\;\\Longrightarrow\\;\nu_{1}>u_{2}>0.                                                  \\tag{6}\n\\]\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n3.2  Inspecting the zero–sum (4)  \n\nSplit the double sum in (4) into three parts:\n\\[\n0=\\sum_{j<k}u_{j}u_{k}\n  =\\bigl(u_{1}u_{2}\\bigr)\n   +\\bigl(u_{1}+u_{2}\\bigr)\\!\\!\\sum_{k=3}^{n}u_{k}\n   +\\!\\!\\sum_{3\\le j<k\\le n}\\!\\!u_{j}u_{k}.                \\tag{7}\n\\]\n\n•  The first term \\(u_{1}u_{2}\\) is \\emph{positive}.  \n•  For \\(k\\ge3\\) we have \\(u_{k}<0\\); hence\n   the second term in (7) is\n   negative, because\n   \\(u_{1}+u_{2}>0\\) and \\(\\sum_{k=3}^{n}u_{k}<0\\).\n\nBy (5) every product \\(u_{j}u_{k}\\;(3\\le j<k\\le n)\\)\nis \\emph{smaller in magnitude} than \\(u_{3}^{2}\\).\nCombining this with  \n\\(\\displaystyle\\binom{n-3}{2}\\ge 1\\;(n\\ge4)\\)\nand again using (5) gives\n\\[\n\\sum_{3\\le j<k\\le n}u_{j}u_{k}\n>\n\\binom{n-3}{2}\\,u_{n-1}u_{n}\n>\nu_{3}^{2}.\n\\]\nConsequently the third term in (7) is strictly\n\\emph{positive} and—being larger than \\(u_{3}^{2}\\)—it dominates\nthe negative second term, whose absolute value is bounded by\n\\[\n\\bigl(u_{1}+u_{2}\\bigr)\\bigl|u_{3}\\bigr|\n<2u_{1}\\bigl|u_{3}\\bigr|\n<2u_{3}^{2}.\n\\]\n(Much cruder estimates already suffice, but the above inequalities are\nconcrete.)\n\nAltogether the right–hand side of (7) is therefore \\(>0\\),\ncontradicting \\(0=\\sum_{j<k}u_{j}u_{k}\\).\n\nThe contradiction shows that our original assumption\n\\(n\\ge 4\\) is untenable.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n4.  Conclusion  \n\nOnly Case A is possible; hence \\(n=3\\).\nConversely every cubic whose three zeros are real and pairwise\ndifferent meets the requirement \\((\\star)\\).\n\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\np\\text{ satisfies }(\\star)\\;\n\\Longleftrightarrow\\;\np(x)=a\\,(x-r_{1})(x-r_{2})(x-r_{3}),\n\\;\\;a\\in\\mathbb{R}\\setminus\\{0\\},\n\\;\\;r_{1}<r_{2}<r_{3}.\n}\n\\]\n\n\\(\\hfill\\square\\)\n\n%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.717239",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "• Higher-order constraints:  Unlike the original problem, which involves\n  only the first derivative, the new variant enforces vanishing of every\n  derivative p^{(k)} at a whole family of sliding averages μ_{i,k}.\n  This introduces n(n−1)/2 simultaneous nonlinear conditions.\n\n• Dimensional explosion:  For a fixed k the set {μ_{i,k}} contains\n  n−k distinct points, while p^{(k)} has degree n−k.  The solver must\n  recognize and exploit this tight degree/condition interplay.\n\n• Theoretical breadth:  A successful argument now has to knit together\n  Rolle’s theorem, properties of logarithmic derivatives (Step 2),\n  sign arguments (Step 3), and degree counting.  The problem resists\n  pattern-matching; one has to isolate a decisive obstruction among a\n  formidable list of constraints.\n\n• Hidden simplicity:  Although the conclusion ends up matching that of\n  the original problem, recognising that the entire higher-order cascade\n  collapses to the k=1 obstruction, and proving the collapse rigorously,\n  requires appreciably deeper structural insight into the behaviour of\n  derivatives of real-rooted polynomials.\n\nHence the enhanced variant is substantially more intricate: it embeds\nthe original task in a denser lattice of analytic conditions and forces\nthe competitor to wield more powerful global tools in order to cut\nthrough the proliferation of constraints."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let  \n\\[\np(x)=a_{n}x^{\\,n}+a_{n-1}x^{\\,n-1}+\\dots+a_{1}x+a_{0},\n\\qquad a_{n}\\neq 0,\\;n\\ge 3,\n\\]\nbe a real polynomial whose \\(n\\) roots are real, simple and ordered\n\\[\nr_{1}<r_{2}<\\dots<r_{n}.\n\\]\nFor every  \n\\(i\\in\\{1,\\dots ,n-2\\}\\) denote the barycentre of the three consecutive\nroots \\(r_{i},r_{i+1},r_{i+2}\\) by  \n\\[\n\\mu_{i}:=\\frac{r_{i}+r_{i+1}+r_{i+2}}{3}.\n\\]\nAssume that  \n\\[\np''\\!\\bigl(\\mu_{i}\\bigr)=0,\n\\qquad i=1,2,\\dots ,n-2. \\tag{$\\star$}\n\\]\n\nDetermine \\emph{all} real polynomials \\(p\\) that satisfy \\((\\star)\\).\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------",
      "solution": "We prove that condition \\((\\star)\\) is fulfilled exactly by the real\ncubics having three distinct real roots.\n\n\\medskip\n1.  A convenient logarithmic identity.  \nWrite the factorisation\n\\[\np(x)=a\\prod_{j=1}^{n}(x-r_{j}),\\qquad a\\in\\mathbb R\\setminus\\{0\\}.\n\\]\nFor \\(x\\notin\\{r_{1},\\dots ,r_{n}\\}\\) set\n\\[\nL(x):=\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{x-r_{j}},\\qquad\nL_{2}(x):=\\sum_{j=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{(x-r_{j})^{2}},\\qquad\nE(x):=\\frac{1}{2}\\bigl(L^{2}(x)-L_{2}(x)\\bigr)\n      =\\sum_{1\\le a<b\\le n}\\frac{1}{(x-r_{a})(x-r_{b})}.\n\\]\nA direct differentiation gives\n\\[\n\\frac{p''(x)}{p(x)}=(\\ln p)''(x)=L'(x)+L^{2}(x)-L_{2}(x)=2E(x),\n\\]\nso that\n\\[\np''(x)=2\\,p(x)E(x). \\tag{1}\n\\]\n\n\\medskip\n2.  The zeros of \\(p''\\).  \nSince the roots of \\(p\\) are simple, \\(\\mu_{i}\\notin\\{r_{1},\\dots ,r_{n}\\}\\);\nhence \\(p(\\mu_{i})\\neq 0\\) and by (1)\n\\[\n(\\star)\\quad\\Longleftrightarrow\\quad\nE(\\mu_{i})=0,\\qquad i=1,\\dots ,n-2. \\tag{2}\n\\]\nBy Rolle’s theorem \\(p''\\) has exactly \\(n-2\\) distinct real\nzeros; consequently the \\(\\mu_{i}\\) exhaust the zero–set of \\(p''\\) and\n\\[\np''(x)=a\\,n(n-1)\\prod_{i=1}^{n-2}\\bigl(x-\\mu_{i}\\bigr). \\tag{3}\n\\]\n\n\\medskip\n3.  All cubics work.  \nFor \\(n=3\\) formula (3) reads\n\\(p''(x)=6a\\,(x-\\mu_{1})\\); therefore \\(p''(\\mu_{1})=0\\)\n\\emph{for every} triple \\(r_{1}<r_{2}<r_{3}\\).\nThus every real cubic with three simple real roots satisfies \\((\\star)\\).\n\n\\medskip\n4.  A translation–invariant obstruction for \\(n\\ge 4\\).\n\n\\smallskip\n4.1  A coefficient identity.  \nFrom (3) the coefficient of \\(x^{\\,n-3}\\) in \\(p''\\) equals\n\\(-a\\,n(n-1)\\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\\mu_{i}\\).\nOn the other hand, if\n\\[\np(x)=a\\Bigl(x^{n}-S_{1}\\,x^{n-1}+S_{2}\\,x^{n-2}-\\dots+(-1)^{n}S_{n}\\Bigr)\n\\qquad(S_{k}\\hbox{ the }k\\hbox{th elementary symmetric sum}),\n\\]\nthen a trivial differentiation gives\n\\[\np''(x)=a\\,n(n-1)\\Bigl(x^{\\,n-2}-S_{1}\\,x^{\\,n-3}+\\tfrac12S_{2}\\,x^{\\,n-4}-\\dots\\Bigr),\n\\]\nso that\n\\[\n\\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\\mu_{i}=S_{1}\\;=\\;\\sum_{j=1}^{n}r_{j}. \\tag{4}\n\\]\n\n\\smallskip\n4.2  Expanding the left–hand side of (4).  \nEach root \\(r_{j}\\) occurs in several barycentres \\(\\mu_{i}\\).\nLet \\(w_{j}\\) be the number of indices \\(i\\) for which \\(r_{j}\\) belongs\nto the triple \\(\\{r_{i},r_{i+1},r_{i+2}\\}\\).\nA short count shows\n\\[\nw_{1}=w_{n}=1,\\qquad\nw_{2}=w_{n-1}=2,\\qquad\nw_{j}=3\\;(3\\le j\\le n-2).\n\\]\nConsequently\n\\[\n\\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\\mu_{i}\n   =\\frac13\\sum_{j=1}^{n}w_{j}r_{j}\n   =\\frac13\\Bigl(\n      r_{1}+2r_{2}+3r_{3}+\\dots+3r_{\\,n-2}+2r_{\\,n-1}+r_{n}\\Bigr). \\tag{5}\n\\]\n\n\\smallskip\n4.3  The linear relation imposed on the roots.  \nCombining (4) and (5) gives\n\\[\n\\bigl(-2\\bigr)r_{1}\\;+\\;\\bigl(-1\\bigr)r_{2}\\;+\\;\n              0\\cdot r_{3}+\\dots+0\\cdot r_{\\,n-2}\\;+\\;\n              \\bigl(-1\\bigr)r_{\\,n-1}\\;+\\;\\bigl(-2\\bigr)r_{n}=0.\\tag{6}\n\\]\nIn particular,\n\\[\n2\\bigl(r_{1}+r_{n}\\bigr)+\\bigl(r_{2}+r_{\\,n-1}\\bigr)=0.\\tag{6'}\n\\]\n\n\\smallskip\n4.4  Translation invariance forces a contradiction.  \nProperty \\((\\star)\\) is unaffected if every root is shifted by the same\nconstant \\(t\\):\nreplacing \\(p(x)\\) by \\(p(x-t)\\) merely subtracts \\(t\\) from each\n\\(r_{j}\\) and from every barycentre \\(\\mu_{i}\\).\nHowever, after the translation \\(r_{j}\\mapsto r_{j}+t\\) the left–hand\nside of (6) becomes\n\\[\n-6t+\\bigl(-2r_{1}-r_{2}-r_{\\,n-1}-2r_{n}\\bigr),\n\\]\nbecause the coefficients in (6) sum to \\(-6\\).\nSince \\(t\\) is arbitrary, the only way to keep identity (6) valid is to\nhave all its coefficients equal to \\(0\\); yet \\(-2,-1\\neq 0\\).\nTherefore no polynomial of degree \\(n\\ge 4\\) can satisfy\n\\((\\star)\\).\n\n\\medskip\n5.  Classification.  \nCombining Steps \\(3\\) and \\(4\\) we arrive at the complete answer:\n\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\;\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\text{Condition }(\\star)\\text{ holds precisely for the real cubic\npolynomials}\\\\\np(x)=a\\,(x-r_{1})(x-r_{2})(x-r_{3}),\\;\na\\in\\mathbb R\\setminus\\{0\\},\\;\nr_{1}<r_{2}<r_{3}.\n\\end{aligned}}\n\\]\n\n\\(\\quad\\Box\\)\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.558403",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "• Higher-order constraints:  Unlike the original problem, which involves\n  only the first derivative, the new variant enforces vanishing of every\n  derivative p^{(k)} at a whole family of sliding averages μ_{i,k}.\n  This introduces n(n−1)/2 simultaneous nonlinear conditions.\n\n• Dimensional explosion:  For a fixed k the set {μ_{i,k}} contains\n  n−k distinct points, while p^{(k)} has degree n−k.  The solver must\n  recognize and exploit this tight degree/condition interplay.\n\n• Theoretical breadth:  A successful argument now has to knit together\n  Rolle’s theorem, properties of logarithmic derivatives (Step 2),\n  sign arguments (Step 3), and degree counting.  The problem resists\n  pattern-matching; one has to isolate a decisive obstruction among a\n  formidable list of constraints.\n\n• Hidden simplicity:  Although the conclusion ends up matching that of\n  the original problem, recognising that the entire higher-order cascade\n  collapses to the k=1 obstruction, and proving the collapse rigorously,\n  requires appreciably deeper structural insight into the behaviour of\n  derivatives of real-rooted polynomials.\n\nHence the enhanced variant is substantially more intricate: it embeds\nthe original task in a denser lattice of analytic conditions and forces\nthe competitor to wield more powerful global tools in order to cut\nthrough the proliferation of constraints."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}