{
  "index": "2020-B-5",
  "type": "COMB",
  "tag": [
    "COMB",
    "ALG",
    "ANA",
    "NT"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "For $j \\in \\{1, 2, 3, 4\\}$, let $z_j$ be a complex number with $|z_j| = 1$ and $z_j \\neq 1$. Prove that\n\\[\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4 \\neq 0.\n\\]",
  "solution": "\\noindent\n\\textbf{First solution.} (by Mitja Mastnak)\nIt will suffice to show that for any $z_1, z_2, z_3, z_4 \\in \\CC$ of modulus 1 such that $|3-z_1-z_2-z_3-z_4| = |z_1z_2z_3z_4|$, at least one of $z_1, z_2, z_3$ is equal to 1.\n\nTo this end, let $z_1=e^{\\alpha i}, z_2=e^{\\beta i}, z_3=e^{\\gamma i}$ and \n\\[\nf(\\alpha, \\beta, \\gamma)=|3-z_1-z_2-z_3|^2-|1-z_1z_2z_3|^2.\n\\]\\\n A routine calculation shows that \n\\begin{align*}\nf(\\alpha, \\beta, \\gamma)&=\n10 - 6\\cos(\\alpha) - 6\\cos(\\beta) - 6\\cos(\\gamma) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(\\alpha + \\beta + \\gamma) + 2\\cos(\\alpha - \\beta) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(\\beta - \\gamma) + 2\\cos(\\gamma - \\alpha).\n\\end{align*}\nSince the function $f$ is continuously differentiable, and periodic in each variable, $f$ has a maximum and a minimum and it attains these values only at points where $\\nabla f=(0,0,0)$.  A routine calculation now shows that \n\\begin{align*}\n\\frac{\\partial f}{\\partial \\alpha} + \\frac{\\partial f}{\\partial \\beta} + \\frac{\\partial f}{\\partial \\gamma} &=\n6(\\sin(\\alpha) +\\sin(\\beta)+\\sin(\\gamma)-  \\sin(\\alpha + \\beta + \\gamma)) \\\\\n&=\n24\\sin\\left(\\frac{\\alpha+\\beta}{2}\\right) \\sin\\left(\\frac{\\beta+\\gamma}{2}\\right)\n\\sin\\left(\\frac{\\gamma+\\alpha}{2}\\right).\n\\end{align*}\nHence every critical point of $f$ must satisfy one of $z_1z_2=1$, $z_2z_3=1$, or $z_3z_1=1$. By symmetry, let us assume that $z_1z_2=1$. Then \n\\[\nf = |3-2\\mathrm{Re}(z_1)-z_3|^2-|1-z_3|^2;\n\\]\nsince $3-2\\mathrm{Re}(z_1)\\ge 1$, $f$ is nonnegative and can be zero only if the real part of $z_1$, and hence also $z_1$ itself, is equal to $1$. \n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nIf $z_1 = 1$, we may then apply the same logic to deduce that one of $z_2,z_3,z_4$ is equal to 1. If $z_1 = z_2 = 1$, we may factor the expression\n\\[\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4\n\\]\nas $(1 - z_3)(1-z_4)$ to deduce that at least three of $z_1, \\dots, z_4$ are equal to $1$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nWe begin with an ``unsmoothing'' construction.\n\\setcounter{lemma}{0}\n\\begin{lemma}\nLet $z_1,z_2,z_3$ be three distinct complex numbers with $|z_j|= 1$ and $z_1 + z_2 + z_3 \\in [0, +\\infty)$. Then there exist another three complex numbers $z'_1, z'_2, z'_3$, not all distinct, with\n$|z'_j| = 1$ and\n\\[\nz'_1 + z'_2 + z'_3 \\in (z_1+ z_2 + z_3, +\\infty), \\quad z_1 z_2 z_3 = z'_1 z'_2 z'_3.\n\\]\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nWrite $z_j = e^{i \\theta_j}$ for $j=1,2,3$. \nWe are then trying to maximize the target function\n\\[\n\\cos \\theta_1 + \\cos \\theta_2 + \\cos \\theta_3\n\\]\ngiven the constraints\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &= \\sin \\theta_1 + \\sin \\theta_2 + \\sin \\theta_3\\\\\n* &= \\theta_1 + \\theta_2 + \\theta_3\n\\end{align*}\nSince $z_1, z_2, z_3$ run over a compact region without boundary, the maximum must be achieved at a point where the matrix\n\\[\n\\begin{pmatrix}\n\\sin \\theta_1 & \\sin \\theta_2 & \\sin \\theta_3 \\\\\n\\cos \\theta_1 & \\cos \\theta_2 & \\cos \\theta_3 \\\\\n1 & 1 & 1\n\\end{pmatrix}\n\\]\nis singular. Since the determinant of this matrix computes (up to a sign and a factor of 2) the area of the triangle with vertices $z_1, z_2, z_3$,\nit cannot vanish unless some two of $z_1, z_2, z_3$ are equal. This proves the claim.\n\\end{proof}\n\nFor $n$ a positive integer, let $H_n$ be the \\emph{hypocycloid curve} in $\\CC$ given by\n\\[\nH_n = \\{(n-1) z + z^{-n+1}: z \\in \\CC, |z| = 1\\}.\n\\]\nIn geometric terms, $H_n$ is the curve traced out by a marked point on a circle of radius 1 rolling one full circuit along the interior of a circle of radius 1, starting from the point $z=1$.\nNote that the interior of $H_n$ is not convex, but it is \\emph{star-shaped}: it is closed under multiplication by any number in $[0,1]$.\n\n\\begin{lemma}\nFor $n$ a positive integer, let $S_n$ be the set of complex numbers of the form $w_1 + \\cdots + w_n$ for some $w_1,\\dots,w_n \\in \\CC$ with\n$|w_j| = 1$ and $w_1 \\cdots w_n = 1$. Then for $n \\leq 4$, $S_n$ is the closed interior of $H_n$ (i.e., including the boundary).\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nBy considering $n$-tuples of the form $(z,\\dots,z,z^{-n+1})$, we see that $H_n \\subseteq S_n$.\nIt thus remains to check that $S_n$ lies in the closed interior of $H_n$.\nWe ignore the easy cases $n=1$ (where $H_1 = S_1 = \\{1\\}$) and $n=2$ (where $H_2 = S_2 = [-2,2]$)\nand assume hereafter that $n \\geq 3$.\n\nBy Lemma 1, for each ray emanating from the the origin, the extreme intersection point of $S_n$ with this ray (which exists because $S_n$ is compact) is achieved by some tuple $(w_1,\\dots,w_n)$ with at most two distinct values.\nFor $n=3$, this immediately implies that this point lies on $H_n$. For $n=4$, we must also consider tuples consisting of two pairs of equal values; however, these only give rise to points in $[-4, 4]$, which are indeed contained in $H_4$.\n\\end{proof}\n\nTurning to the original problem, consider $z_1,\\dots,z_4 \\in \\CC$ with $|z_j| = 1$ and \n\\[\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4 = 0;\n\\]\nwe must prove that at least one $z_j$ is equal to 1.\nLet $z$ be any fourth root of $z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4$,\nput $w_j = z_j/z$, and put $s = w_1 + \\cdots + w_4$. In this notation, we have\n\\[\ns = z^3 + 3z^{-1},\n\\]\nwhere $s \\in S_4$ and $z^3 + 3z^{-1} \\in H_4$. That is, $s$ is a boundary point of $S_4$, so in particular it is the extremal point of $S_4$ on the ray emanating from the origin through $s$.\nBy Lemma 1, this implies that $w_1,\\dots,w_4$ take at most two distinct values. As in the proof of Lemma 2, we distinguish two cases.\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item\nIf $w_1 = w_2 = w_3$, then\n\\[\nw_1^{-3} + 3w_1 = z^3 + 3z^{-1}.\n\\]\nFrom the geometric description of $H_n$, we see that this forces $w_1^{-1} = z$ and hence $z_1 = 1$.\n\n\\item\nIf $w_1 = w_2$ and $w_3 = w_4$, then $s \\in [-4, 4]$ and hence $s = \\pm 4$. This can only be achieved by taking $w_1 = \\cdots = w_4 = \\pm 1$;\nsince $s = z^3 + 3z^{-1}$ we must also have $z = \\pm 1$, yielding $z_1 = \\cdots = z_4 = 1$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nWith slightly more work, one can show that Lemma 2 remains true for all positive integers $n$.\nThe missing extra step is to check that for $m=1,\\dots,n-1$, the hypocycloid curve\n\\[\n\\{m z^{n-m} + (n-m) z^{-m}: z \\in \\CC, |z| = 1\\}\n\\]\nis contained in the filled interior of $H_n$. In fact, this curve only touches $H_n$ at points where they both touch the unit circle (i.e., at $d$-th roots of unity for $d = \\gcd(m,n)$);\nthis can be used to formulate a corresponding version of the original problem, which we leave to the reader.",
  "vars": [
    "j",
    "z_j",
    "z",
    "w_j",
    "w",
    "\\\\alpha",
    "\\\\beta",
    "\\\\gamma",
    "\\\\theta_j",
    "f",
    "s"
  ],
  "params": [
    "n",
    "m",
    "d",
    "S_n",
    "H_n"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [
    "i"
  ],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "j": "indexvar",
        "z_j": "indexedcomplex",
        "z": "basecomplex",
        "w_j": "indexedaux",
        "w": "auxcomplex",
        "\\alpha": "alphavar",
        "\\beta": "betavar",
        "\\gamma": "gammavar",
        "\\theta_j": "indtheta",
        "f": "differencefn",
        "s": "sumsvar",
        "n": "indexcount",
        "m": "paramcount",
        "d": "gcfactor",
        "S_n": "sumset",
        "H_n": "hypocycloidset"
      },
      "question": "For $indexvar \\in \\{1, 2, 3, 4\\}$, let $indexedcomplex$ be a complex number with $|indexedcomplex| = 1$ and $indexedcomplex \\neq 1$. Prove that\n\\[\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4 \\neq 0.\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\noindent\n\\textbf{First solution.} (by Mitja Mastnak)\nIt will suffice to show that for any $z_1, z_2, z_3, z_4 \\in \\CC$ of modulus 1 such that $|3-z_1-z_2-z_3-z_4| = |z_1z_2z_3z_4|$, at least one of $z_1, z_2, z_3$ is equal to 1.\n\nTo this end, let $z_1=e^{alphavar i},\\; z_2=e^{betavar i},\\; z_3=e^{gammavar i}$ and \n\\[\ndifferencefn(alphavar, betavar, gammavar)=|3-z_1-z_2-z_3|^2-|1-z_1z_2z_3|^2.\n\\]\nA routine calculation shows that\n\\begin{align*}\n\\differencefn(alphavar, betavar, gammavar)&=\n10 - 6\\cos(alphavar) - 6\\cos(betavar) - 6\\cos(gammavar) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(alphavar + betavar + gammavar) + 2\\cos(alphavar - betavar) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(betavar - gammavar) + 2\\cos(gammavar - alphavar).\n\\end{align*}\nSince the function $\\differencefn$ is continuously differentiable, and periodic in each variable, $\\differencefn$ has a maximum and a minimum and it attains these values only at points where $\\nabla \\differencefn=(0,0,0)$.  A routine calculation now shows that \n\\begin{align*}\n\\frac{\\partial \\differencefn}{\\partial alphavar} + \\frac{\\partial \\differencefn}{\\partial betavar} + \\frac{\\partial \\differencefn}{\\partial gammavar} &=\n6(\\sin(alphavar) +\\sin(betavar)+\\sin(gammavar)-  \\sin(alphavar + betavar + gammavar)) \\\\\n&=\n24\\sin\\left(\\frac{alphavar+betavar}{2}\\right) \\sin\\left(\\frac{betavar+gammavar}{2}\\right)\n\\sin\\left(\\frac{gammavar+alphavar}{2}\\right).\n\\end{align*}\nHence every critical point of $\\differencefn$ must satisfy one of $z_1z_2=1$, $z_2z_3=1$, or $z_3z_1=1$. By symmetry, let us assume that $z_1z_2=1$. Then \n\\[\n\\differencefn = |3-2\\mathrm{Re}(z_1)-z_3|^2-|1-z_3|^2;\n\\]\nsince $3-2\\mathrm{Re}(z_1)\\ge 1$, $\\differencefn$ is nonnegative and can be zero only if the real part of $z_1$, and hence also $z_1$ itself, is equal to $1$. \n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nIf $z_1 = 1$, we may then apply the same logic to deduce that one of $z_2,z_3,z_4$ is equal to 1. If $z_1 = z_2 = 1$, we may factor the expression\n\\[\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4\n\\]\nas $(1 - z_3)(1-z_4)$ to deduce that at least three of $z_1, \\dots, z_4$ are equal to $1$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nWe begin with an ``unsmoothing'' construction.\n\\setcounter{lemma}{0}\n\\begin{lemma}\nLet $z_1,z_2,z_3$ be three distinct complex numbers with $|indexedcomplex|= 1$ and $z_1 + z_2 + z_3 \\in [0, +\\infty)$. Then there exist another three complex numbers $z'_1, z'_2, z'_3$, not all distinct, with\n$|z'_j| = 1$ and\n\\[\nz'_1 + z'_2 + z'_3 \\in (z_1+ z_2 + z_3, +\\infty), \\quad z_1 z_2 z_3 = z'_1 z'_2 z'_3.\n\\]\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nWrite $indexedcomplex = e^{i \\indtheta}$ for $indexvar=1,2,3$. \nWe are then trying to maximize the target function\n\\[\n\\cos \\theta_1 + \\cos \\theta_2 + \\cos \\theta_3\n\\]\ngiven the constraints\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &= \\sin \\theta_1 + \\sin \\theta_2 + \\sin \\theta_3\\\\\n* &= \\theta_1 + \\theta_2 + \\theta_3\n\\end{align*}\nSince $z_1, z_2, z_3$ run over a compact region without boundary, the maximum must be achieved at a point where the matrix\n\\[\n\\begin{pmatrix}\n\\sin \\theta_1 & \\sin \\theta_2 & \\sin \\theta_3 \\\\\n\\cos \\theta_1 & \\cos \\theta_2 & \\cos \\theta_3 \\\\\n1 & 1 & 1\n\\end{pmatrix}\n\\]\nis singular. Since the determinant of this matrix computes (up to a sign and a factor of 2) the area of the triangle with vertices $z_1, z_2, z_3$,\nit cannot vanish unless some two of $z_1, z_2, z_3$ are equal. This proves the claim.\n\\end{proof}\n\nFor $indexcount$ a positive integer, let $hypocycloidset$ be the \\emph{hypocycloid curve} in $\\CC$ given by\n\\[\n\\hypocycloidset = \\{(indexcount-1) \\, basecomplex + basecomplex^{-indexcount+1}: basecomplex \\in \\CC, |basecomplex| = 1\\}.\n\\]\nIn geometric terms, $\\hypocycloidset$ is the curve traced out by a marked point on a circle of radius 1 rolling one full circuit along the interior of a circle of radius 1, starting from the point $basecomplex=1$.\nNote that the interior of $\\hypocycloidset$ is not convex, but it is \\emph{star-shaped}: it is closed under multiplication by any number in $[0,1]$.\n\n\\begin{lemma}\nFor $indexcount$ a positive integer, let $sumset$ be the set of complex numbers of the form $w_1 + \\cdots + w_{indexcount}$ for some $w_1,\\dots,w_{indexcount} \\in \\CC$ with\n$|indexedaux| = 1$ and $w_1 \\cdots w_{indexcount} = 1$. Then for $indexcount \\leq 4$, $sumset$ is the closed interior of $\\hypocycloidset$ (i.e., including the boundary).\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nBy considering $indexcount$-tuples of the form $(basecomplex,\\dots,basecomplex, basecomplex^{-indexcount+1})$, we see that $\\hypocycloidset \\subseteq \\sumset$.\nIt thus remains to check that $\\sumset$ lies in the closed interior of $\\hypocycloidset$.\nWe ignore the easy cases $indexcount=1$ (where $\\hypocycloidset = \\sumset = \\{1\\}$) and $indexcount=2$ (where $\\hypocycloidset = \\sumset = [-2,2]$)\nand assume hereafter that $indexcount \\geq 3$.\n\nBy Lemma 1, for each ray emanating from the the origin, the extreme intersection point of $\\sumset$ with this ray (which exists because $\\sumset$ is compact) is achieved by some tuple $(w_1,\\dots,w_{indexcount})$ with at most two distinct values.\nFor $indexcount=3$, this immediately implies that this point lies on $\\hypocycloidset$. For $indexcount=4$, we must also consider tuples consisting of two pairs of equal values; however, these only give rise to points in $[-4, 4]$, which are indeed contained in $\\hypocycloidset$.\n\\end{proof}\n\nTurning to the original problem, consider $z_1,\\dots,z_4 \\in \\CC$ with $|indexedcomplex| = 1$ and\n\\[\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4 = 0;\n\\]\nwe must prove that at least one $indexedcomplex$ is equal to 1.\nLet $basecomplex$ be any fourth root of $z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4$,\nput $indexedaux = z_j/basecomplex$, and put $sumsvar = w_1 + \\cdots + w_4$. In this notation, we have\n\\[\n\\sumsvar = basecomplex^3 + 3basecomplex^{-1},\n\\]\nwhere $\\sumsvar \\in \\sumset$ and $basecomplex^3 + 3basecomplex^{-1} \\in \\hypocycloidset$. That is, $\\sumsvar$ is a boundary point of $\\sumset$, so in particular it is the extremal point of $\\sumset$ on the ray emanating from the origin through $\\sumsvar$.\nBy Lemma 1, this implies that $w_1,\\dots,w_4$ take at most two distinct values. As in the proof of Lemma 2, we distinguish two cases.\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item\nIf $w_1 = w_2 = w_3$, then\n\\[\nw_1^{-3} + 3w_1 = basecomplex^3 + 3basecomplex^{-1}.\n\\]\nFrom the geometric description of $\\hypocycloidset$, we see that this forces $w_1^{-1} = basecomplex$ and hence $z_1 = 1$.\n\n\\item\nIf $w_1 = w_2$ and $w_3 = w_4$, then $\\sumsvar \\in [-4, 4]$ and hence $\\sumsvar = \\pm 4$. This can only be achieved by taking $w_1 = \\cdots = w_4 = \\pm 1$;\nsince $\\sumsvar = basecomplex^3 + 3basecomplex^{-1}$ we must also have $basecomplex = \\pm 1$, yielding $z_1 = \\cdots = z_4 = 1$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nWith slightly more work, one can show that Lemma 2 remains true for all positive integers $indexcount$.\nThe missing extra step is to check that for $paramcount=1,\\dots,indexcount-1$, the hypocycloid curve\n\\[\n\\{paramcount \\, basecomplex^{indexcount-paramcount} + (indexcount-paramcount) \\, basecomplex^{-paramcount}: basecomplex \\in \\CC, |basecomplex| = 1\\}\n\\]\nis contained in the filled interior of $\\hypocycloidset$. In fact, this curve only touches $\\hypocycloidset$ at points where they both touch the unit circle (i.e., at $\\gcfactor$-th roots of unity for $\\gcfactor = \\gcd(paramcount,indexcount)$);\nthis can be used to formulate a corresponding version of the original problem, which we leave to the reader."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "j": "windlass",
        "z_j": "marigold",
        "z": "shipshape",
        "w_j": "balderdash",
        "w": "cliffside",
        "\\\\alpha": "pinecone",
        "\\\\beta": "driftwood",
        "\\\\gamma": "lighthouse",
        "\\\\theta_j": "starboard",
        "f": "horsepower",
        "s": "buttercup",
        "n": "afterglow",
        "m": "raspberries",
        "d": "raincloud",
        "S_n": "evergreen",
        "H_n": "cornflower"
      },
      "question": "For $windlass \\in \\{1, 2, 3, 4\\}$, let $marigold$ be a complex number with $|marigold| = 1$ and $marigold \\neq 1$. Prove that\\n\\[\\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4 \\neq 0.\\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\noindent\\n\\textbf{First solution.} (by Mitja Mastnak)\\nIt will suffice to show that for any $z_1, z_2, z_3, z_4 \\in \\CC$ of modulus 1 such that $|3-z_1-z_2-z_3-z_4| = |z_1z_2z_3z_4|$, at least one of $z_1, z_2, z_3$ is equal to 1.\\n\\nTo this end, let $z_1=e^{pineconei}, z_2=e^{driftwood i}, z_3=e^{lighthouse i}$ and \\n\\[\\nhorsepower(pinecone, driftwood, lighthouse)=|3-z_1-z_2-z_3|^2-|1-z_1z_2z_3|^2.\\n\\]\\nA routine calculation shows that \\n\\begin{align*}\\nhorsepower(pinecone, driftwood, lighthouse)&=10 - 6\\cos(pinecone) - 6\\cos(driftwood) - 6\\cos(lighthouse) \\\\&\\quad + 2\\cos(pinecone + driftwood + lighthouse) + 2\\cos(pinecone - driftwood) \\\\&\\quad + 2\\cos(driftwood - lighthouse) + 2\\cos(lighthouse - pinecone).\\n\\end{align*}\\nSince the function horsepower is continuously differentiable, and periodic in each variable, horsepower has a maximum and a minimum and it attains these values only at points where $\\nabla horsepower=(0,0,0)$.  A routine calculation now shows that \\n\\begin{align*}\\n\\frac{\\partial horsepower}{\\partial pinecone} + \\frac{\\partial horsepower}{\\partial driftwood} + \\frac{\\partial horsepower}{\\partial lighthouse} &=6(\\sin(pinecone) +\\sin(driftwood)+\\sin(lighthouse)-  \\sin(pinecone + driftwood + lighthouse)) \\\\&=24\\sin\\left(\\frac{pinecone+driftwood}{2}\\right) \\sin\\left(\\frac{driftwood+lighthouse}{2}\\right)\\sin\\left(\\frac{lighthouse+pinecone}{2}\\right).\\n\\end{align*}\\nHence every critical point of horsepower must satisfy one of $z_1z_2=1$, $z_2z_3=1$, or $z_3z_1=1$. By symmetry, let us assume that $z_1z_2=1$. Then \\n\\[\\nhorsepower = |3-2\\mathrm{Re}(z_1)-z_3|^2-|1-z_3|^2;\\n\\]\\nsince $3-2\\mathrm{Re}(z_1)\\ge 1$, horsepower is nonnegative and can be zero only if the real part of $z_1$, and hence also $z_1$ itself, is equal to $1$.\\n\\n\\noindent\\n\\textbf{Remark.}\\nIf $z_1 = 1$, we may then apply the same logic to deduce that one of $z_2,z_3,z_4$ is equal to 1. If $z_1 = z_2 = 1$, we may factor the expression\\n\\[\\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4\\n\\]\\nas $(1 - z_3)(1-z_4)$ to deduce that at least three of $z_1, \\dots, z_4$ are equal to $1$.\\n\\n\\noindent\\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\\nWe begin with an ``unsmoothing'' construction.\\n\\setcounter{lemma}{0}\\n\\begin{lemma}\\nLet $z_1,z_2,z_3$ be three distinct complex numbers with $|z_j|= 1$ and $z_1 + z_2 + z_3 \\in [0, +\\infty)$. Then there exist another three complex numbers $z'_1, z'_2, z'_3$, not all distinct, with $|z'_j| = 1$ and\\n\\[\\nz'_1 + z'_2 + z'_3 \\in (z_1+ z_2 + z_3, +\\infty), \\quad z_1 z_2 z_3 = z'_1 z'_2 z'_3.\\n\\]\\n\\end{lemma}\\n\\begin{proof}\\nWrite $z_j = e^{i starboard}$ for $windlass=1,2,3$. \\nWe are then trying to maximize the target function\\n\\[\\n\\cos \\theta_1 + \\cos \\theta_2 + \\cos \\theta_3\\n\\]\\ngiven the constraints\\n\\begin{align*}\\n0 &= \\sin \\theta_1 + \\sin \\theta_2 + \\sin \\theta_3\\\\* &= \\theta_1 + \\theta_2 + \\theta_3\\n\\end{align*}\\nSince $z_1, z_2, z_3$ run over a compact region without boundary, the maximum must be achieved at a point where the matrix\\n\\[\\n\\begin{pmatrix}\\n\\sin \\theta_1 & \\sin \\theta_2 & \\sin \\theta_3 \\\\\n\\cos \\theta_1 & \\cos \\theta_2 & \\cos \\theta_3 \\\\\n1 & 1 & 1\\n\\end{pmatrix}\\n\\]\\nis singular. Since the determinant of this matrix computes (up to a sign and a factor of 2) the area of the triangle with vertices $z_1, z_2, z_3$, it cannot vanish unless some two of $z_1, z_2, z_3$ are equal. This proves the claim.\\n\\end{proof}\\n\\nFor $afterglow$ a positive integer, let $cornflower_{afterglow}$ be the \\emph{hypocycloid curve} in $\\CC$ given by\\n\\[\\ncornflower_{afterglow} = \\{(afterglow-1) shipshape + shipshape^{-afterglow+1}: shipshape \\in \\CC, |shipshape| = 1\\}.\\n\\]\\nIn geometric terms, $cornflower_{afterglow}$ is the curve traced out by a marked point on a circle of radius 1 rolling one full circuit along the interior of a circle of radius 1, starting from the point $shipshape=1$. Note that the interior of $cornflower_{afterglow}$ is not convex, but it is \\emph{star-shaped}: it is closed under multiplication by any number in $[0,1]$.\\n\\n\\begin{lemma}\\nFor $afterglow$ a positive integer, let $evergreen_{afterglow}$ be the set of complex numbers of the form $w_1 + \\cdots + w_{afterglow}$ for some $w_1,\\dots,w_{afterglow} \\in \\CC$ with $|w_j| = 1$ and $w_1 \\cdots w_{afterglow} = 1$. Then for $afterglow \\leq 4$, $evergreen_{afterglow}$ is the closed interior of $cornflower_{afterglow}$ (i.e., including the boundary).\\n\\end{lemma}\\n\\begin{proof}\\nBy considering $afterglow$-tuples of the form $(shipshape,\\dots,shipshape,shipshape^{-afterglow+1})$, we see that $cornflower_{afterglow} \\subseteq evergreen_{afterglow}$. It thus remains to check that $evergreen_{afterglow}$ lies in the closed interior of $cornflower_{afterglow}$. We ignore the easy cases $afterglow=1$ (where $cornflower_1 = evergreen_1 = \\{1\\}$) and $afterglow=2$ (where $cornflower_2 = evergreen_2 = [-2,2]$) and assume hereafter that $afterglow \\geq 3$.\\n\\nBy Lemma 1, for each ray emanating from the the origin, the extreme intersection point of $evergreen_{afterglow}$ with this ray (which exists because $evergreen_{afterglow}$ is compact) is achieved by some tuple $(w_1,\\dots,w_{afterglow})$ with at most two distinct values. For $afterglow=3$, this immediately implies that this point lies on $cornflower_{afterglow}$. For $afterglow=4$, we must also consider tuples consisting of two pairs of equal values; however, these only give rise to points in $[-4, 4]$, which are indeed contained in $cornflower_4$.\\n\\end{proof}\\n\\nTurning to the original problem, consider $z_1,\\dots,z_4 \\in \\CC$ with $|z_j| = 1$ and \\n\\[\\n3 - z_1 - z_2 - z_3 - z_4 + z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4 = 0;\\n\\]\\nwe must prove that at least one $z_j$ is equal to 1. Let $shipshape$ be any fourth root of $z_1 z_2 z_3 z_4$, put $balderdash = z_j/shipshape$, and put $buttercup = w_1 + \\cdots + w_4$. In this notation, we have\\n\\[\\nbuttercup = shipshape^3 + 3shipshape^{-1},\\n\\]\\nwhere $buttercup \\in evergreen_4$ and $shipshape^3 + 3shipshape^{-1} \\in cornflower_4$. That is, $buttercup$ is a boundary point of $evergreen_4$, so in particular it is the extremal point of $evergreen_4$ on the ray emanating from the origin through $buttercup$. By Lemma 1, this implies that $w_1,\\dots,w_4$ take at most two distinct values. As in the proof of Lemma 2, we distinguish two cases.\\n\\begin{itemize}\\n\\item If $w_1 = w_2 = w_3$, then\\n\\[\\nw_1^{-3} + 3w_1 = shipshape^3 + 3shipshape^{-1}.\\n\\]\\nFrom the geometric description of $cornflower_{afterglow}$, we see that this forces $w_1^{-1} = shipshape$ and hence $z_1 = 1$.\\n\\item If $w_1 = w_2$ and $w_3 = w_4$, then $buttercup \\in [-4, 4]$ and hence $buttercup = \\pm 4$. This can only be achieved by taking $w_1 = \\cdots = w_4 = \\pm 1$; since $buttercup = shipshape^3 + 3shipshape^{-1}$ we must also have $shipshape = \\pm 1$, yielding $z_1 = \\cdots = z_4 = 1$.\\n\\end{itemize}\\n\\n\\noindent\\n\\textbf{Remark.}\\nWith slightly more work, one can show that Lemma 2 remains true for all positive integers $afterglow$. The missing extra step is to check that for $raspberries=1,\\dots,afterglow-1$, the hypocycloid curve\\n\\[\\n\\{ raspberries shipshape^{afterglow-raspberries} + (afterglow-raspberries) shipshape^{-raspberries}: shipshape \\in \\CC, |shipshape| = 1\\}\\n\\]\\nis contained in the filled interior of $cornflower_{afterglow}$. In fact, this curve only touches $cornflower_{afterglow}$ at points where they both touch the unit circle (i.e., at $raincloud$-th roots of unity for $raincloud = \\gcd(raspberries,afterglow)$); this can be used to formulate a corresponding version of the original problem, which we leave to the reader."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "j": "totalitem",
        "z_j": "realnumber",
        "z": "realscalar",
        "w_j": "integervalue",
        "w": "integersymbol",
        "\\alpha": "distancea",
        "\\beta": "distanceb",
        "\\gamma": "distancec",
        "\\theta_j": "heightangle",
        "f": "constancy",
        "s": "productvalue",
        "n": "zeroindex",
        "m": "infinitevar",
        "d": "lcmvalue",
        "S_n": "productset",
        "H_n": "linecurve"
      },
      "question": "For $totalitem \\in \\{1, 2, 3, 4\\}$, let $realnumber_{totalitem}$ be a complex number with $|realnumber_{totalitem}| = 1$ and $realnumber_{totalitem} \\neq 1$. Prove that\n\\[\n3 - realnumber_1 - realnumber_2 - realnumber_3 - realnumber_4 + realnumber_1 realnumber_2 realnumber_3 realnumber_4 \\neq 0.\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\noindent\n\\textbf{First solution.} (by Mitja Mastnak)\nIt will suffice to show that for any $realnumber_1, realnumber_2, realnumber_3, realnumber_4 \\in \\CC$ of modulus 1 such that $|3-realnumber_1-realnumber_2-realnumber_3-realnumber_4| = |realnumber_1realnumber_2realnumber_3realnumber_4|$, at least one of $realnumber_1, realnumber_2, realnumber_3$ is equal to 1.\n\nTo this end, let $realnumber_1=e^{distancea i},\\; realnumber_2=e^{distanceb i},\\; realnumber_3=e^{distancec i}$ and \n\\[\nconstancy(distancea, distanceb, distancec)=|3-realnumber_1-realnumber_2-realnumber_3|^2-|1-realnumber_1realnumber_2realnumber_3|^2.\n\\]\n A routine calculation shows that \n\\begin{align*}\nconstancy(distancea, distanceb, distancec)&=\n10 - 6\\cos(distancea) - 6\\cos(distanceb) - 6\\cos(distancec) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(distancea + distanceb + distancec) + 2\\cos(distancea - distanceb) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(distanceb - distancec) + 2\\cos(distancec - distancea).\n\\end{align*}\nSince the function $constancy$ is continuously differentiable, and periodic in each variable, $constancy$ has a maximum and a minimum and it attains these values only at points where $\\nabla constancy=(0,0,0)$.  A routine calculation now shows that \n\\begin{align*}\n\\frac{\\partial constancy}{\\partial distancea} + \\frac{\\partial constancy}{\\partial distanceb} + \\frac{\\partial constancy}{\\partial distancec} &=\n6(\\sin(distancea) +\\sin(distanceb)+\\sin(distancec)-  \\sin(distancea + distanceb + distancec)) \\\\\n&=\n24\\sin\\left(\\frac{distancea+distanceb}{2}\\right) \\sin\\left(\\frac{distanceb+distancec}{2}\\right)\n\\sin\\left(\\frac{distancec+distancea}{2}\\right).\n\\end{align*}\nHence every critical point of $constancy$ must satisfy one of $realnumber_1realnumber_2=1$, $realnumber_2realnumber_3=1$, or $realnumber_3realnumber_1=1$. By symmetry, let us assume that $realnumber_1realnumber_2=1$. Then \n\\[\nconstancy = |3-2\\mathrm{Re}(realnumber_1)-realnumber_3|^2-|1-realnumber_3|^2;\n\\]\nsince $3-2\\mathrm{Re}(realnumber_1)\\ge 1$, $constancy$ is nonnegative and can be zero only if the real part of $realnumber_1$, and hence also $realnumber_1$ itself, is equal to $1$. \n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nIf $realnumber_1 = 1$, we may then apply the same logic to deduce that one of $realnumber_2,realnumber_3,realnumber_4$ is equal to 1. If $realnumber_1 = realnumber_2 = 1$, we may factor the expression\n\\[\n3 - realnumber_1 - realnumber_2 - realnumber_3 - realnumber_4 + realnumber_1 realnumber_2 realnumber_3 realnumber_4\n\\]\nas $(1 - realnumber_3)(1-realnumber_4)$ to deduce that at least three of $realnumber_1, \\dots, realnumber_4$ are equal to $1$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nWe begin with an ``unsmoothing'' construction.\n\\setcounter{lemma}{0}\n\\begin{lemma}\nLet $realnumber_1,realnumber_2,realnumber_3$ be three distinct complex numbers with $|realnumber_{totalitem}|= 1$ and $realnumber_1 + realnumber_2 + realnumber_3 \\in [0, +\\infty)$. Then there exist another three complex numbers $realnumber'_1, realnumber'_2, realnumber'_3$, not all distinct, with\n$|realnumber'_{totalitem}| = 1$ and\n\\[\nrealnumber'_1 + realnumber'_2 + realnumber'_3 \\in (realnumber_1+ realnumber_2 + realnumber_3, +\\infty), \\quad realnumber_1 realnumber_2 realnumber_3 = realnumber'_1 realnumber'_2 realnumber'_3.\n\\]\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nWrite $realnumber_{totalitem} = e^{i heightangle_{totalitem}}$ for $totalitem=1,2,3$. \nWe are then trying to maximize the target function\n\\[\n\\cos heightangle_1 + \\cos heightangle_2 + \\cos heightangle_3\n\\]\ngiven the constraints\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &= \\sin heightangle_1 + \\sin heightangle_2 + \\sin heightangle_3\\\\\n* &= heightangle_1 + heightangle_2 + heightangle_3\n\\end{align*}\nSince $realnumber_1, realnumber_2, realnumber_3$ run over a compact region without boundary, the maximum must be achieved at a point where the matrix\n\\[\n\\begin{pmatrix}\n\\sin heightangle_1 & \\sin heightangle_2 & \\sin heightangle_3 \\\\\n\\cos heightangle_1 & \\cos heightangle_2 & \\cos heightangle_3 \\\\\n1 & 1 & 1\n\\end{pmatrix}\n\\]\nis singular. Since the determinant of this matrix computes (up to a sign and a factor of 2) the area of the triangle with vertices $realnumber_1, realnumber_2, realnumber_3$,\nit cannot vanish unless some two of $realnumber_1, realnumber_2, realnumber_3$ are equal. This proves the claim.\n\\end{proof}\n\nFor $zeroindex$ a positive integer, let $linecurve_{zeroindex}$ be the \\emph{hypocycloid curve} in $\\CC$ given by\n\\[\nlinecurve_{zeroindex} = \\{(zeroindex-1) realscalar + realscalar^{-zeroindex+1}: realscalar \\in \\CC, |realscalar| = 1\\}.\n\\]\nIn geometric terms, $linecurve_{zeroindex}$ is the curve traced out by a marked point on a circle of radius 1 rolling one full circuit along the interior of a circle of radius 1, starting from the point $realscalar=1$.\nNote that the interior of $linecurve_{zeroindex}$ is not convex, but it is \\emph{star-shaped}: it is closed under multiplication by any number in $[0,1]$.\n\n\\begin{lemma}\nFor $zeroindex$ a positive integer, let $productset_{zeroindex}$ be the set of complex numbers of the form $integervalue_1 + \\cdots + integervalue_{zeroindex}$ for some $integervalue_1,\\dots,integervalue_{zeroindex} \\in \\CC$ with\n$|integervalue_{totalitem}| = 1$ and $integervalue_1 \\cdots integervalue_{zeroindex} = 1$. Then for $zeroindex \\leq 4$, $productset_{zeroindex}$ is the closed interior of $linecurve_{zeroindex}$ (i.e., including the boundary).\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nBy considering $zeroindex$-tuples of the form $(realscalar,\\dots,realscalar,realscalar^{-zeroindex+1})$, we see that $linecurve_{zeroindex} \\subseteq productset_{zeroindex}$.\nIt thus remains to check that $productset_{zeroindex}$ lies in the closed interior of $linecurve_{zeroindex}$.\nWe ignore the easy cases $zeroindex=1$ (where $linecurve_1 = productset_1 = \\{1\\}$) and $zeroindex=2$ (where $linecurve_2 = productset_2 = [-2,2]$)\nand assume hereafter that $zeroindex \\geq 3$.\n\nBy Lemma 1, for each ray emanating from the the origin, the extreme intersection point of $productset_{zeroindex}$ with this ray (which exists because $productset_{zeroindex}$ is compact) is achieved by some tuple $(integervalue_1,\\dots,integervalue_{zeroindex})$ with at most two distinct values.\nFor $zeroindex=3$, this immediately implies that this point lies on $linecurve_{zeroindex}$. For $zeroindex=4$, we must also consider tuples consisting of two pairs of equal values; however, these only give rise to points in $[-4, 4]$, which are indeed contained in $linecurve_4$.\n\\end{proof}\n\nTurning to the original problem, consider $realnumber_1,\\dots,realnumber_4 \\in \\CC$ with $|realnumber_{totalitem}| = 1$ and \n\\[\n3 - realnumber_1 - realnumber_2 - realnumber_3 - realnumber_4 + realnumber_1 realnumber_2 realnumber_3 realnumber_4 = 0;\n\\]\nwe must prove that at least one $realnumber_{totalitem}$ is equal to 1.\nLet realscalar be any fourth root of $realnumber_1 realnumber_2 realnumber_3 realnumber_4$,\nput $integervalue_{totalitem} = realnumber_{totalitem}/realscalar$, and put $productvalue = integervalue_1 + \\cdots + integervalue_4$. In this notation, we have\n\\[\nproductvalue = realscalar^3 + 3realscalar^{-1},\n\\]\nwhere $productvalue \\in productset_4$ and $realscalar^3 + 3realscalar^{-1} \\in linecurve_4$. That is, $productvalue$ is a boundary point of $productset_4$, so in particular it is the extremal point of $productset_4$ on the ray emanating from the origin through $productvalue$.\nBy Lemma 1, this implies that $integervalue_1,\\dots,integervalue_4$ take at most two distinct values. As in the proof of Lemma 2, we distinguish two cases.\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item\nIf $integervalue_1 = integervalue_2 = integervalue_3$, then\n\\[\nintegervalue_1^{-3} + 3integervalue_1 = realscalar^3 + 3realscalar^{-1}.\n\\]\nFrom the geometric description of $linecurve_{zeroindex}$, we see that this forces $integervalue_1^{-1} = realscalar$ and hence $realnumber_1 = 1$.\n\n\\item\nIf $integervalue_1 = integervalue_2$ and $integervalue_3 = integervalue_4$, then $productvalue \\in [-4, 4]$ and hence $productvalue = \\pm 4$. This can only be achieved by taking $integervalue_1 = \\cdots = integervalue_4 = \\pm 1$;\nsince $productvalue = realscalar^3 + 3realscalar^{-1}$ we must also have $realscalar = \\pm 1$, yielding $realnumber_1 = \\cdots = realnumber_4 = 1$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nWith slightly more work, one can show that Lemma 2 remains true for all positive integers $zeroindex$.\nThe missing extra step is to check that for $infinitevar=1,\\dots,zeroindex-1$, the hypocycloid curve\n\\[\n\\{infinitevar realscalar^{zeroindex-infinitevar} + (zeroindex-infinitevar) realscalar^{-infinitevar}: realscalar \\in \\CC, |realscalar| = 1\\}\n\\]\nis contained in the filled interior of $linecurve_{zeroindex}$. In fact, this curve only touches $linecurve_{zeroindex}$ at points where they both touch the unit circle (i.e., at $lcmvalue$-th roots of unity for $lcmvalue = \\gcd(infinitevar,zeroindex)$);\nthis can be used to formulate a corresponding version of the original problem, which we leave to the reader."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "j": "xylopqrz",
        "z_j": "mnerdasta",
        "z": "qltsphnv",
        "w_j": "gnocklwei",
        "w": "pbazturo",
        "\\alpha": "zcvrnqpe",
        "\\beta": "uqafsjrm",
        "\\gamma": "lhkdzvap",
        "\\theta_j": "vyumnstc",
        "f": "edngxvla",
        "s": "rohpqiwm",
        "n": "jafwrepl",
        "m": "egztlumh",
        "d": "wqernbsv",
        "S_n": "jukmtyrz",
        "H_n": "kyfsgmua"
      },
      "question": "For $xylopqrz \\in \\{1, 2, 3, 4\\}$, let $mnerdasta_{xylopqrz}$ be a complex number with $|mnerdasta_{xylopqrz}| = 1$ and $mnerdasta_{xylopqrz} \\neq 1$. Prove that\n\\[\n3 - mnerdasta_1 - mnerdasta_2 - mnerdasta_3 - mnerdasta_4 + mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3 mnerdasta_4 \\neq 0.\n\\]",
      "solution": "\\noindent\n\\textbf{First solution.} (by Mitja Mastnak)\nIt will suffice to show that for any $mnerdasta_1, mnerdasta_2, mnerdasta_3, mnerdasta_4 \\in \\CC$ of modulus 1 such that $|3-mnerdasta_1-mnerdasta_2-mnerdasta_3-mnerdasta_4| = |mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3 mnerdasta_4|$, at least one of $mnerdasta_1, mnerdasta_2, mnerdasta_3$ is equal to 1.\n\nTo this end, let $mnerdasta_1=e^{zcvrnqpe i},\\; mnerdasta_2=e^{uqafsjrm i},\\; mnerdasta_3=e^{lhkdzvap i}$ and\n\\[\nedngxvla(zcvrnqpe, uqafsjrm, lhkdzvap)=|3-mnerdasta_1-mnerdasta_2-mnerdasta_3|^2-|1-mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3|^2.\n\\]\nA routine calculation shows that\n\\begin{align*}\nedngxvla(zcvrnqpe, uqafsjrm, lhkdzvap)&=\n10 - 6\\cos(zcvrnqpe) - 6\\cos(uqafsjrm) - 6\\cos(lhkdzvap) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(zcvrnqpe + uqafsjrm + lhkdzvap) + 2\\cos(zcvrnqpe - uqafsjrm) \\\\\n&\\quad + 2\\cos(uqafsjrm - lhkdzvap) + 2\\cos(lhkdzvap - zcvrnqpe).\n\\end{align*}\nSince the function $edngxvla$ is continuously differentiable and periodic in each variable, it attains its maximum and minimum only at points where $\\nabla edngxvla=(0,0,0)$.  A routine calculation now shows that\n\\begin{align*}\n\\frac{\\partial edngxvla}{\\partial zcvrnqpe} + \\frac{\\partial edngxvla}{\\partial uqafsjrm} + \\frac{\\partial edngxvla}{\\partial lhkdzvap} &=\n6(\\sin(zcvrnqpe) +\\sin(uqafsjrm)+\\sin(lhkdzvap)-  \\sin(zcvrnqpe + uqafsjrm + lhkdzvap)) \\\\\n&=\n24\\sin\\left(\\frac{zcvrnqpe+uqafsjrm}{2}\\right) \\sin\\left(\\frac{uqafsjrm+lhkdzvap}{2}\\right)\n\\sin\\left(\\frac{lhkdzvap+zcvrnqpe}{2}\\right).\n\\end{align*}\nHence every critical point of $edngxvla$ must satisfy one of $mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2=1$, $mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3=1$, or $mnerdasta_3 mnerdasta_1=1$. By symmetry, let us assume that $mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2=1$. Then\n\\[\nedngxvla = |3-2\\mathrm{Re}(mnerdasta_1)-mnerdasta_3|^2-|1-mnerdasta_3|^2;\n\\]\nsince $3-2\\mathrm{Re}(mnerdasta_1)\\ge 1$, $edngxvla$ is non-negative and can be zero only if the real part of $mnerdasta_1$, and hence also $mnerdasta_1$ itself, is equal to $1$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nIf $mnerdasta_1 = 1$, we may then apply the same logic to deduce that one of $mnerdasta_2,mnerdasta_3,mnerdasta_4$ is equal to 1. If $mnerdasta_1 = mnerdasta_2 = 1$, we may factor the expression\n\\[\n3 - mnerdasta_1 - mnerdasta_2 - mnerdasta_3 - mnerdasta_4 + mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3 mnerdasta_4\n\\]\nas $(1 - mnerdasta_3)(1-mnerdasta_4)$ to deduce that at least three of $mnerdasta_1, \\dots, mnerdasta_4$ are equal to $1$.\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Second solution.}\nWe begin with an ``unsmoothing'' construction.\n\\setcounter{lemma}{0}\n\\begin{lemma}\nLet $mnerdasta_1,mnerdasta_2,mnerdasta_3$ be three distinct complex numbers with $|mnerdasta_{xylopqrz}|= 1$ and $mnerdasta_1 + mnerdasta_2 + mnerdasta_3 \\in [0, +\\infty)$. Then there exist another three complex numbers $mnerdasta'_1, mnerdasta'_2, mnerdasta'_3$, not all distinct, with\n$|mnerdasta'_{xylopqrz}| = 1$ and\n\\[\nmnerdasta'_1 + mnerdasta'_2 + mnerdasta'_3 \\in (mnerdasta_1+ mnerdasta_2 + mnerdasta_3, +\\infty), \\quad mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3 = mnerdasta'_1 mnerdasta'_2 mnerdasta'_3.\n\\]\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nWrite $mnerdasta_{xylopqrz} = e^{i vyumnstc}$ for $xylopqrz=1,2,3$. We are then trying to maximize the target function\n\\[\\cos vyumnstc_1 + \\cos vyumnstc_2 + \\cos vyumnstc_3\\]\ngiven the constraints\n\\begin{align*}\n0 &= \\sin vyumnstc_1 + \\sin vyumnstc_2 + \\sin vyumnstc_3\\\\\n* &= vyumnstc_1 + vyumnstc_2 + vyumnstc_3.\n\\end{align*}\nSince $mnerdasta_1, mnerdasta_2, mnerdasta_3$ run over a compact region without boundary, the maximum must be achieved at a point where the matrix\n\\[\n\\begin{pmatrix}\n\\sin vyumnstc_1 & \\sin vyumnstc_2 & \\sin vyumnstc_3 \\\\\n\\cos vyumnstc_1 & \\cos vyumnstc_2 & \\cos vyumnstc_3 \\\\\n1 & 1 & 1\n\\end{pmatrix}\n\\]\nis singular. Since the determinant of this matrix computes (up to a sign and a factor of 2) the area of the triangle with vertices $mnerdasta_1, mnerdasta_2, mnerdasta_3$, it cannot vanish unless some two of $mnerdasta_1, mnerdasta_2, mnerdasta_3$ are equal. This proves the claim.\n\\end{proof}\n\nFor $jafwrepl$ a positive integer, let $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$ be the \\emph{hypocycloid curve} in $\\CC$ given by\n\\[\nkyfsgmua_{jafwrepl} = \\{(jafwrepl-1) \\, qltsphnv + qltsphnv^{-jafwrepl+1}: qltsphnv \\in \\CC, |qltsphnv| = 1\\}.\n\\]\nIn geometric terms, $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$ is the curve traced out by a marked point on a circle of radius 1 rolling one full circuit along the interior of a circle of radius 1, starting from the point $qltsphnv=1$.\nNote that the interior of $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$ is not convex, but it is \\emph{star-shaped}: it is closed under multiplication by any number in $[0,1]$.\n\n\\begin{lemma}\nFor $jafwrepl$ a positive integer, let $jukmtyrz_{jafwrepl}$ be the set of complex numbers of the form $pbazturo_1 + \\cdots + pbazturo_{jafwrepl}$ for some $pbazturo_1,\\dots,pbazturo_{jafwrepl} \\in \\CC$ with $|pbazturo_{xylopqrz}| = 1$ and $pbazturo_1 \\cdots pbazturo_{jafwrepl} = 1$. Then for $jafwrepl \\leq 4$, $jukmtyrz_{jafwrepl}$ is the closed interior of $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$ (i.e., including the boundary).\n\\end{lemma}\n\\begin{proof}\nBy considering $jafwrepl$-tuples of the form $(qltsphnv,\\dots,qltsphnv,qltsphnv^{-jafwrepl+1})$, we see that $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl} \\subseteq jukmtyrz_{jafwrepl}$.\nIt thus remains to check that $jukmtyrz_{jafwrepl}$ lies in the closed interior of $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$.\nWe ignore the easy cases $jafwrepl=1$ (where $kyfsgmua_1 = jukmtyrz_1 = \\{1\\}$) and $jafwrepl=2$ (where $kyfsgmua_2 = jukmtyrz_2 = [-2,2]$) and assume hereafter that $jafwrepl \\geq 3$.\n\nBy Lemma 1, for each ray emanating from the origin, the extreme intersection point of $jukmtyrz_{jafwrepl}$ with this ray (which exists because $jukmtyrz_{jafwrepl}$ is compact) is achieved by some tuple $(pbazturo_1,\\dots,pbazturo_{jafwrepl})$ with at most two distinct values.\nFor $jafwrepl=3$, this immediately implies that this point lies on $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$. For $jafwrepl=4$, we must also consider tuples consisting of two pairs of equal values; however, these only give rise to points in $[-4, 4]$, which are indeed contained in $kyfsgmua_4$.\n\\end{proof}\n\nTurning to the original problem, consider $mnerdasta_1,\\dots,mnerdasta_4 \\in \\CC$ with $|mnerdasta_{xylopqrz}| = 1$ and\n\\[\n3 - mnerdasta_1 - mnerdasta_2 - mnerdasta_3 - mnerdasta_4 + mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3 mnerdasta_4 = 0;\n\\]\nwe must prove that at least one $mnerdasta_{xylopqrz}$ is equal to 1.\nLet $qltsphnv$ be any fourth root of $mnerdasta_1 mnerdasta_2 mnerdasta_3 mnerdasta_4$, put $gnocklwei_{xylopqrz} = mnerdasta_{xylopqrz}/qltsphnv$, and put $rohpqiwm = gnocklwei_1 + \\cdots + gnocklwei_4$. In this notation, we have\n\\[\nrohpqiwm = qltsphnv^3 + 3\\, qltsphnv^{-1},\n\\]\nwhere $rohpqiwm \\in jukmtyrz_4$ and $qltsphnv^3 + 3\\, qltsphnv^{-1} \\in kyfsgmua_4$. That is, $rohpqiwm$ is a boundary point of $jukmtyrz_4$, so in particular it is the extremal point of $jukmtyrz_4$ on the ray emanating from the origin through $rohpqiwm$.\nBy Lemma 1, this implies that $gnocklwei_1,\\dots,gnocklwei_4$ take at most two distinct values. As in the proof of Lemma 2, we distinguish two cases.\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item\nIf $gnocklwei_1 = gnocklwei_2 = gnocklwei_3$, then\n\\[\ngnocklwei_1^{-3} + 3\\, gnocklwei_1 = qltsphnv^3 + 3\\, qltsphnv^{-1}.\n\\]\nFrom the geometric description of $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$, we see that this forces $gnocklwei_1^{-1} = qltsphnv$ and hence $mnerdasta_1 = 1$.\n\n\\item\nIf $gnocklwei_1 = gnocklwei_2$ and $gnocklwei_3 = gnocklwei_4$, then $rohpqiwm \\in [-4, 4]$ and hence $rohpqiwm = \\pm 4$. This can only be achieved by taking $gnocklwei_1 = \\cdots = gnocklwei_4 = \\pm 1$; since $rohpqiwm = qltsphnv^3 + 3\\, qltsphnv^{-1}$ we must also have $qltsphnv = \\pm 1$, yielding $mnerdasta_1 = \\cdots = mnerdasta_4 = 1$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\noindent\n\\textbf{Remark.}\nWith slightly more work, one can show that Lemma 2 remains true for all positive integers $jafwrepl$. The missing extra step is to check that for $egztlumh=1,\\dots,jafwrepl-1$, the hypocycloid curve\n\\[\n\\{\\, egztlumh\\, qltsphnv^{jafwrepl-egztlumh} + (jafwrepl-egztlumh)\\, qltsphnv^{-egztlumh}: qltsphnv \\in \\CC, |qltsphnv| = 1\\}\\]\nis contained in the filled interior of $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$. In fact, this curve only touches $kyfsgmua_{jafwrepl}$ at points where they both touch the unit circle (i.e., at $wqernbsv$-th roots of unity for $wqernbsv = \\gcd(egztlumh,jafwrepl)$); this can be used to formulate a corresponding version of the original problem, which we leave to the reader."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let  $z_1 ,z_2 ,z_3 ,z_4 \\in \\mathbb C$ satisfy  \n1. \\(|z_j| = 1\\;(j=1,2,3,4)\\);\n2. \\(z_j \\ne 1\\;(j=1,2,3,4)\\).\nShow that the complex number\n\n\\[\n3-z_1-z_2-z_3-z_4+z_1z_2z_3z_4\n\\]\ncan never be equal to~0.",
      "solution": "We argue by contradiction.  Assume that unit complex numbers \\(z_1,\\dots ,z_4 \\, (\\neq 1)\\) fulfil\n\n(1)\\qquad \\(3-(z_1+z_2+z_3+z_4)+z_1z_2z_3z_4=0.\\)\n\nStep 1.  A convenient normalisation.\n-----------------------------------\nLet\n\\[P:=z_1z_2z_3z_4=e^{i\\vartheta},\\qquad \\zeta:=e^{i\\theta},\\; \\zeta^4=P,\\qquad a:=\\zeta^{-1}=e^{-i\\theta}.\\]\nPut\n\\[w_j:=\\frac{z_j}{\\zeta}\\quad(j=1,2,3,4),\\qquad S:=w_1+w_2+w_3+w_4.\\]\nThen\n\\[|w_j|=1,\\quad w_1w_2w_3w_4=1,\\tag{2}\\]\nwhile (1) rewrites as\n\\[\nS=3a+a^{-3}=:\\,h(a),\\qquad |a|=1.\\tag{3}\n\\]\nIntroduce the compact set\n\\[\n\\mathcal S_4:=\\Bigl\\{w_1+\\dots+w_4:\\;|w_j|=1,\\;w_1w_2w_3w_4=1\\Bigr\\}.\\tag{4}\n\\]\nBy construction, \\(S\\in \\mathcal S_4\\).\n\nStep 2.  Extreme points of \\(\\mathcal S_4\\).\n-------------------------------------------\nFor a real parameter \\(\\varphi\\) set \\(u:=e^{i\\varphi}\\) and\n\\[F_{\\varphi}(w_1,\\dots ,w_4):=\\operatorname{Re}\\left(\\bar u\\,(w_1+\\dots+w_4)\\right).\\]\n\nLemma 2.1  (Description of maximisers).\nFor the constraint (2) the maximum of \\(F_{\\varphi}\\) is attained only by quadruples of the form – up to permutation –\n(i) \\((e^{i\\beta},e^{i\\beta},e^{i\\beta},e^{-3i\\beta})\\)  for some real \\(\\beta\\);  or\n(ii) \\((e^{i\\beta},e^{i\\beta},e^{i\\beta},e^{i\\beta})\\) with \\(4\\beta\\equiv0\\;(\\mathrm{mod}\\,2\\pi)\\).\nIn particular, every maximiser contains at least three equal entries.\n\nProof.\nWrite \\(w_j=e^{i\\alpha_j}\\) and put \\(\\beta_j:=\\alpha_j-\\varphi\\).  Then\n\\[\nF_{\\varphi}=\\sum_{j=1}^{4}\\cos \\beta_j,\\qquad\\sum_{j=1}^{4}\\beta_j\\equiv C:=-4\\varphi\\pmod{2\\pi}.\n\\]\nBecause adding \\(2\\pi\\) to one angle does not change \\(\\cos\\), we impose the exact constraint \\(\\sum\\beta_j=C\\).  The function \\(\\cos\\) is strictly concave, so for distinct numbers \\(x,y\\)\n\\[\\cos x+\\cos y<2\\cos \\!\\bigl((x+y)/2\\bigr).\\tag{5}\\]\nTake a feasible quadruple that is not covered by (i), (ii).  Then at least three of the \\(\\beta_j\\) are pairwise distinct.  Replacing any two distinct values by their average keeps the sum constant while strictly increasing \\(F_{\\varphi}\\) by (5).  Repeating finitely many times we end at a feasible point with at most two distinct angles; hence every maximiser already has at most two distinct angles.\n\nLet the two values be \\(A\\) (multiplicity \\(m\\)) and \\(B\\) (multiplicity \\(4-m\\)), so\n\\[mA+(4-m)B=C.\\tag{6}\\]\nIf \\(m=1\\) we can again average the single value with one of the others and increase \\(F_{\\varphi}\\), hence \\(m\\neq1\\).  \nIf \\(m=2\\) write \\(B=(C-2A)/2\\) from (6).  Then\n\\[\nF_{\\varphi}=2\\cos A+2\\cos B\\le 4\\cos\\Bigl(\\tfrac{A+B}{2}\\Bigr)=4\\cos\\Bigl(\\tfrac{C}{4}\\Bigr),\\tag{7}\n\\]\nwhere the inequality is (5) applied to the pair \\((A,B)\\); equality would force \\(A=B\\), contradicting \\(m=2\\).  But the right-hand side of (7) is exactly the value obtained with four equal angles \\(A=B=C/4\\).  Hence no maximal tuple has \\(m=2\\).\n\nConsequently \\(m=3\\) or \\(4\\).  Case \\(m=3\\) gives (i); case \\(m=4\\) forces \\(4A=C\\).  Together with the product condition \\(e^{i4A}=1\\) this implies that \\(A\\) is a fourth root of unity, yielding (ii). ∎\n\nCorollary 2.2.\nIf \\(S\\in\\partial \\mathcal S_4\\) every representation (4) of \\(S\\) contains at least three equal factors.\n\nProof.  Each supporting hyper-plane of the convex set \\(\\mathcal S_4\\) is given by some functional \\(F_{\\varphi}\\).  Lemma 2.1 describes the maximisers, all of which possess three (or four) equal entries. ∎\n\nStep 3.  The points \\(h(a)=3a+a^{-3}\\;( |a|=1)\\) lie on the boundary of \\(\\mathcal S_4\\).\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFix \\(|a|=1\\) and consider the functional \\(F_{a}(\\cdot)=\\operatorname{Re}(\\bar a\\,\\cdot)\\).  For any feasible quadruple (2)\n\\[F_{a}(w_1,\\dots ,w_4)=\\sum_{j=1}^{4}\\cos(\\theta_j-\\theta_a)\\le 3+\\cos(-3\\theta_a)=\\operatorname{Re}\\bigl(\\bar a\\,(3a+a^{-3})\\bigr),\\]\nwhere \\(\\theta_j,\\theta_a\\) denote the arguments of \\(w_j,a\\) and Lemma 2.1 furnishes the upper bound and its achiever \\((a,a,a,a^{-3})\\).  Therefore the hyper-plane \\(\\{z:\\operatorname{Re}(\\bar a z)=\\operatorname{Re}(\\bar a h(a))\\}\\) supports \\(\\mathcal S_4\\) at the single point \\(h(a)\\); hence \\(h(a)\\in\\partial \\mathcal S_4\\). ∎\n\nStep 4.  Back to the contradiction.\n-----------------------------------\nBecause of (3) the element \\(S\\) is simultaneously in \\(\\mathcal S_4\\) and in its boundary.  By Corollary 2.2 the quadruple \\((w_1,\\dots ,w_4)\\) must contain at least three equal numbers; write\n\\[w_1=w_2=w_3=t,\\qquad |t|=1,\\qquad w_4=t^{-3}.\\tag{8}\\]\n\nStep 5.  Identifying \\(t\\) with \\(a\\).\n---------------------------------------\nUsing (3) and (8) we have\n\\[3a+a^{-3}=S=3t+t^{-3}.\\]\nLemma 2.3  (Injectivity of \\(f(z)=3z+z^{-3}\\) on the unit circle).\nIf \\(|z|=|w|=1\\) and \\(3z+z^{-3}=3w+w^{-3}\\), then \\(z=w\\).\n\nProof.\nWrite \\(z=e^{i\\theta},\\,w=e^{i\\phi}\\) and set \\(\\Delta:=\\theta-\\phi\\).  Equality of the two values gives, after rearranging,\n\\[3(e^{i\\theta}-e^{i\\phi})=e^{-i3\\phi}-e^{-i3\\theta}=e^{-i3\\phi}\\bigl(e^{-i3\\Delta}-1\\bigr).\\]\nTaking moduli and using \\(|e^{ix}-e^{iy}|=2|\\sin((x-y)/2)|\\) one obtains\n\\[3|\\sin(\\tfrac{\\Delta}{2})|=|\\sin(\\tfrac{3\\Delta}{2})|.\\]\nPut \\(s:=|\\sin(\\Delta/2)|\\;(0\\le s\\le1)\\).  Then the identity \\(\\sin(3x)=3\\sin x-4\\sin ^3x\\) gives\n\\[3s=|3s-4s^{3}|.\\]\nIf \\(s>0\\) we can divide by \\(s\\), arriving at \\(3=|3-4s^{2}|\\).  The right-hand side equals 3 iff either \\(4s^{2}=0\\) (impossible since we assumed \\(s>0\\)) or \\(4s^{2}=6\\;(>4)\\), also impossible.  Hence \\(s=0\\) and \\(\\sin(\\Delta/2)=0\\), i.e. \\(\\Delta\\in2\\pi\\mathbb Z\\).  Therefore \\(z=w.\\) ∎\n\nConsequently \\(t=a\\).  Returning to (8) we obtain\n\\[z_1=z_2=z_3=\\zeta t=\\zeta a=1,\\]\ncontradicting the premise \\(z_j\\ne1\\).  The assumed equation (1) is impossible; hence\n\\[3-z_1-z_2-z_3-z_4+z_1z_2z_3z_4\\ne0\\]\nfor all unit numbers \\(z_j\\ne1\\). ∎",
      "_meta": {
        "core_steps": [
          "Assume the given expression vanishes and write z4 = 1/(z1 z2 z3) so that |3−(z1+z2+z3)| = |1−z1 z2 z3|.",
          "Parametrize z1,z2,z3 by angles α,β,γ on the torus and set f(α,β,γ)=|3−z1−z2−z3|²−|1−z1 z2 z3|².",
          "Compute ∇f; the sine identity forces every critical point to satisfy at least one of the pairwise relations z1z2=1, z2z3=1, or z3z1=1.",
          "Assume (without loss of generality) z1z2=1; then f≥0 and f=0 implies Re(z1)=1, hence z1=1.",
          "This contradicts the hypothesis z_j ≠ 1, so the original expression can never be 0."
        ],
        "mutable_slots": {
          "slot1": {
            "description": "Which three of the four variables are treated as the independent ones in the parametrisation step.",
            "original": "The solution fixes z1,z2,z3 and expresses z4 through them."
          },
          "slot2": {
            "description": "Which specific pair is chosen (WLOG) to satisfy the relation z_i z_j = 1 at a critical point.",
            "original": "The text takes z1 z2 = 1."
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof",
  "iteratively_fixed": true
}