{
  "index": "1958-B-7",
  "type": "ANA",
  "tag": [
    "ANA",
    "ALG"
  ],
  "difficulty": "",
  "question": "7. Prove that if \\( f(x) \\) is continuous for \\( a \\leq x \\leq b \\) and \\( \\int_{a}^{b} x^{n} f(x) d x=0 \\) for \\( n=0,1,2, \\ldots \\) then \\( f(x) \\) is identically zero on \\( a \\leq x \\leq b \\).",
  "solution": "First Solution. The hypothesis evidently implies that\n\\[\n\\int_{a}^{b} f(x) p(x) d x=0\n\\]\nfor any polynomial \\( p \\). The Weierstrass approximation theorem [see R. C. Buck. Advanced Calculus. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956, p. 39] guarantees that, given \\( \\epsilon>0 \\), there exists a polynomial \\( p \\) such that\n\\[\n|f(x)-p(x)|<\\epsilon \\quad \\text { for all } x \\text { in }[a, b] .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( M \\) be a bound for \\( |f(x)| \\) on \\( [a, b] \\). Then using (1) we find\n\nSince \\( \\epsilon \\) can be chosen arbitrarily small, we have\n\\[\n\\int_{a}^{b} f(x)^{2} d x=0 .\n\\]\n\nSince \\( f \\) is continuous we conclude that \\( f(x)=0 \\) for all \\( x \\) in \\( [a, b] \\).\nSecond Solution. Since the hypothesis is invariant under translations and changes of scale, we may assume that \\( a=0, b=2 \\pi \\).\nAccording to Parseval's theorem a continuous function is everywhere zero if all of its Fourier coefficients are zero. [See Georgi P. Tolstov, Fourier Series, Russian tr., Richard A. Silverman, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962, pp. 119-122. This reference also supplies a proof of the Weierstrass theorem (used in the first solution) via Fourier series]. Hence it suffices to prove\n(2)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} f(x) \\sin n x d x=0\n\\]\nand\n(3)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} f(x) \\cos n x d x=0\n\\]\nfor \\( n=0,1,2, \\ldots \\).\nNow\n\\[\n\\sin n x=n x-\\frac{n^{3}}{3!} x^{3}+\\frac{n^{5}}{5!} x^{5}-\\cdots,\n\\]\nwhere the series converges uniformly on any finite interval. Multiplying by \\( f(x) \\) and integrating termwise, we get (2). The proof of (3) is similar.\n\nThird Solution. As we remarked above, it makes no difference what interval we consider; for this proof it is convenient to assume that \\( a=0 \\), \\( b=1 \\).\n\nLemma. Suppose \\( g \\) is a non-negative continuous function on [0, 1] which attains its maximum value at a unique point \\( x_{0} \\). Suppose \\( f \\) is any real continuous function on \\( [0,1] \\) such that \\( f\\left(x_{0}\\right)>0 \\). Then for all sufficiently large integers \\( \\boldsymbol{n} \\)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} f(x) g(x)^{n} d x>0 .\n\\]\n\nProof. We assume \\( 0<x_{0}<1 \\). (If \\( x_{0}=0 \\) or 1 , the proof requires some trivial modifications.)\nBy continuity there is an open interval (c, d) containing \\( x_{0} \\) and a positive number \\( \\alpha \\) such that\n\\[\nf(x)>\\alpha \\quad \\text { for } c<x<d .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( \\lambda=\\sup \\{g(x): x \\notin(c, d)\\} \\). Since this maximum is attained at some point \\( x_{1} \\neq x_{0} \\), we have \\( \\lambda<g\\left(x_{0}\\right) \\). Choose \\( \\mu \\) so that \\( \\lambda<\\mu<g\\left(x_{0}\\right) \\) and let \\( (h, k) \\) be an interval such that\n\\[\ng(x)>\\mu \\quad \\text { for } h<x<k .\n\\]\n\nFinally let \\( M \\) be a bound for \\( |f(x)| \\) on \\( [0,1] \\). Then\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} f(x) g(x)^{n} d x=\\left(\\int_{0}^{c}+\\int_{c}^{n}+\\int_{n}^{k}+\\int_{k}^{d}+\\int_{d}^{1}\\right) f(x) g(x)^{n} d x .\n\\]\n\nNow\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left|\\int_{0}^{c}+\\int_{d}^{1}\\right| \\leq M \\lambda^{n}, \\\\\n\\int_{c}^{n}+\\int_{k}^{d} \\geq 0,\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand\n\\[\n\\int_{h}^{k} \\geq \\alpha \\mu^{\\prime \\prime}(k-h) .\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{0}^{1} f(x) g(x)^{n} d x & \\geq \\alpha \\mu^{n}(k-h)-M \\lambda^{n} \\\\\n& =\\left[\\alpha(k-h)-M\\left(\\frac{\\lambda}{\\mu}\\right)^{n}\\right] \\mu^{n} .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nSince \\( \\lambda / \\mu<1 \\), this is positive for all sufficiently large \\( n \\), and the lemma is proved.\n\nWe now attack the original question. If \\( f \\) is positive at any point, it is (by continuity) positive at some rational point, say \\( p / q \\) where \\( p \\) and \\( q \\) are integers, \\( 0 \\leq p \\leq q \\neq 0 \\). Take \\( g(x)=x^{p}(1-x)^{4} p \\) in the lemma. Evidently \\( g \\) is non-negative on \\( [0,1] \\) and it is easily checked that it attains its. maximum at the unique point \\( p / q \\). Hence the lemma asserts\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} f(x) g(x)^{n} d x>0\n\\]\nfor sufficiently large \\( n \\). But \\( \\{g(x)\\}^{n} \\) is a polynomial for any choice of \\( n \\). so the hypothesis on \\( f \\) implies that the integral is zero. This contradiction shows that \\( f \\) is nowhere positive.\n\nThe same argument shows that \\( -f \\) is nowhere positive. Therefore \\( f \\) is everywhere zero.\n\nRemark. It was reported by the paper grader that no contestant made any significant progress with this problem except by using either the Weierstrass theorem or the theory of Fourier series.",
  "vars": [
    "x",
    "n"
  ],
  "params": [
    "f",
    "a",
    "b",
    "g",
    "p",
    "q",
    "M",
    "c",
    "d",
    "h",
    "k",
    "\\\\lambda",
    "\\\\mu",
    "x_0"
  ],
  "sci_consts": [],
  "variants": {
    "descriptive_long": {
      "map": {
        "x": "varaxis",
        "n": "indexer",
        "f": "contfn",
        "a": "intervala",
        "b": "intervalb",
        "g": "weightfn",
        "p": "polyvarp",
        "q": "polyvarq",
        "M": "maxbound",
        "c": "intervalc",
        "d": "intervald",
        "h": "intervalh",
        "k": "intervalk",
        "\\lambda": "outerbd",
        "\\mu": "midvalue",
        "x_0": "maxpoint"
      },
      "question": "Prove that if \\( contfn(varaxis) \\) is continuous for \\( intervala \\leq varaxis \\leq intervalb \\) and \\( \\int_{intervala}^{intervalb} varaxis^{indexer} contfn(varaxis) d varaxis=0 \\) for \\( indexer=0,1,2, \\ldots \\) then \\( contfn(varaxis) \\) is identically zero on \\( intervala \\leq varaxis \\leq intervalb \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. The hypothesis evidently implies that\n\\[\n\\int_{intervala}^{intervalb} contfn(varaxis) polyvarp(varaxis) d varaxis=0\n\\]\nfor any polynomial \\( polyvarp \\). The Weierstrass approximation theorem [see R. C. Buck. Advanced Calculus. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956, p. 39] guarantees that, given \\( \\epsilon>0 \\), there exists a polynomial \\( polyvarp \\) such that\n\\[\n|contfn(varaxis)-polyvarp(varaxis)|<\\epsilon \\quad \\text{for all } varaxis \\text{ in }[intervala, intervalb].\n\\]\nLet \\( maxbound \\) be a bound for \\( |contfn(varaxis)| \\) on \\( [intervala, intervalb] \\). Then using (1) we find\n\nSince \\( \\epsilon \\) can be chosen arbitrarily small, we have\n\\[\n\\int_{intervala}^{intervalb} contfn(varaxis)^{2} d varaxis=0.\n\\]\nSince \\( contfn \\) is continuous we conclude that \\( contfn(varaxis)=0 \\) for all \\( varaxis \\) in \\( [intervala, intervalb] \\).\n\nSecond Solution. Since the hypothesis is invariant under translations and changes of scale, we may assume that \\( intervala=0, intervalb=2 \\pi \\). According to Parseval's theorem a continuous function is everywhere zero if all of its Fourier coefficients are zero. [See Georgi P. Tolstov, Fourier Series, Russian tr., Richard A. Silverman, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962, pp. 119-122. This reference also supplies a proof of the Weierstrass theorem (used in the first solution) via Fourier series]. Hence it suffices to prove\n(2)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} contfn(varaxis) \\sin indexer varaxis \\, d varaxis=0\n\\]\nand\n(3)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} contfn(varaxis) \\cos indexer varaxis \\, d varaxis=0\n\\]\nfor \\( indexer=0,1,2, \\ldots \\). Now\n\\[\n\\sin indexer varaxis=indexer varaxis-\\frac{indexer^{3}}{3!} varaxis^{3}+\\frac{indexer^{5}}{5!} varaxis^{5}-\\cdots,\n\\]\nwhere the series converges uniformly on any finite interval. Multiplying by \\( contfn(varaxis) \\) and integrating termwise, we get (2). The proof of (3) is similar.\n\nThird Solution. As we remarked above, it makes no difference what interval we consider; for this proof it is convenient to assume that \\( intervala=0 \\), \\( intervalb=1 \\).\n\nLemma. Suppose \\( weightfn \\) is a non-negative continuous function on [0,1] which attains its maximum value at a unique point \\( maxpoint \\). Suppose \\( contfn \\) is any real continuous function on [0,1] such that \\( contfn(maxpoint)>0 \\). Then for all sufficiently large integers \\( \\boldsymbol{indexer} \\)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} contfn(varaxis) weightfn(varaxis)^{indexer} d varaxis>0.\n\\]\n\nProof. We assume \\( 0<maxpoint<1 \\). (If \\( maxpoint=0 \\) or 1, the proof requires some trivial modifications.) By continuity there is an open interval (intervalc, intervald) containing \\( maxpoint \\) and a positive number \\( \\alpha \\) such that\n\\[\ncontfn(varaxis)>\\alpha \\quad \\text{for } intervalc<varaxis<intervald.\n\\]\nLet \\( outerbd=\\sup\\{weightfn(varaxis): varaxis \\notin(intervalc, intervald)\\} \\). Since this maximum is attained at some point \\( varaxis_{1} \\neq maxpoint \\), we have \\( outerbd<weightfn(maxpoint) \\). Choose \\( midvalue \\) so that \\( outerbd<midvalue<weightfn(maxpoint) \\) and let \\( (intervalh, intervalk) \\) be an interval such that\n\\[\nweightfn(varaxis)>midvalue \\quad \\text{for } intervalh<varaxis<intervalk.\n\\]\nFinally let \\( maxbound \\) be a bound for \\( |contfn(varaxis)| \\) on [0,1]. Then\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} contfn(varaxis) weightfn(varaxis)^{indexer} d varaxis=\\left(\\int_{0}^{intervalc}+\\int_{intervalc}^{intervalh}+\\int_{intervalh}^{intervalk}+\\int_{intervalk}^{intervald}+\\int_{intervald}^{1}\\right) contfn(varaxis) weightfn(varaxis)^{indexer} d varaxis.\n\\]\nNow\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left|\\int_{0}^{intervalc}+\\int_{intervald}^{1}\\right| \\leq maxbound \\, outerbd^{indexer},\\\\\n\\int_{intervalc}^{intervalh}+\\int_{intervalk}^{intervald} \\geq 0,\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand\n\\[\n\\int_{intervalh}^{intervalk} \\geq \\alpha \\, midvalue^{\\prime\\prime}(intervalk-intervalh).\n\\]\nHence\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{0}^{1} contfn(varaxis) weightfn(varaxis)^{indexer} d varaxis &\\geq \\alpha \\, midvalue^{indexer}(intervalk-intervalh)-maxbound \\, outerbd^{indexer}\\\\\n&=\\left[\\alpha(intervalk-intervalh)-maxbound\\left(\\frac{outerbd}{midvalue}\\right)^{indexer}\\right] midvalue^{indexer}.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\nSince \\( outerbd/midvalue<1 \\), this is positive for all sufficiently large \\( indexer \\), and the lemma is proved.\n\nWe now attack the original question. If \\( contfn \\) is positive at any point, it is (by continuity) positive at some rational point, say \\( polyvarp/polyvarq \\) where \\( polyvarp \\) and \\( polyvarq \\) are integers, \\( 0 \\leq polyvarp \\leq polyvarq \\neq 0 \\). Take \\( weightfn(varaxis)=varaxis^{polyvarp}(1-varaxis)^{4} polyvarp \\) in the lemma. Evidently \\( weightfn \\) is non-negative on [0,1] and it is easily checked that it attains its maximum at the unique point \\( polyvarp/polyvarq \\). Hence the lemma asserts\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} contfn(varaxis) weightfn(varaxis)^{indexer} d varaxis>0\n\\]\nfor sufficiently large \\( indexer \\). But \\( \\{weightfn(varaxis)\\}^{indexer} \\) is a polynomial for any choice of \\( indexer \\), so the hypothesis on \\( contfn \\) implies that the integral is zero. This contradiction shows that \\( contfn \\) is nowhere positive.\n\nThe same argument shows that \\( -contfn \\) is nowhere positive. Therefore \\( contfn \\) is everywhere zero.\n\nRemark. It was reported by the paper grader that no contestant made any significant progress with this problem except by using either the Weierstrass theorem or the theory of Fourier series."
    },
    "descriptive_long_confusing": {
      "map": {
        "x": "sandcastle",
        "n": "blueberry",
        "f": "compassrose",
        "a": "chalkboard",
        "b": "sailboater",
        "g": "threedrawer",
        "p": "marshmallow",
        "q": "thunderbolt",
        "M": "orangutan",
        "c": "pineapples",
        "d": "lighthouse",
        "h": "quarterback",
        "k": "hummingbird",
        "\\lambda": "tortoise",
        "\\mu": "violoncello",
        "x_0": "snowblower"
      },
      "question": "Problem:\n<<<\n7. Prove that if \\( compassrose(sandcastle) \\) is continuous for \\( chalkboard \\leq sandcastle \\leq sailboater \\) and \\( \\int_{chalkboard}^{sailboater} sandcastle^{blueberry} compassrose(sandcastle) d sandcastle=0 \\) for \\( blueberry=0,1,2, \\ldots \\) then \\( compassrose(sandcastle) \\) is identically zero on \\( chalkboard \\leq sandcastle \\leq sailboater \\).\n>>>\n",
      "solution": "First Solution. The hypothesis evidently implies that\n\\[\n\\int_{chalkboard}^{sailboater} compassrose(sandcastle) marshmallow(sandcastle) d sandcastle=0\n\\]\nfor any polynomial \\( marshmallow \\). The Weierstrass approximation theorem [see R. C. Buck. Advanced Calculus. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956, p. 39] guarantees that, given \\( \\epsilon>0 \\), there exists a polynomial \\( marshmallow \\) such that\n\\[\n|compassrose(sandcastle)-marshmallow(sandcastle)|<\\epsilon \\quad \\text { for all } sandcastle \\text { in }[chalkboard, sailboater] .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( orangutan \\) be a bound for \\( |compassrose(sandcastle)| \\) on \\( [chalkboard, sailboater] \\). Then using (1) we find\n\nSince \\( \\epsilon \\) can be chosen arbitrarily small, we have\n\\[\n\\int_{chalkboard}^{sailboater} compassrose(sandcastle)^{2} d sandcastle=0 .\n\\]\n\nSince \\( compassrose \\) is continuous we conclude that \\( compassrose(sandcastle)=0 \\) for all \\( sandcastle \\) in \\( [chalkboard, sailboater] \\).\n\nSecond Solution. Since the hypothesis is invariant under translations and changes of scale, we may assume that \\( chalkboard=0, sailboater=2 \\pi \\).\nAccording to Parseval's theorem a continuous function is everywhere zero if all of its Fourier coefficients are zero. [See Georgi P. Tolstov, Fourier Series, Russian tr., Richard A. Silverman, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962, pp. 119-122. This reference also supplies a proof of the Weierstrass theorem (used in the first solution) via Fourier series]. Hence it suffices to prove\n(2)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} compassrose(sandcastle) \\sin blueberry sandcastle d sandcastle=0\n\\]\nand\n(3)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} compassrose(sandcastle) \\cos blueberry sandcastle d sandcastle=0\n\\]\nfor \\( blueberry=0,1,2, \\ldots \\).\nNow\n\\[\n\\sin blueberry sandcastle=blueberry sandcastle-\\frac{blueberry^{3}}{3!} sandcastle^{3}+\\frac{blueberry^{5}}{5!} sandcastle^{5}-\\cdots,\n\\]\nwhere the series converges uniformly on any finite interval. Multiplying by \\( compassrose(sandcastle) \\) and integrating termwise, we get (2). The proof of (3) is similar.\n\nThird Solution. As we remarked above, it makes no difference what interval we consider; for this proof it is convenient to assume that \\( chalkboard=0 \\), \\( sailboater=1 \\).\n\nLemma. Suppose \\( threedrawer \\) is a non-negative continuous function on [0, 1] which attains its maximum value at a unique point \\( snowblower \\). Suppose \\( compassrose \\) is any real continuous function on \\([0,1]\\) such that \\( compassrose(snowblower)>0 \\). Then for all sufficiently large integers \\( blueberry \\)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} compassrose(sandcastle) threedrawer(sandcastle)^{blueberry} d sandcastle>0 .\n\\]\n\nProof. We assume \\( 0<snowblower<1 \\). (If \\( snowblower=0 \\) or 1 , the proof requires some trivial modifications.)\nBy continuity there is an open interval (pineapples, lighthouse) containing \\( snowblower \\) and a positive number \\( \\alpha \\) such that\n\\[\ncompassrose(sandcastle)>\\alpha \\quad \\text { for } pineapples<sandcastle<lighthouse .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( tortoise=\\sup \\{threedrawer(sandcastle): sandcastle \\notin(pineapples, lighthouse)\\} \\). Since this maximum is attained at some point \\( sandcastle_{1} \\neq snowblower \\), we have \\( tortoise<threedrawer(snowblower) \\). Choose \\( violoncello \\) so that \\( tortoise<violoncello<threedrawer(snowblower) \\) and let \\( (quarterback, hummingbird) \\) be an interval such that\n\\[\nthreedrawer(sandcastle)>violoncello \\quad \\text { for } quarterback<sandcastle<hummingbird .\n\\]\n\nFinally let \\( orangutan \\) be a bound for \\( |compassrose(sandcastle)| \\) on \\( [0,1] \\). Then\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} compassrose(sandcastle) threedrawer(sandcastle)^{blueberry} d sandcastle=\\left(\\int_{0}^{pineapples}+\\int_{pineapples}^{quarterback}+\\int_{quarterback}^{hummingbird}+\\int_{hummingbird}^{lighthouse}+\\int_{lighthouse}^{1}\\right) compassrose(sandcastle) threedrawer(sandcastle)^{blueberry} d sandcastle .\n\\]\n\nNow\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left|\\int_{0}^{pineapples}+\\int_{lighthouse}^{1}\\right| \\leq orangutan tortoise^{blueberry}, \\\\\n\\int_{pineapples}^{quarterback}+\\int_{hummingbird}^{lighthouse} \\geq 0,\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand\n\\[\n\\int_{quarterback}^{hummingbird} \\geq \\alpha violoncello^{blueberry}(hummingbird-quarterback) .\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{0}^{1} compassrose(sandcastle) threedrawer(sandcastle)^{blueberry} d sandcastle & \\geq \\alpha violoncello^{blueberry}(hummingbird-quarterback)-orangutan tortoise^{blueberry} \\\\\n& =\\left[\\alpha(hummingbird-quarterback)-orangutan\\left(\\frac{tortoise}{violoncello}\\right)^{blueberry}\\right] violoncello^{blueberry} .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nSince \\( tortoise / violoncello<1 \\), this is positive for all sufficiently large \\( blueberry \\), and the lemma is proved.\n\nWe now attack the original question. If \\( compassrose \\) is positive at any point, it is (by continuity) positive at some rational point, say \\( marshmallow / thunderbolt \\) where \\( marshmallow \\) and \\( thunderbolt \\) are integers, \\( 0 \\leq marshmallow \\leq thunderbolt \\neq 0 \\). Take \\( threedrawer(sandcastle)=sandcastle^{marshmallow}(1-sandcastle)^{4} marshmallow \\) in the lemma. Evidently \\( threedrawer \\) is non-negative on \\( [0,1] \\) and it is easily checked that it attains its maximum at the unique point \\( marshmallow / thunderbolt \\). Hence the lemma asserts\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} compassrose(sandcastle) threedrawer(sandcastle)^{blueberry} d sandcastle>0\n\\]\nfor sufficiently large \\( blueberry \\). But \\( \\{threedrawer(sandcastle)\\}^{blueberry} \\) is a polynomial for any choice of \\( blueberry \\), so the hypothesis on \\( compassrose \\) implies that the integral is zero. This contradiction shows that \\( compassrose \\) is nowhere positive.\n\nThe same argument shows that \\( -compassrose \\) is nowhere positive. Therefore \\( compassrose \\) is everywhere zero.\n\nRemark. It was reported by the paper grader that no contestant made any significant progress with this problem except by using either the Weierstrass theorem or the theory of Fourier series."
    },
    "descriptive_long_misleading": {
      "map": {
        "x": "fixedpoint",
        "n": "continuum",
        "f": "invariant",
        "a": "zenithpoint",
        "b": "nadirpoint",
        "g": "negativefunction",
        "p": "groundbase",
        "q": "numerator",
        "M": "unbounded",
        "c": "outerleft",
        "d": "outerright",
        "h": "voidstart",
        "k": "voidfinish",
        "\\lambda": "fixedratio",
        "\\mu": "driftnorm",
        "x_0": "multipoint"
      },
      "question": "7. Prove that if \\( invariant(fixedpoint) \\) is continuous for \\( zenithpoint \\leq fixedpoint \\leq nadirpoint \\) and \\( \\int_{zenithpoint}^{nadirpoint} fixedpoint^{continuum} invariant(fixedpoint) d fixedpoint=0 \\) for \\( continuum=0,1,2, \\ldots \\) then \\( invariant(fixedpoint) \\) is identically zero on \\( zenithpoint \\leq fixedpoint \\leq nadirpoint \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. The hypothesis evidently implies that\n\\[\n\\int_{zenithpoint}^{nadirpoint} invariant(fixedpoint) groundbase(fixedpoint) d fixedpoint=0\n\\]\nfor any polynomial \\( groundbase \\). The Weierstrass approximation theorem [see R. C. Buck. Advanced Calculus. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956, p. 39] guarantees that, given \\( \\epsilon>0 \\), there exists a polynomial \\( groundbase \\) such that\n\\[\n|invariant(fixedpoint)-groundbase(fixedpoint)|<\\epsilon \\quad \\text { for all } fixedpoint \\text { in }[zenithpoint, nadirpoint] .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( unbounded \\) be a bound for \\(|invariant(fixedpoint)|\\) on \\([zenithpoint, nadirpoint]\\). Then using (1) we find\n\nSince \\( \\epsilon \\) can be chosen arbitrarily small, we have\n\\[\n\\int_{zenithpoint}^{nadirpoint} invariant(fixedpoint)^{2} d fixedpoint=0 .\n\\]\n\nSince \\( invariant \\) is continuous we conclude that \\( invariant(fixedpoint)=0 \\) for all \\( fixedpoint \\) in \\([zenithpoint, nadirpoint]\\).\n\nSecond Solution. Since the hypothesis is invariant under translations and changes of scale, we may assume that \\( zenithpoint=0, nadirpoint=2 \\pi \\).\nAccording to Parseval's theorem a continuous function is everywhere zero if all of its Fourier coefficients are zero. Hence it suffices to prove\n(2)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} invariant(fixedpoint) \\sin continuum fixedpoint d fixedpoint=0\n\\]\nand\n(3)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} invariant(fixedpoint) \\cos continuum fixedpoint d fixedpoint=0\n\\]\nfor \\( continuum=0,1,2, \\ldots \\).\nNow\n\\[\n\\sin continuum fixedpoint=continuum fixedpoint-\\frac{continuum^{3}}{3!} fixedpoint^{3}+\\frac{continuum^{5}}{5!} fixedpoint^{5}-\\cdots,\n\\]\nwhere the series converges uniformly on any finite interval. Multiplying by \\( invariant(fixedpoint) \\) and integrating termwise, we get (2). The proof of (3) is similar.\n\nThird Solution. As we remarked above, it makes no difference what interval we consider; for this proof it is convenient to assume that \\( zenithpoint=0 \\), \\( nadirpoint=1 \\).\n\nLemma. Suppose \\( negativefunction \\) is a non-negative continuous function on [0, 1] which attains its maximum value at a unique point \\( multipoint \\). Suppose \\( invariant \\) is any real continuous function on \\([0,1]\\) such that \\( invariant\\left(multipoint\\right)>0 \\). Then for all sufficiently large integers \\( \\boldsymbol{continuum} \\)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} invariant(fixedpoint) negativefunction(fixedpoint)^{continuum} d fixedpoint>0 .\n\\]\n\nProof. We assume \\( 0<multipoint<1 \\). (If \\( multipoint=0 \\) or 1 , the proof requires some trivial modifications.)\nBy continuity there is an open interval (outerleft, outerright) containing \\( multipoint \\) and a positive number \\( \\alpha \\) such that\n\\[\ninvariant(fixedpoint)>\\alpha \\quad \\text { for } outerleft<fixedpoint<outerright .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( fixedratio=\\sup \\{negativefunction(fixedpoint): fixedpoint \\notin(outerleft, outerright)\\} \\). Since this maximum is attained at some point \\( fixedpoint_{1} \\neq multipoint \\), we have \\( fixedratio<negativefunction\\left(multipoint\\right) \\). Choose \\( driftnorm \\) so that \\( fixedratio<driftnorm<negativefunction\\left(multipoint\\right) \\) and let \\( (voidstart, voidfinish) \\) be an interval such that\n\\[\nnegativefunction(fixedpoint)>driftnorm \\quad \\text { for } voidstart<fixedpoint<voidfinish .\n\\]\n\nFinally let \\( unbounded \\) be a bound for \\(|invariant(fixedpoint)|\\) on \\([0,1]\\). Then\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} invariant(fixedpoint) negativefunction(fixedpoint)^{continuum} d fixedpoint=\\left(\\int_{0}^{outerleft}+\\int_{outerleft}^{continuum}+\\int_{continuum}^{voidfinish}+\\int_{voidfinish}^{outerright}+\\int_{outerright}^{1}\\right) invariant(fixedpoint) negativefunction(fixedpoint)^{continuum} d fixedpoint .\n\\]\n\nNow\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left|\\int_{0}^{outerleft}+\\int_{outerright}^{1}\\right| \\leq unbounded fixedratio^{continuum}, \\\\\n\\int_{outerleft}^{continuum}+\\int_{voidfinish}^{outerright} \\geq 0,\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand\n\\[\n\\int_{voidstart}^{voidfinish} \\geq \\alpha driftnorm^{\\prime \\prime}(voidfinish-voidstart) .\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{0}^{1} invariant(fixedpoint) negativefunction(fixedpoint)^{continuum} d fixedpoint & \\geq \\alpha driftnorm^{continuum}(voidfinish-voidstart)-unbounded fixedratio^{continuum} \\\\\n& =\\left[\\alpha(voidfinish-voidstart)-unbounded\\left(\\frac{fixedratio}{driftnorm}\\right)^{continuum}\\right] driftnorm^{continuum} .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nSince \\( fixedratio / driftnorm<1 \\), this is positive for all sufficiently large \\( continuum \\), and the lemma is proved.\n\nWe now attack the original question. If \\( invariant \\) is positive at any point, it is (by continuity) positive at some rational point, say \\( groundbase / numerator \\) where \\( groundbase \\) and \\( numerator \\) are integers, \\( 0 \\leq groundbase \\leq numerator \\neq 0 \\). Take \\( negativefunction(fixedpoint)=fixedpoint^{groundbase}(1-fixedpoint)^{4} groundbase \\) in the lemma. Evidently \\( negativefunction \\) is non-negative on \\([0,1]\\) and it is easily checked that it attains its maximum at the unique point \\( groundbase / numerator \\). Hence the lemma asserts\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} invariant(fixedpoint) negativefunction(fixedpoint)^{continuum} d fixedpoint>0\n\\]\nfor sufficiently large \\( continuum \\). But \\( \\{negativefunction(fixedpoint)\\}^{continuum} \\) is a polynomial for any choice of \\( continuum \\), so the hypothesis on \\( invariant \\) implies that the integral is zero. This contradiction shows that \\( invariant \\) is nowhere positive.\n\nThe same argument shows that \\( -invariant \\) is nowhere positive. Therefore \\( invariant \\) is everywhere zero.\n\nRemark. It was reported by the paper grader that no contestant made any significant progress with this problem except by using either the Weierstrass theorem or the theory of Fourier series."
    },
    "garbled_string": {
      "map": {
        "x": "qzxwvtnp",
        "n": "kzmxwyvl",
        "f": "qjeksbfl",
        "a": "lsdhqwrz",
        "b": "mntvrplk",
        "g": "nklfjxqw",
        "p": "ldkfjqwe",
        "q": "vxbnsrtm",
        "M": "rqsndjpl",
        "c": "smdplkrq",
        "d": "hbvczmrl",
        "h": "fjdksnwr",
        "k": "ghtplvcs",
        "\\lambda": "hlqtnvmc",
        "\\mu": "zpjrmgdw",
        "x_0": "vzxctmvb"
      },
      "question": "Prove that if \\( qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) \\) is continuous for \\( lsdhqwrz \\leq qzxwvtnp \\leq mntvrplk \\) and \\( \\int_{lsdhqwrz}^{mntvrplk} qzxwvtnp^{kzmxwyvl} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) d qzxwvtnp=0 \\) for \\( kzmxwyvl=0,1,2, \\ldots \\) then \\( qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) \\) is identically zero on \\( lsdhqwrz \\leq qzxwvtnp \\leq mntvrplk \\).",
      "solution": "First Solution. The hypothesis evidently implies that\n\\[\n\\int_{lsdhqwrz}^{mntvrplk} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) ldkfjqwe(qzxwvtnp) d qzxwvtnp=0\n\\]\nfor any polynomial \\( ldkfjqwe \\). The Weierstrass approximation theorem [...] guarantees that, given \\( \\epsilon>0 \\), there exists a polynomial \\( ldkfjqwe \\) such that\n\\[\n|qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp)-ldkfjqwe(qzxwvtnp)|<\\epsilon \\quad \\text { for all } qzxwvtnp \\text { in }[lsdhqwrz, mntvrplk] .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( rqsndjpl \\) be a bound for \\(|qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp)|\\) on \\([lsdhqwrz, mntvrplk]\\). Then using (1) we find\n\nSince \\( \\epsilon \\) can be chosen arbitrarily small, we have\n\\[\n\\int_{lsdhqwrz}^{mntvrplk} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp)^{2} d qzxwvtnp=0 .\n\\]\n\nSince \\( qjeksbfl \\) is continuous we conclude that \\( qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp)=0 \\) for all \\( qzxwvtnp \\) in \\([lsdhqwrz, mntvrplk]\\).\n\nSecond Solution. Since the hypothesis is invariant under translations and changes of scale, we may assume that \\( lsdhqwrz=0, mntvrplk=2 \\pi \\).\nAccording to Parseval's theorem a continuous function is everywhere zero if all of its Fourier coefficients are zero. Hence it suffices to prove\n(2)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) \\sin kzmxwyvl qzxwvtnp d qzxwvtnp=0\n\\]\nand\n(3)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{2 \\pi} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) \\cos kzmxwyvl qzxwvtnp d qzxwvtnp=0\n\\]\nfor \\( kzmxwyvl=0,1,2, \\ldots \\).\nNow\n\\[\n\\sin kzmxwyvl qzxwvtnp=kzmxwyvl qzxwvtnp-\\frac{kzmxwyvl^{3}}{3!} qzxwvtnp^{3}+\\frac{kzmxwyvl^{5}}{5!} qzxwvtnp^{5}-\\cdots,\n\\]\nwhere the series converges uniformly on any finite interval. Multiplying by \\( qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) \\) and integrating termwise, we get (2). The proof of (3) is similar.\n\nThird Solution. As we remarked above, it makes no difference what interval we consider; for this proof it is convenient to assume that \\( lsdhqwrz=0 \\), \\( mntvrplk=1 \\).\n\nLemma. Suppose \\( nklfjxqw \\) is a non-negative continuous function on [0, 1] which attains its maximum value at a unique point \\( vzxctmvb \\). Suppose \\( qjeksbfl \\) is any real continuous function on \\([0,1]\\) such that \\( qjeksbfl\\left(vzxctmvb\\right)>0 \\). Then for all sufficiently large integers \\( \\boldsymbol{kzmxwyvl} \\)\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)^{kzmxwyvl} d qzxwvtnp>0 .\n\\]\n\nProof. We assume \\( 0< vzxctmvb <1 \\). (If \\( vzxctmvb=0 \\) or 1, the proof requires some trivial modifications.)\nBy continuity there is an open interval (smdplkrq, hbvczmrl) containing \\( vzxctmvb \\) and a positive number \\( \\alpha \\) such that\n\\[\nqjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp)>\\alpha \\quad \\text { for } smdplkrq<qzxwvtnp<hbvczmrl .\n\\]\n\nLet \\( hlqtnvmc=\\sup \\{nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp): qzxwvtnp \\notin(smdplkrq, hbvczmrl)\\} \\). Since this maximum is attained at some point \\( qzxwvtnp_{1} \\neq vzxctmvb \\), we have \\( hlqtnvmc<nklfjxqw\\left(vzxctmvb\\right) \\). Choose \\( zpjrmgdw \\) so that \\( hlqtnvmc<zpjrmgdw<nklfjxqw\\left(vzxctmvb\\right) \\) and let \\( (fjdksnwr, ghtplvcs) \\) be an interval such that\n\\[\nnklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)>zpjrmgdw \\quad \\text { for } fjdksnwr<qzxwvtnp<ghtplvcs .\n\\]\n\nFinally let \\( rqsndjpl \\) be a bound for \\(|qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp)|\\) on \\([0,1]\\). Then\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)^{kzmxwyvl} d qzxwvtnp=\\left(\\int_{0}^{smdplkrq}+\\int_{smdplkrq}^{kzmxwyvl}+\\int_{kzmxwyvl}^{ghtplvcs}+\\int_{ghtplvcs}^{hbvczmrl}+\\int_{hbvczmrl}^{1}\\right) qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)^{kzmxwyvl} d qzxwvtnp .\n\\]\n\nNow\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left|\\int_{0}^{smdplkrq}+\\int_{hbvczmrl}^{1}\\right| \\leq rqsndjpl\\, hlqtnvmc^{kzmxwyvl}, \\\\\n\\int_{smdplkrq}^{kzmxwyvl}+\\int_{ghtplvcs}^{hbvczmrl} \\geq 0,\n\\end{array}\n\\]\nand\n\\[\n\\int_{fjdksnwr}^{ghtplvcs} \\geq \\alpha zpjrmgdw^{kzmxwyvl}(ghtplvcs-fjdksnwr) .\n\\]\n\nHence\n\\[\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{0}^{1} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)^{kzmxwyvl} d qzxwvtnp & \\geq \\alpha zpjrmgdw^{kzmxwyvl}(ghtplvcs-fjdksnwr)-rqsndjpl\\, hlqtnvmc^{kzmxwyvl} \\\\\n& =\\left[\\alpha(ghtplvcs-fjdksnwr)-rqsndjpl\\left(\\frac{hlqtnvmc}{zpjrmgdw}\\right)^{kzmxwyvl}\\right] zpjrmgdw^{kzmxwyvl} .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\]\n\nSince \\( hlqtnvmc / zpjrmgdw<1 \\), this is positive for all sufficiently large \\( kzmxwyvl \\), and the lemma is proved.\n\nWe now attack the original question. If \\( qjeksbfl \\) is positive at any point, it is (by continuity) positive at some rational point, say \\( ldkfjqwe / vxbnsrtm \\) where \\( ldkfjqwe \\) and \\( vxbnsrtm \\) are integers, \\( 0 \\leq ldkfjqwe \\leq vxbnsrtm \\neq 0 \\). Take \\( nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)=qzxwvtnp^{ldkfjqwe}(1-qzxwvtnp)^{4} ldkfjqwe \\) in the lemma. Evidently \\( nklfjxqw \\) is non-negative on \\([0,1]\\) and it is easily checked that it attains its maximum at the unique point \\( ldkfjqwe / vxbnsrtm \\). Hence the lemma asserts\n\\[\n\\int_{0}^{1} qjeksbfl(qzxwvtnp) nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)^{kzmxwyvl} d qzxwvtnp>0\n\\]\nfor sufficiently large \\( kzmxwyvl \\). But \\( \\{nklfjxqw(qzxwvtnp)\\}^{kzmxwyvl} \\) is a polynomial for any choice of \\( kzmxwyvl \\), so the hypothesis on \\( qjeksbfl \\) implies that the integral is zero. This contradiction shows that \\( qjeksbfl \\) is nowhere positive.\n\nThe same argument shows that \\( -qjeksbfl \\) is nowhere positive. Therefore \\( qjeksbfl \\) is everywhere zero.\n\nRemark. It was reported by the paper grader that no contestant made any significant progress with this problem except by using either the Weierstrass theorem or the theory of Fourier series."
    },
    "kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $G$ be a compact, second–countable Lie group and let $\\mu$ be its normalized Haar probability measure.  \nFor every finite–dimensional irreducible unitary representation $(\\pi,V_{\\pi})$ of $G$ define the (operator-valued) Fourier coefficient of a continuous function $f:G\\to\\mathbb C$ by  \n\\[\n\\widehat f(\\pi)\\;:=\\;\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\pi(g)\\,d\\mu(g)\\quad\\in\\operatorname{End}(V_{\\pi}).\n\\]\n\nSuppose that a continuous function $f:G\\to\\mathbb C$ satisfies  \n\\[\n\\widehat f(\\pi)=0\\qquad\\text{for every irreducible unitary representation }\\pi\\text{ of }G.\n\\]\n\nProve that $f\\equiv 0$ on $G$.",
      "solution": "Step 1.  Peter–Weyl and the precise normalisation.  \nFor each irreducible $(\\pi,V_{\\pi})$ fix an orthonormal basis $\\{e_{1},\\dots ,e_{d}\\}$ in $V_{\\pi}$, where $d=\\dim V_{\\pi}$.  The associated matrix coefficients  \n\\[\nm^{\\pi}_{ij}(g)\\;:=\\;\\langle \\pi(g)e_{j},e_{i}\\rangle ,\\qquad 1\\le i,j\\le d,\n\\]\nsatisfy  \n\\[\n\\int_{G} \\overline{m^{\\pi}_{ij}(g)}\\,m^{\\rho}_{kl}(g)\\,d\\mu(g)\n     \\;=\\;\\frac{1}{d}\\,\\delta_{\\pi\\rho}\\,\\delta_{ik}\\,\\delta_{jl}.\n\\]\nHence the rescaled family  \n\\[\n\\Bigl\\{\\sqrt{\\dim V_{\\pi}}\\;m^{\\pi}_{ij}\\Bigr\\}_{\\pi,i,j}\n\\]\nis an {\\em orthonormal} basis of $L^{2}(G,\\mu)$ and its complex linear span, denoted $\\mathscr M_{0}$, is uniformly dense in $C(G)$.\n\nStep 2.  Translating the hypothesis into orthogonality.  \nBecause $\\widehat f(\\pi)=0$ we have, for every $1\\le i,j\\le\\dim V_{\\pi}$,\n\\[\n0=\\bigl(\\widehat f(\\pi)e_{j},e_{i}\\bigr)\n  =\\int_{G} f(g)\\,m^{\\pi}_{ij}(g)\\,d\\mu(g).\n\\]\nConsequently\n\\[\n\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\varphi(g)\\,d\\mu(g)=0\n      \\qquad\\forall\\,\\varphi\\in\\mathscr M_{0}.\n\\tag{$\\ast$}\n\\]\n\nStep 3.  Density of $\\mathscr M_{0}$ forces $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}=0$.  \nFix $\\varepsilon>0$.  By uniform density there exists $\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\in\\mathscr M_{0}$ such that  \n\\[\n\\lVert f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\rVert_{\\infty}<\\varepsilon .\n\\]\nCompute\n\\[\n\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}^{2}\n  =\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\overline{f(g)}\\,d\\mu(g)\n  =\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\overline{\\bigl[f(g)-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}(g)\\bigr]}\\,d\\mu(g)\n   +\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\overline{\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}(g)}\\,d\\mu(g).\n\\]\n\nThe second integral vanishes: indeed $\\overline{\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}}\\in\\mathscr M_{0}$ because  \n\\[\n\\overline{m^{\\pi}_{ij}}=m^{\\pi^{\\ast}}_{ji},\n\\]\nand $(\\pi^{\\ast},V_{\\pi}^{\\ast})$ is again an irreducible unitary representation of $G$.  Hence $\\overline{\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}}\\in\\mathscr M_{0}$ and $(\\ast)$ applies.\n\nFor the first integral use Cauchy–Schwarz:\n\\[\n\\Bigl|\\int_{G} f\\,\\overline{(f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon})}\\,d\\mu\\Bigr|\n   \\le\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}\\,\\lVert f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\rVert_{2}\n   \\le\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}\\,\\lVert f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\rVert_{\\infty}\n   <\\varepsilon\\,\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}.\n\\]\nThus\n\\[\n0\\le\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}^{2}<\\varepsilon\\,\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}.\n\\]\nIf $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}\\neq 0$ we divide to obtain $0<\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}<\\varepsilon$, contradicting the arbitrariness of $\\varepsilon$.  Therefore $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}=0$.\n\nStep 4.  From $L^{2}$–vanishing to pointwise vanishing.  \nSuppose there exists $g_{0}\\in G$ with $f(g_{0})\\neq 0$.  By continuity there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $g_{0}$ and $\\delta>0$ such that $|f(g)|>\\delta$ for all $g\\in U$.  Then  \n\\[\n\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}^{2}=\\int_{G} |f(g)|^{2}\\,d\\mu(g)\\ge\\delta^{2}\\,\\mu(U)>0,\n\\]\ncontradicting $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}=0$.  Hence no such $g_{0}$ exists and $f\\equiv 0$.\n\nTherefore $f(g)=0$ for every $g\\in G$.",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T19:09:31.509246",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "• Dimension/Variables: The problem moves from the interval \\([-1,1]\\) to an arbitrary compact Lie group, introducing infinitely many non-commuting variables inherent in the group’s coordinates.  \n• Additional Structures: Instead of Legendre polynomials, the test functions are all matrix coefficients of all irreducible representations of \\(G\\); solving the problem demands knowledge of representation theory and harmonic analysis on groups.  \n• Theoretical Depth: The solution hinges on the Peter–Weyl theorem, a far deeper result than the classical Weierstrass approximation used in the original.  One must understand Haar measure, unitary representations, and completeness of matrix coefficients.  \n• Interacting Concepts: Functional analysis (Hilbert spaces, orthogonality, \\(L^{2}\\)-density), group theory (irreducible representations), and approximation theory interact; the argument melds operator-valued Fourier transforms with uniform approximation.  \n• Increased Steps: Establishing orthogonality for every matrix coefficient, invoking density, transferring \\(L^{2}\\)-nullity to uniform nullity, and finally to pointwise nullity require several non-trivial transitions, each absent from the original problem.\n\nThese layers make the enhanced variant substantially more complex and sophisticated than both the original moment problem and its Legendre-polynomial kernel form."
      }
    },
    "original_kernel_variant": {
      "question": "Let $G$ be a compact, second–countable Lie group and let $\\mu$ be its normalized Haar probability measure.  \nFor every finite–dimensional irreducible unitary representation $(\\pi,V_{\\pi})$ of $G$ define the (operator-valued) Fourier coefficient of a continuous function $f:G\\to\\mathbb C$ by  \n\\[\n\\widehat f(\\pi)\\;:=\\;\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\pi(g)\\,d\\mu(g)\\quad\\in\\operatorname{End}(V_{\\pi}).\n\\]\n\nSuppose that a continuous function $f:G\\to\\mathbb C$ satisfies  \n\\[\n\\widehat f(\\pi)=0\\qquad\\text{for every irreducible unitary representation }\\pi\\text{ of }G.\n\\]\n\nProve that $f\\equiv 0$ on $G$.",
      "solution": "Step 1.  Peter–Weyl and the precise normalisation.  \nFor each irreducible $(\\pi,V_{\\pi})$ fix an orthonormal basis $\\{e_{1},\\dots ,e_{d}\\}$ in $V_{\\pi}$, where $d=\\dim V_{\\pi}$.  The associated matrix coefficients  \n\\[\nm^{\\pi}_{ij}(g)\\;:=\\;\\langle \\pi(g)e_{j},e_{i}\\rangle ,\\qquad 1\\le i,j\\le d,\n\\]\nsatisfy  \n\\[\n\\int_{G} \\overline{m^{\\pi}_{ij}(g)}\\,m^{\\rho}_{kl}(g)\\,d\\mu(g)\n     \\;=\\;\\frac{1}{d}\\,\\delta_{\\pi\\rho}\\,\\delta_{ik}\\,\\delta_{jl}.\n\\]\nHence the rescaled family  \n\\[\n\\Bigl\\{\\sqrt{\\dim V_{\\pi}}\\;m^{\\pi}_{ij}\\Bigr\\}_{\\pi,i,j}\n\\]\nis an {\\em orthonormal} basis of $L^{2}(G,\\mu)$ and its complex linear span, denoted $\\mathscr M_{0}$, is uniformly dense in $C(G)$.\n\nStep 2.  Translating the hypothesis into orthogonality.  \nBecause $\\widehat f(\\pi)=0$ we have, for every $1\\le i,j\\le\\dim V_{\\pi}$,\n\\[\n0=\\bigl(\\widehat f(\\pi)e_{j},e_{i}\\bigr)\n  =\\int_{G} f(g)\\,m^{\\pi}_{ij}(g)\\,d\\mu(g).\n\\]\nConsequently\n\\[\n\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\varphi(g)\\,d\\mu(g)=0\n      \\qquad\\forall\\,\\varphi\\in\\mathscr M_{0}.\n\\tag{$\\ast$}\n\\]\n\nStep 3.  Density of $\\mathscr M_{0}$ forces $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}=0$.  \nFix $\\varepsilon>0$.  By uniform density there exists $\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\in\\mathscr M_{0}$ such that  \n\\[\n\\lVert f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\rVert_{\\infty}<\\varepsilon .\n\\]\nCompute\n\\[\n\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}^{2}\n  =\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\overline{f(g)}\\,d\\mu(g)\n  =\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\overline{\\bigl[f(g)-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}(g)\\bigr]}\\,d\\mu(g)\n   +\\int_{G} f(g)\\,\\overline{\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}(g)}\\,d\\mu(g).\n\\]\n\nThe second integral vanishes: indeed $\\overline{\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}}\\in\\mathscr M_{0}$ because  \n\\[\n\\overline{m^{\\pi}_{ij}}=m^{\\pi^{\\ast}}_{ji},\n\\]\nand $(\\pi^{\\ast},V_{\\pi}^{\\ast})$ is again an irreducible unitary representation of $G$.  Hence $\\overline{\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}}\\in\\mathscr M_{0}$ and $(\\ast)$ applies.\n\nFor the first integral use Cauchy–Schwarz:\n\\[\n\\Bigl|\\int_{G} f\\,\\overline{(f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon})}\\,d\\mu\\Bigr|\n   \\le\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}\\,\\lVert f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\rVert_{2}\n   \\le\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}\\,\\lVert f-\\varphi_{\\varepsilon}\\rVert_{\\infty}\n   <\\varepsilon\\,\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}.\n\\]\nThus\n\\[\n0\\le\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}^{2}<\\varepsilon\\,\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}.\n\\]\nIf $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}\\neq 0$ we divide to obtain $0<\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}<\\varepsilon$, contradicting the arbitrariness of $\\varepsilon$.  Therefore $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}=0$.\n\nStep 4.  From $L^{2}$–vanishing to pointwise vanishing.  \nSuppose there exists $g_{0}\\in G$ with $f(g_{0})\\neq 0$.  By continuity there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $g_{0}$ and $\\delta>0$ such that $|f(g)|>\\delta$ for all $g\\in U$.  Then  \n\\[\n\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}^{2}=\\int_{G} |f(g)|^{2}\\,d\\mu(g)\\ge\\delta^{2}\\,\\mu(U)>0,\n\\]\ncontradicting $\\lVert f\\rVert_{2}=0$.  Hence no such $g_{0}$ exists and $f\\equiv 0$.\n\nTherefore $f(g)=0$ for every $g\\in G$.",
      "metadata": {
        "replaced_from": "harder_variant",
        "replacement_date": "2025-07-14T01:37:45.426030",
        "was_fixed": false,
        "difficulty_analysis": "• Dimension/Variables: The problem moves from the interval \\([-1,1]\\) to an arbitrary compact Lie group, introducing infinitely many non-commuting variables inherent in the group’s coordinates.  \n• Additional Structures: Instead of Legendre polynomials, the test functions are all matrix coefficients of all irreducible representations of \\(G\\); solving the problem demands knowledge of representation theory and harmonic analysis on groups.  \n• Theoretical Depth: The solution hinges on the Peter–Weyl theorem, a far deeper result than the classical Weierstrass approximation used in the original.  One must understand Haar measure, unitary representations, and completeness of matrix coefficients.  \n• Interacting Concepts: Functional analysis (Hilbert spaces, orthogonality, \\(L^{2}\\)-density), group theory (irreducible representations), and approximation theory interact; the argument melds operator-valued Fourier transforms with uniform approximation.  \n• Increased Steps: Establishing orthogonality for every matrix coefficient, invoking density, transferring \\(L^{2}\\)-nullity to uniform nullity, and finally to pointwise nullity require several non-trivial transitions, each absent from the original problem.\n\nThese layers make the enhanced variant substantially more complex and sophisticated than both the original moment problem and its Legendre-polynomial kernel form."
      }
    }
  },
  "checked": true,
  "problem_type": "proof"
}