IMO 2024 Problem 1

For each real number $\alpha$, define

IMO 2024 Problem 1

Proposed by: -
Verified: yes
Verdicts: PASS + PASS
Solve time: 5m00s

Problem

Determine all real numbers $\alpha$ such that, for every positive integer $n$, the integer

$$ \lfloor \alpha \rfloor + \lfloor 2\alpha \rfloor + \dots +\lfloor n\alpha \rfloor $$

is a multiple of $n$. (Note that $\lfloor z \rfloor$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $z$. For example, $\lfloor -\pi \rfloor = -4$ and $\lfloor 2 \rfloor = \lfloor 2.9 \rfloor = 2$.)

Problem Understanding

For each real number $\alpha$, define

$$S_n(\alpha)=\sum_{k=1}^n \lfloor k\alpha\rfloor .$$

The problem asks for all real numbers $\alpha$ such that

$$n\mid S_n(\alpha)$$

for every positive integer $n$.

The condition must hold simultaneously for all $n$, so even a small structural restriction on $\alpha$ can become decisive. The floor function suggests separating $\alpha$ into its integer and fractional parts.

Write

$$\alpha=m+\beta, \qquad m\in\mathbb Z, \qquad 0\le \beta<1.$$

Then

$$\lfloor k\alpha\rfloor = \lfloor km+k\beta\rfloor = km+\lfloor k\beta\rfloor,$$

because $km$ is an integer. Hence

$$S_n(\alpha) = m\sum_{k=1}^n k+\sum_{k=1}^n \lfloor k\beta\rfloor = m\frac{n(n+1)}2+\sum_{k=1}^n \lfloor k\beta\rfloor.$$

The problem becomes: determine all pairs $(m,\beta)$ for which

$$n\mid m\frac{n(n+1)}2+\sum_{k=1}^n \lfloor k\beta\rfloor \qquad\text{for every }n\ge1.$$

The integer part contributes a simple quadratic expression. The difficulty lies entirely in the fractional part.

Key Observations

If $\beta=0$, then $\alpha$ is an integer and

$$S_n(\alpha)=m\frac{n(n+1)}2.$$

The divisibility condition becomes

$$n\mid m\frac{n(n+1)}2.$$

After dividing by $n$,

$$\frac{S_n(\alpha)}n=m\frac{n+1}2.$$

Taking $n=2$ gives

$$\frac32 m\in\mathbb Z,$$

so $m$ must be even. Every even integer works, because if $m=2t$, then

$$S_n(\alpha)=tn(n+1),$$

which is divisible by $n$.

Thus the main task is to prove that $\beta$ cannot be positive.

The previous flawed proof attempted to choose

$$N=\left\lfloor \frac1\beta\right\rfloor,$$

and incorrectly claimed that $N\beta<1$ always holds. This fails when $1/\beta$ is an integer. For example, if $\beta=\tfrac13$, then $N=3$ and $N\beta=1$.

A correct argument must avoid this pitfall entirely.

The cleanest way is to choose the unique positive integer $N$ satisfying

$$N\beta<1\le (N+1)\beta.$$

Such an $N$ always exists when $0<\beta<1$. Indeed, let

$$N=\left\lceil \frac1\beta\right\rceil-1.$$

Then

$$N<\frac1\beta\le N+1,$$

and multiplying by $\beta>0$ gives

$$N\beta<1\le (N+1)\beta.$$

This formulation handles both cases, whether $1/\beta$ is integral or not.

Solution

Assume that $\alpha$ satisfies the required divisibility condition for every positive integer $n$.

Write

$$\alpha=m+\beta, \qquad m\in\mathbb Z, \qquad 0\le\beta<1.$$

As established earlier,

$$S_n(\alpha) = m\frac{n(n+1)}2+\sum_{k=1}^n \lfloor k\beta\rfloor.$$

We first prove that $\beta=0$.

Suppose instead that

$$0<\beta<1.$$

Choose

$$N=\left\lceil \frac1\beta\right\rceil-1.$$

Then

$$N\beta<1\le (N+1)\beta.$$

Since $\beta<1$, we also have

$$(N+1)\beta<2.$$

Indeed,

$$N+1=\left\lceil \frac1\beta\right\rceil\le \frac1\beta+1,$$

hence

$$(N+1)\beta\le 1+\beta<2.$$

Therefore

$$1\le (N+1)\beta<2.$$

For every integer $k$ with $1\le k\le N$,

$$0\le k\beta\le N\beta<1,$$

so

$$\lfloor k\beta\rfloor=0.$$

Also,

$$1\le (N+1)\beta<2,$$

so

$$\lfloor (N+1)\beta\rfloor=1.$$

Consequently,

$$\sum_{k=1}^N \lfloor k\beta\rfloor=0,$$

and

$$\sum_{k=1}^{N+1} \lfloor k\beta\rfloor=1.$$

Now apply the divisibility condition for $n=N$.

We obtain

$$S_N(\alpha)=m\frac{N(N+1)}2.$$

Since $N\mid S_N(\alpha)$,

$$N\mid m\frac{N(N+1)}2.$$

Dividing by the common factor $N$ gives

$$2\mid m(N+1).$$

Thus

$$m(N+1)$$

is even.

Next apply the divisibility condition for $n=N+1$.

Using

$$\sum_{k=1}^{N+1}\lfloor k\beta\rfloor=1,$$

we get

$$S_{N+1}(\alpha) = m\frac{(N+1)(N+2)}2+1.$$

Because $N+1\mid S_{N+1}(\alpha)$,

$$N+1 \mid m\frac{(N+1)(N+2)}2+1.$$

We now reduce the first term modulo $N+1$ carefully.

From the earlier conclusion that $m(N+1)$ is even, the integer

$$\frac{m(N+1)}2$$

is well defined. Hence

$$m\frac{(N+1)(N+2)}2 = (N+2)\cdot \frac{m(N+1)}2$$

is a multiple of $N+1$.

Therefore

$$S_{N+1}(\alpha)\equiv 1 \pmod{N+1}.$$

But the hypothesis says that $N+1\mid S_{N+1}(\alpha)$, so

$$1\equiv0\pmod{N+1}.$$

This implies

$$N+1=1,$$

which is impossible because $N\ge1$.

The contradiction shows that our assumption $0<\beta<1$ was false. Hence

$$\beta=0.$$

Thus $\alpha=m$ is an integer.

We now determine which integers work.

If $\alpha=m$, then

$$S_n(\alpha) = m\frac{n(n+1)}2.$$

The condition

$$n\mid S_n(\alpha)$$

becomes

$$n\mid m\frac{n(n+1)}2.$$

After dividing by $n$,

$$m\frac{n+1}2\in\mathbb Z \qquad\text{for every }n\ge1.$$

Taking $n=2$ gives

$$\frac32 m\in\mathbb Z,$$

so $m$ is even.

Conversely, if $m=2t$ for some integer $t$, then

$$S_n(\alpha) = 2t\cdot \frac{n(n+1)}2 = tn(n+1),$$

which is divisible by $n$ for every positive integer $n$.

Hence the required real numbers are exactly the even integers:

$$\boxed{\alpha\in 2\mathbb Z}.$$

Verification of Key Steps

The crucial construction is the choice

$$N=\left\lceil \frac1\beta\right\rceil-1.$$

This avoids the defect in the earlier argument. Consider the problematic example

$$\beta=\frac13.$$

Then

$$\left\lceil \frac1\beta\right\rceil = \lceil 3\rceil = 3,$$

so

$$N=2.$$

Indeed,

$$N\beta=\frac23<1, \qquad (N+1)\beta=1.$$

Hence

$$\lfloor \beta\rfloor=\lfloor 2\beta\rfloor=0, \qquad \lfloor 3\beta\rfloor=1,$$

exactly as required.

The divisibility reduction for $n=N+1$ also requires care. The expression

$$m\frac{(N+1)(N+2)}2$$

is not automatically divisible by $N+1$. For example, if $m=1$ and $N=1$, then it equals $3$, which is not divisible by $2$.

The proof first derives

$$2\mid m(N+1),$$

from the case $n=N$. Only after establishing this parity condition do we write

$$m\frac{(N+1)(N+2)}2 = (N+2)\cdot \frac{m(N+1)}2,$$

where

$$\frac{m(N+1)}2$$

is now known to be an integer. This justifies the reduction modulo $N+1$ rigorously.

The contradiction step should also be checked numerically in a sample case. Take

$$\beta=\frac13.$$

Then $N=2$. The argument gives

$$\sum_{k=1}^2 \lfloor k\beta\rfloor=0, \qquad \sum_{k=1}^3 \lfloor k\beta\rfloor=1.$$

From $n=2$,

$$2\mid m\cdot\frac{2\cdot3}2=3m,$$

so $m$ is even.

From $n=3$,

$$3\mid m\cdot\frac{3\cdot4}2+1=6m+1.$$

Since $6m$ is divisible by $3$, this would force $3\mid1$, impossible.

The mechanism of the proof functions exactly as intended.

Alternative Approaches

Another approach begins with the congruences

$$S_n(\alpha)\equiv0\pmod n, \qquad S_{n+1}(\alpha)\equiv0\pmod{n+1}.$$

Since

$$S_{n+1}(\alpha)-S_n(\alpha)=\lfloor (n+1)\alpha\rfloor,$$

one can compare consecutive congruences and derive strong restrictions on the sequence $\lfloor n\alpha\rfloor$. After sufficient manipulation, the sequence is forced to behave like

$$2cn$$

for some integer $c$, leading again to the conclusion that $\alpha$ must be an even integer.

A different route separates rational and irrational values of $\alpha$. Writing

$$\lfloor k\alpha\rfloor=k\alpha-{k\alpha},$$

gives

$$S_n(\alpha) = \alpha\frac{n(n+1)}2-\sum_{k=1}^n {k\alpha}.$$

If $\alpha$ is irrational, the fractional parts ${k\alpha}$ are distributed through $[0,1)$, and the resulting fluctuations prevent the required divisibility pattern from holding for every $n$. If $\alpha$ is rational but not an integer, periodicity of the fractional parts produces contradictions for suitable choices of $n$. This approach is more conceptual but requires substantially more machinery than the direct elementary argument above.