Remember to use this editorial only when stuck, and not to copy-paste code from it. Please be respectful to the problem author and editorialist.
Submitting an official solution before solving the problem yourself is a bannable offence.
Author: zhouzixiang2004
Hint 1
Pure brute force should have a very hard time finding a solution. Try to get some intuition about what a valid
would look like.
Hint 2
Let
be its prime factorization. Rewrite
as
. For now, it seems hard to control both the left and right side if we consider varying
. Can we restrict the search space to make it easier?
Hint 3
For now, consider
such that every prime factor occurs only once (i.e.
).
Hint 4
We need
. Intuitively, the left side is almost always larger than the right side, especially since we cannot use
. How should the prime factors of
relate to each other if we want to keep
small?
Hint 5
We should consider using primes
such that
only contains small prime factors, e.g. only
and
.
Hint 6
Trying to find an
by hand is tedious and prone to only finding a large
. However, we are allowed to use computer assistance.
Hint 7
Write a recursive backtracking program that tries all
under
where
's prime factors
are all distinct and
only contains small prime factors. This should quickly find many large solutions for
. If we search for smaller
, we should be able to find two values of
with
digits beginning with
, which gets
of the points.
Hint 8
The key intuition needed is that we should consider using primes
such that
only contains small prime factors. Recall that we restricted ourselves to using only
earlier. Modify the recursive backtracking program to consider
where some prime factors occur more than once (
). We should be able to find a value of
with
digits beginning with
, which gets
of the points.
Answer
Two intended
for
of the points are
and
.
The intended
for full points is
.
Comments
Is there another valid value for
that's smaller than 
, and if there isn't, is there a proof that 
is the lowest odd 
that satisfies 
?
wagwan