This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
Thanks for this big help mate, just need to compute when the numerator, n, is a perfect and at the same time the denominator, 3n−2, is also a perfect square so that an is a rational number. Found out that only when n=1,9, and 121 works, so the sum is 131. I don't have a clue for when 3n−2 is a perfect square when n is a perfect square so I just tried all perfect squares less than 1000.
@Jason Gomez
–
I did some simplifications and checked using a program all the 1000 possibilities and tother that the ones mentioned none of the others looked rational(I had to manually check all, so I could have made a mistake)
@Jason Gomez
–
Still it was wrong of me to presume that an will only be rational iffn and 3n−2 are perfect squares. Thanks for all the help mate, really appreciated. :)
@Ryan Merino
–
If you do assume both have to be squares though,a little modular arithmetic taken against four, will lead to the conclusion that n is of the form 4k+1
@Ryan Merino
–
I recently thought of this back again and found out that your hypothesis that both numerator and denominator are both squares is indeed true, the only factor n and 3n−2 can share is two, putting n=k2,2k2 and 3n−2=m2,2m2 for the two conditions where they share no factor and share a two, the equation becomes
3k2−2=m2
And 3k2−1=m2
Doing modular arithmetic with respect to three on both sides knowing that m2mod3=0,1, it’s easy to show that the second doesn’t satisfy ( it gives 2mod3 on LHS) and therefore only the case where the numbers share no common factors can be taken
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Log in to reply
Hopefully you can continue from here( I have no clue on how to find out when an is rational, or maybe I haven’t put enough thought on that part)
Log in to reply
Thanks for this big help mate, just need to compute when the numerator, n, is a perfect and at the same time the denominator, 3n−2, is also a perfect square so that an is a rational number. Found out that only when n=1,9, and 121 works, so the sum is 131. I don't have a clue for when 3n−2 is a perfect square when n is a perfect square so I just tried all perfect squares less than 1000.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
an will only be rational iff n and 3n−2 are perfect squares. Thanks for all the help mate, really appreciated. :)
Still it was wrong of me to presume thatLog in to reply
n is of the form 4k+1
If you do assume both have to be squares though,a little modular arithmetic taken against four, will lead to the conclusion thatn and 3n−2 can share is two, putting n=k2,2k2 and 3n−2=m2,2m2 for the two conditions where they share no factor and share a two, the equation becomes
I recently thought of this back again and found out that your hypothesis that both numerator and denominator are both squares is indeed true, the only factor3k2−2=m2 And 3k2−1=m2
Doing modular arithmetic with respect to three on both sides knowing that m2mod3=0,1, it’s easy to show that the second doesn’t satisfy ( it gives 2mod3 on LHS) and therefore only the case where the numbers share no common factors can be taken
Log in to reply
@Jason Gomez Thank you mate, now it's all clear to me. :)