In Can Someone Explain?, Ajala Singh asked if there was a reason why the following equation is true.
\[ 123, 456, 789 \times 9 = 1, 111, 111, 111 . \]
Given that the RHS has 10 1's, the Rule of divisibility of 9 tells us that the equation cannot be correct. I then tried to figure out what the actual equation should have been, and stumbled upon 2 interesting possibilities
1) 123,456,789×9=1,111,111,101.
Furthermore, this generalizes to other bases. We have
123123412345×23=×34=×45=101311014111015
Can someone explain why?
2) 12,345,679×9=111,111,111.
Furthermore, this generalizes to other bases. We have
134124512356×34=×45=×56=111411115111116
Can someone explain why?
#NumberTheory
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
1) Let the base be r. Write the multiplicand as an expansion in powers of r' s (i.e. (1234)5=1.53+2.52+3.5+4) and the multiplier as r−1. Collect terms together.
2) Proceed by similar method.
1) 123...(n−1)n×n−1n
=123...(n−1)n×n−123...(n−1)n×1
=123...(n−1)0n−123...(n−1)n
Note that the first number has one more digit than the second number.
2−1=1,3−2=1,...(n−2)−(n−3)=1
However, 0<(n-1). Thus, we move 1 from (n-1) to add n to 0. n-(n-1)=1 but (n-1-1)-(n-1)=0. In other words,
(01)[b]r((n−1)0)−((n−2)(n−1))
Thus we have 11...101.
2) Writing this again is too tiring, so i'll try to connect this to the 'lemma' above.
We divide 10 on both sides. We get 123...(n−2).(n−1)n×n−1n
=1...10.1 (there are (n-2) 1's in 1...1.)
Now, we add 0.1 to 123...(n−2).(n−1)n.
123...(n−3)(n−2).(n−1)n+0.1n=123...(n−3)(n−1).n
We get 123...(n−3)(n−1).n×n−1n
=1...10.1n+[0.1n×(n−1)]
(and ooh I see light!)
=1...10.1n+0.(n−1)n
=1...11n
Yes! Q.E.D.
Log in to reply
I believe you are referring to
123…(n−1)n
(Toggle LaTeX!) And I think your solution is right. Would it work the same for n > 10?
Log in to reply
Yes I was. Thanks!
It would still work for n>10 as the base will change and more numbers are allowed. You can read the wiki for info.
Anyway, thanks!
(n-1) in base n is (10-1)base n
((1b^(b-1))+ (2b^(b-2)) +…+ (b-1) (b^0)) (b-1)
= (1b^b) + (2b^(b-1))+ (3b^(b-2)) +…+ (b-1) (b^1) + 0b^0) - (1b^(b-1))+ (2b^(b-2)) +…+ (b-2) (b^1) + (b-1) (b^0)
= (1b^b+1b^(b-1)+1b^(b-2)+…+ 0(b^1) + (1b^0)
The given equation is incorrect because 123456789*9=1111111101 not 1111111111.
Log in to reply
Yes, the first given equation is incorrect, and I explained why.
I mentioned that even though this equation is incorrect, it led me on to discover 2 other interesting patterns, as described later in the note. Both Abhishek and Aloysius have provided great explanations above, and I encourage you to read them.