Show that the numbers can never be the terms (not necessarily consecutive) of a single Arithmetic Progression.
Generalized Form: Show that the numbers can never be the terms (not necessarily consecutive) of a single Arithmetic Progression, where are three distinct prime numbers.
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
Suppose ai=2,aj=3,ak=5 are terms in an arithmetic sequence {an} with common difference d, where i,j,k are not necessarily consecutive. Then
2=a1+(i−1)d,3=a1+(j−1)d and ak=a1+(k−1)d.
We can then subtract these equations from one another successively to find that
3−2=(j−i)d and 5−3=(k−j)d
⟹j−ik−j=3−25−3=15+10−6−3.
But then the LHS of this last equation is rational and the RHS irrational, and so our initial assumption that 2,3,5 are terms of the same AP is false.
For the generalized form with primes p,q,r the RHS of the last equation would become
q−pr−q=q−p1(rq+rp−pq−q),
which is, as before, irrational, (since none of rq,rp,pq are perfect squares, nor do the roots cancel).
(Note that they cannot be terms of the same geometric progression either.)
Log in to reply
Greetings, Brian! Just to play the devil's advocate: How do you know that 15+10−6 isn't rational?
Log in to reply
The most rational reasoning is to use the standard method of rationalising and finding a contradiction. This should help
Greetings, Otto! Yes, I was afraid that someone was going to ask that. I was just about to write up a proof, but I notice now that the approach I was going to use is the same as in Sualeh's link, so I think that reference will suffice. :)
Log in to reply