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
Weird. Is there any chance that the source of the supposed answer is incorrect? I see now how the "n - 16" and "194" answers arose; you are looking at 2∗3∗5∗7=210. This number definitely has 16 divisors, and thus there would be 210−16=194 positive integers less than 210 that would divide into 210 with non-zero remainder.
That's a thought, but the 'standard' interpretation of "positive integer m divides n with remainder" assumes that m≤n. Since it is stated that n has 4 distinct prime factors I think that we can assume that this standard interpretation is being applied, otherwise this prime information would have been largely irrelevant.
Haha Actually, there have been some gremlins lurking on Brilliant the past few days. Strange things have been happening when posting/editing solutions, causing format changes, symbols appearing out of nowhere, etc.. So yes, your unintended re-share could have been the work of gremlins. :)
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
Doesn't this depend on the multiplicity of the distinct prime factors?
Are we looking at n=p1a1∗p2a2∗p3a3∗p4a4 for distinct primes pk with exponents ak≥1?
If so, then the I think the desired number is ∏k=14(ak+1).
Log in to reply
Sorry, but I just realized I worded the question slightly wrong. Its supposed to be "with remainder". So for this case, its just n−∏k=14(ak+1)
But that's what I was thinking as well. Unfortunately, it's supposedly not the answer
Log in to reply
Weird. Is there any chance that the source of the supposed answer is incorrect? I see now how the "n - 16" and "194" answers arose; you are looking at 2∗3∗5∗7=210. This number definitely has 16 divisors, and thus there would be 210−16=194 positive integers less than 210 that would divide into 210 with non-zero remainder.
Do you know what the answer is supposed to be? That could offer a way to backtrack and figure out what they mean.
Log in to reply
What kind of answer is expected? Is it multiple choice, integer answer, short algebraic answer, or long proof form?
Also, what does N-16 and 194 refer to?
Log in to reply
Answers that we tried but weren't excepted
If it is "with remainder" is the answer infinity?
Log in to reply
That's a thought, but the 'standard' interpretation of "positive integer m divides n with remainder" assumes that m≤n. Since it is stated that n has 4 distinct prime factors I think that we can assume that this standard interpretation is being applied, otherwise this prime information would have been largely irrelevant.
I wasn't aware that I re-shared this. If I did, I certainly didn't intend to.
Gremlins?
Log in to reply
Haha Actually, there have been some gremlins lurking on Brilliant the past few days. Strange things have been happening when posting/editing solutions, causing format changes, symbols appearing out of nowhere, etc.. So yes, your unintended re-share could have been the work of gremlins. :)