Let's say we have all of the powers of from to . In other words, . What is the smallest number than you cannot make using at most one of each of these numbers? We can make , we can make , we can make , and in fact we can make all of the integers up to . In general, if we have the powers of up to , we can make all of the integers up to . Why is this? Is there a similar property for powers of , or ?
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
We could show it inductively, something along the lines of: Say that using each power of 2 up to 2n at most once allows us to make every number up to 2n+1−1. Then, when we add 2n+1 to the list of powers of 2 that we are allowed to use then every integer x where 2n+1+1≤x≤2n+2−1 can be made from the sum (x−2n+1)+2n+1. This is valid because 1≤x−2n+1≤2n+1−1 and we know that all of these numbers can be made using powers of 2 no greater than 2n at most once. Also, making the value 2n+1 itself is trivial. It can be shown to be true for some base case so we are done
Log in to reply
I actually had a different method in mind (kind of the same), but this is also really good. I hadn't though of it that way before.
You can change every number to base 2, so you get...
12,102,1002,...,100000...02(n0′s).
You can choose any number if you want or you don't want, so you get 2n+1 ways. But you can't choose nothing, so you get 2n+1−1 ways.
You know that no two numbers are the same, so there'll be 2n+1−1 numbers, which covers every number.
Powers of 3, 4, etc. doesn't have similar property as you can't make number 2 and other numbers from powers of 3, 4, etc.
Log in to reply
That's what I was thinking of. There actually is a similar property, but you need more numbers. Which ones?
Log in to reply
Powers of 3, 4, etc. have a pattern for that, but it's unpredictable, because there're huge gaps between ak and ak+1 for any non-negative integer a>2, k.
Log in to reply
3, the integers 1,2,3,4,5,9,10,11,27,28,29,⋯. It's not as pretty, but it works. In general, for any integer n, you need n0,n0+1,n0+2,n1,n1+1,n1+2,n2,n2+1,⋯ because you need to be able to make every place in the base n representation of every number be in the set 1,2,3,⋯,n−1. However, using this method, we overcount. So powers of 2 make a much more elegant framework, but you can do it with other integers.
You would need (for powers ofThis is what is know as binary code, which is used to represent everything that a computer does because the nth position of the 1 represents 2n, but 0 has no value. However, it is still significant as it shifts the positions of the 1's which have some value base 2. Also, to put it simply 1=on/pulse, 0=off/no pulse. Now I will prove that the code can be used to represent every value. It goes as follows: lets choose any value x. Now think of it as a piece of paper that you cut in half. Then you one of those pieces in half and so on, Numerically this is: 21 + 21 = 21 + 41 + 41 = 21 + 41 + 81 + 81 = ..... . This is true for 2n for all positive integers n, by repeating the argument. However, there sum is not infinite! - it stops at 1, which is why you always produce x-1 (i.e. 32+16+8+4+2+1 = 64 -1). To prove that it produces all the even numbers, it is easy to see that all even numbers are a sum of 2a + 2b because it is possible to divide both sides by 2 in each case. All you have to do to produce all the odd numbers is to add 1.