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
I believe that this is equivalent to finding an n such that the fractional parts of nlog3 and nlog7 are both smaller than log1.1. (All logs are base 10.)
It seems like this should be no trouble, since log3 and log7 are both irrational...but I haven't yet written down anything rigorous. Just thought this would help.
Yes, it easily follows from the fact that given any irrational number I and an arbitrarily small positive real r, there exist integers x,y such that
1>x+Iy>1−r.
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
Very very nice problem :D
Hint: Rewrite the numbers as (5−2)n and (5+2)n and use binomial theorem :D
Log in to reply
YAY! ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC! That's exactly what I was looking for @Patrick Corn @Mursalin Habib @Sreejato Bhattacharya! Please write more! I'm really happy that somebody's got it. :D
I don't see how the Binomial Theorem helps. Can you explain your solution?
Log in to reply
Expand the first few cases
Log in to reply
Look at it again. It is no coincidence that those two numbers have a mean of 5. :D
Lol i literally wrote a python program to try to figure this out I got n = 568, 1136, 2098, 2666, 2905, 4196, 4435, ...
Log in to reply
That's awesome!
Log in to reply
thanks
Check out my new problem!
Nice question/ thing to prove. I'll attempt it. BTW, do you know the proof?
Log in to reply
Yeah dude! This is part of a collection of proof problems I'm collecting from various olympiads. It's gonna be so boss once I've finished. :D
Log in to reply
Finn, im eagerly waiting for you cool approach! :)
Log in to reply
I believe that this is equivalent to finding an n such that the fractional parts of nlog3 and nlog7 are both smaller than log1.1. (All logs are base 10.)
It seems like this should be no trouble, since log3 and log7 are both irrational...but I haven't yet written down anything rigorous. Just thought this would help.
Log in to reply
Yes, it easily follows from the fact that given any irrational number I and an arbitrarily small positive real r, there exist integers x,y such that 1>x+Iy>1−r.
Or alternatively, one-liner:
:P
Log in to reply
Voted up for the Sonnhard reference :)
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Dr Sonnhard Graubner?
Do you knowLog in to reply
Log in to reply
These two links will give you a fairly good idea of how he posts. ;)
You need to log in to your AoPS account.Log in to reply
I see what you're saying, but there's a really cool approach that doesn't use logarithms at all. :D