If f : N ↦ N is a bijective function that satisfies
f ( x y ) = f ( x ) f ( y )
and f ( 2 0 1 5 ) = 4 2 , what is the minimum value of f ( 2 0 0 0 ) ?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
It takes a bit of work to justify that "prime numbers are mapped to prime numbers". Suppose that f ( p ) = a × b , then we have f ( f − 1 ( a ) × f − 1 ( b ) ) = f ( f − 1 ( a ) ) × f ( f − 1 ( b ) ) = a × b . However, we do not have p = f − 1 ( a ) × f − 1 ( b ) as a prime.
This problem seems like an extention to this year's UKMT Senior Maths Challenge P25 :)
Great observation Sir,How did this method strike you?Sheer observation or proper mathematical planning and experience?Really did learnt a lot of things from this one question.Also I have one query,as you can see,I know nothing about number theory and it's application,where can I learn number theory and methods.I really like this topic and it refreshes the brain.Thankyou. Calvin Lin
Log in to reply
The condition f ( x y ) = f ( x ) f ( y ) implies that f is determined by its values on the primes. In fact, since f is bijective, the function must induce a permutation of the primes. The rest is book-keeping.
I learned most of my number theory (and math in general) from Soviet texts, which were the best. Good "western style" books are "Introduction to the theory of numbers" by Hardy, Wright and "The higher arithmetic", a gentle introduction by Davenport.
Nicely explained! :) A similar problem had appeared in Pre-RMO 2014
Log in to reply
Oh haha wasn't aware of that.
I was trying to choose nice values for the problem.
if f ( 5 ) = 3 and f ( 2 ) = 2 , so we will have f ( 2 0 0 0 ) = f ( 5 ) 3 ∗ f ( 2 ) 4 = 4 3 2
Log in to reply
We cant map 2 to 2 since f ( 2 0 1 5 ) = 4 2 ... one of the prime factors of 2015, namely, 5, 13, or 31, must be mapped to 2 since 42 is even.
Why f(2)=4 is not possible ? Prime number have to be mapped with another prime number ?
Log in to reply
Suppose that f ( 2 ) = 4 . Since f is a bijective function, there exists a value of n such that f ( n ) = 2 . What can we say about n 2 and 2?
I think f(x)=Cx^a,C and a are constants, f(1)=1,we can get C=1,f(2015)=42,we can get a=(ln42)/(ln2015).
Log in to reply
I don't understand how you got to this results, but it is given that the function maps natural numbers (positive non 0 integers) to natural numbers, and I doubt that C*x^(ln(42)/ln(2015)) is a natural number for all x for any constant C, so I'm prettry sure it's wrong.
Thanks I got my problem now!
Sir, If the problem asked to find f ( 9 9 9 ) , what should i have done? \
Also please explain me the last two lines.
Log in to reply
You map 3 to 5, the smallest "available" prime... and what would you do with 37 to get the smallest possible product?
Log in to reply
Can't i map 3 with 2 ? Can i do 37 *1 ?
Log in to reply
@Priyanshu Mishra – Do we still require that f ( 2 0 1 5 ) = 4 2 ? In that case, 2 is already "taken" as a value.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – No, sir. I am asking you this question originally:
Let f be one-to-one function from the set of natural numbers to itself such that f ( x y ) = f ( x ) f ( y ) for all natural numbers x and y . Find the least possible value of f ( 9 9 9 ) .
Sir, please help me how to map the numbers.
Log in to reply
@Priyanshu Mishra – If we don't the constraint that f(2015) = 42, than the only (natural) value taken for f(x) is 1, because f(1) still equals 1. The prime factorzition of 999 is (3^3) * 37 so f(999) = (f(3)^4)*f(37), because this is proportional to higher power of f(3) than of f(37), our first priority is to minimze f(3), the smallest possible value of it is 2, so f(3) =2, than we minimize f(37), the next aviliable value is 3, so f(37) = 3 (if we minimize the value of f(999)), we can than say that f(999) = (2^4) *3 = 16 * 3 = 48. If we are given some other result though, like f(2001) = 66, than we have some limitation on the values of f(3) and f(37), and we need to eliminate some possible values.
This was fun! I'll try to fill in the bijection argument of Otto Bretscher's elegant proof. Let P be the set of primes.
We guess that primes will be mapped to primes, i.e. f − 1 ( P ) = P . We prove it by showing both inclusions via contradiction:
Let x = f − 1 ( p k ) ∈ f − 1 ( P ) and assume x is composite. By the above, f ( x ) = f ( f − 1 ( p k ) ) = p k is composite - contradiction!
Let x ∈ P and assume f ( x ) = y 1 y 2 was composite with y k > 1 . We know f is bijective and 1 is already taken, so we find x k > 1 with y k = f ( x k ) . By definition, we get f ( x ) = y 1 y 2 = f ( x 1 ) f ( x 2 ) = f ( x 1 x 2 ) f bijective ⇒ x = x 1 x 2 ∈ P ∣ Contradiction!
Factor 2 0 1 5 = 5 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ 1 3 and 4 2 = 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 7 . With the knowledge that primes are mapped to primes bijectively, we get f ( 2 0 1 5 ) = f ( 5 ) ⋅ f ( 1 1 ) ⋅ f ( 1 3 ) = 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 7 ⇒ f ( { 5 ; 1 1 ; 1 3 } ) = { 2 ; 3 ; 7 } , f ( 2 ) ∈ P ∖ { 2 ; 3 ; 7 } Finally we can estimate f ( 2 0 0 0 ) = f ( 2 4 ⋅ 5 3 ) = f ( 2 ) 4 ⋅ f ( 5 ) 3 ≤ 5 4 ⋅ 2 3 = 5 0 0 0
Rem.: To show the minimum really can be obtained, we need to construct one f with f ( 2 0 0 0 ) = 5 0 0 0 : x f ( x ) 1 1 2 5 3 1 1 5 2 7 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 7 p > 1 3 , p ∈ P p We extend f to the natural numbers by (1), i.e. for all composite x > 1 , we use (1) to calculate f ( x ) .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Great problem!
First note that f ( 1 ) = f ( 1 ⋅ 1 ) = f ( 1 ) ⋅ f ( 1 ) , so that f ( 1 ) = 1 . Composite numbers are mapped to composite numbers, and prime numbers are mapped to prime numbers.
f ( 2 0 1 5 ) = 4 2 tells us that 5, 13, and 31 are mapped to 2, 3, and 7, in some order.
Since 2 0 0 0 = 2 4 ⋅ 5 3 we need to map 2 and 5 to the smallest possible prime values, namely, f ( 5 ) = 2 (see the last paragraph) and f ( 2 ) = 5 , so that f ( 2 0 0 0 ) = 5 4 ⋅ 2 3 = 5 0 0 0