What is the largest integer that always divides n 5 − n , where n is any integer?
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.
what about n=1?
Log in to reply
Sorry for the delay in replying. When n=1, the expression = 0, which is still divisible by 2, 3, and 5 and therefore 30. Everything in the solution is still satisfied. Hope that helps.
If n is not divisible by p, Fermat's little theorem is equivalent to the statement that n ^(p − 1) − 1 is an integer multiple of p
What do this part of littles theorem mean?
Log in to reply
This is just a different form of the same theorem. If you divide my form by a , you will get your form. Please try to use Latex for your math formatting. It is so much easier to read. (It works in comments too)
As this problem is stated, ANY number will divide this equation (other than the limit taken as integer "X" tends towards zero or infinity as an imagined integer value!), as it does not state that the solution is required to be an integer!
n5-n = (n-2)(n-1)n(n+1)(n+2) +5(n-1)(n)(n+1). Clearly divisible by 5 and 3 consecutive integers hence 2x3x5 = 30. No need to awake FERMAT.
Log in to reply
You should put your method in as a separate solution. It is very cool.
Let n=3, then N**5 - N = 240; 240 is divisable by 60. 60 is larger than 30. Answer should be 60!
Log in to reply
The answer for n must "always" divide n 5 − n , but 60 will not divide it when n = 0 , ± 1 , ± 2
@Mark Morningstar Both "divisible by" and "evenly divisible by" imply that the result is an integer. Check any good (math?) dictionary or Google the expression and select a reputable source.
what if n=24 ?
Sorry! I got the right answer through a very naive and unsafe way.
First, I realized that if an integer B divides an integer A , then B also divides -A (the negative of A ). This way, I could think of positive n 's only, plus zero. Then, I enumerated the first few integers: 0, 1, 2, 3. From the question statement, I assumed that the answer should be one of the options. For n =zero, all options would do. For n =1, all options would do. For n =2, only 30 would do; this implies that 20, 60 and 90 would not. Still confirmed with n =3. So, the only possible solution, from those provided, is 30.
As I said, sorry! I know this is not a scientific approach. However, in this specific example, it worked!
I did a similar thing but was even more unsafe (also could be seen as “less safe”) by merely iterating the solutions for 1 and 2 and realizing that since 2 resulted in 30, higher numbers would not do. So I stopped short of your tests.
Agreed that it doesn’t “reason” it through. But with multiple choice answers reason isn’t always required and deduction by example can be sufficient.
Log in to reply
It can't be if one is asked to "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" as opposed just to "determine which...any old way you wish", but this would require some way of observing or accurately deducing what method the person being tested actually used. This would usually be done by requiring them to "show your work".
Agreed, and since this solution was possible in one's head in about 2 seconds, seems not our fault that it makes this a poorly designed multiple choice question.
even i do the same as you ,right if put n=-n then it become odd funtion
This is the right approach on a standardized test, unless you happen to already know and quickly remember a more general way.
That's an example of the limitations of standardized tests, but for people have have to take them (or like me, tutor them) it's a habit you have to have.
I did the exact same thing.
This is a scientific and mathematical approach of the empirical kind--solution by enumeration and deduction (or is that induction?). Nothing to apologize for unless the question insists you use or "apply" Fermat's Little Theorem--Oops! But it is helpful as a quick check on what the correct solution is.
But how would you discount 60 and 90 via this method?
Log in to reply
By telling it's only be divisible by 6 and 5 and not 15.
Log in to reply
but n^5 - n is always divisible by 15 if its divisible by 30
Log in to reply
@Darius B – Or by telling it's only divisible by 3 2 5.
No: 6 * 5 = 30 = 2 * 3 * 5 and 15 = 3 * 5 so any number divisible by 30 is certainly divisible by 15. The real answer is that our solution must work for every integer, including 2. But 2^5 - 2 = 30, which clearly can't be divisible by any answer but 30.
You are using the vertical line wrong. a|b means that a divides b, you used it the other way around. And that if its divisible by 30, its also divisible by 5 isnt just true for 30, but for 20, 60 and 90 too. Furthermore youve only proven that n^5-n is divisible by 5 for 0<=n<10, which i think does not mean that its divisible by 5 for any n.
Log in to reply
Wrong. If it's divisible by 5 it need not be divisible by 20 etc. Think of it. 6 is divisible by 2 but not 4.
Log in to reply
I said that if its divisible by 30,20,60 or 90 its also divisible by 5.
why not??? If for example, n=16, we have proved n^5 -n is divisible by 5 for n=6. therefore n^5 - n is divisible by 5 for n=16,26,36.........Therefore n^5 - n is divisible by 5 for ANY n. Read the solution carefully!!!
Log in to reply
I dont get that one "therefore n^5 - n is divisible by 5 for n=16,26,36...". Sorry for not seeing the obvious, could you please explain it to me?
Log in to reply
@Darius B – See, for example 2 squares end with 4. Therefore you see 12 squares also ends with 4.
Log in to reply
@Vishnu Kadiri – See, if n=26 then n-1 is divisible by 5. So 5 divides that expression for any n.
I used a much simpler method. If it works for ANY integer, it must work for 2. 2^5-2=30. That number is only divisible by 30, and none of the other choices - so the answer must be 30.
n5-n = n(n4-1) if n mod 5 = 0 then n5-n is divisible by 5. If n mod 5 <>0 then n4 mod 5 = 1 (it’s easy to check) then (n4 -1) mod 5 = 0. It’s divisible by 5. Then n5-n is always divisible by 5. n5-n = n(n-1)(n+1) (n2+1) But n(n-1) mod 2 = 0 And (n-1)n(n+1) mod 3 =0 . One of the terms is divisible by 3. Then n5-n is divisible by 2, 3 and 5. And logically by 30. Answer : 30
Duh! Chris Mitchell got it right. Anyone who has written multiple choice exams knows that the choices often supply a great deal of additional info.
This does not "apply FLT" and is much more complicated than just enumerating for n = 0 until at n = 2 we find n^5 - n = 30, so we know that none of the larger possible answers can be correct. So even as a check on a result calculated using FLT it isn't very good.
If you substitute 2 for n , the expression becomes 2 5 − 2 , which equals 3 0 . We can already see here that 3 0 is only divisible by one of the answer choices: 3 0 . And since the problem stated that n could be any integer, and we've found that only 3 0 satisfies n = 2 , then 3 0 must be the correct answer.
Which is good as a check on which answer is correct but doesn't satisfy the requirement that we were to "apply Fermat's Little Theorem." What you didn't know was that the last part of the question was left off:
Show Your Work:
And if your work didn't clearly indicate that you had applied FLT you would get a mark of 0 for the question; i.e., the objective was not to "get the right answer" but to clearly indicate that you could accurately apply FLT.
Log in to reply
🙄lol it didn't say we had to apply Fermat's Little Theorem. In the world of contest math, it almost always doesn't matter what method you use, as long as you get it correct (and this is a very contest math-y problem).
Correct but more complicated than necessary. A couple of earlier solutions show that further factoring results in a much simpler chain of reasoning.
And since our answer must be correct for "all integers" we can't "voluntary ignore the cases of 0 and 1"--and there's no need to: the expression computes to 0 for both and 30 divides 0 (as does every integer but 0).
Guys, you have to be kidding. Assuming there's at least one correct answer given, just substitute, n=2. The only answer that divides 30 is 30.
We are also told to "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" and assuming this is on a test where they can't check whether or not you did that is a cheat. If the intent is actually to see if you know how to apply FLT accurately any good teacher/prof would add:
Show Your Work
and if your work didn't show that you understood how to find the solution using FLT you would get a mark of 0--or perhaps 1/2 if half the mark(s) are for getting (maybe even guessing) the correct answer without doing it in the way specified.
Clearly, your work, " just substitute, n=2. The only answer that divides 30 is 30.", shows you didn't "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" and you get a mark of 0 for this question. So who's kidding now?
if n = 2; then n5 - n = 30.
So 30 is the answer.
But this doesn't "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" as requested. Showing that one can guess the correct answer (or, as in this case, even be sure of it) without doing what was requested is a cheat. Please see my more detailed reply to Arthur Marcuss and others above.
There's not always anything particularly Brilliant about disobeying instructions. If you're in a marathon and hire a taxi to take you to the finish line will you have won? You did get to the right place much faster than anyone else?
But, the answer, 30, doesn’t work where n=1. Therefore, isn’t the answer actually 1?
The expression reduces to 0 when n = 1, and 30 divides 0.
n 5 − n is 30 when n = 2 and 30 is the only of answers which divides 30 so I conclude that if any of the answers work for all integers, it has to be 30.
Your conclusion is correct but doesn't "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" as requested so the method of arriving at the conclusion is incorrect. So, although useful as a check it isn't a valid solution to the problem--which clearly implies we need a way to be sure one actually used FLT.
If you're in a marathon and hire a taxi to take you to the finish line will you have won? You did get to the right place much faster than anyone else?
Comment: the problem says "ANY" integer, so presumably we must consider -1,0 and 1. In these cases the expression equals 0, 1 or 2, none of which is divisable by 30 or any of the other choices.
The expression equals 0 when n is -1, 0 or 1. All integers divide 0 (excluding 0 itself) so this doesn't contradict the question.
This isn't right. What if n is -1? (-1)^5 - 1 = -1 - 1 = -2. 30 does not divide -2.
Really?? (-1)^5 - (-1) =0. 30|0.
Since we're told that one of these is a solution, just let n=2 which eliminates three possibilities leaving only 30.
We are also told to "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" and assuming this is on a test where they can't check whether or not you did that is a cheat. If the intent is actually to see if you know how to apply FLT accurately any good teacher/prof would add:
Show Your Work
and if your work didn't show that you understood how to find the solution using FLT you would get a mark of 0--or perhaps 1/2 if half the mark(s) are for getting (maybe even guessing) the correct answer without doing it in the way specified.
I enjoyed this question, got the answer correct, but the answers provided made it possible to get this question right even if a person did not know how to use Fermat's little theorem, which I had not learned in all my years of existence , including taking calculus one and two twice .
Since two to the fifth power minus one is equal to 30, one does not need to know this theorem in order to get the answer correct. If you want to make this problem harder , you should have at least two possible correct answers , at least two answers that are factors of 30. Given the nature of the serum, that the number is a multiple of two three and five, I would suggest that the answers be 5 , 6 , 10, and 30 . Or, change one of the existing answers to 10 .
None of your suggestions would make the problem more difficult for anyone who only wanted to "get the right answer" without being concerned about how they got it. Since the intent was to see if one could accurately "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" in this case, the easy fix is to add:
Show Your Work:
and see whether FLT was actually used to solve the problem. ANy shortcut to finding the correct solution is good as a check, but can't substitute for showing how to use FLT.
Note also that a good prof would have this as a warm-up question then include 3 or 4 more questions of gradually increasing complexity that now required use of FLT. So anyone clever enough, but not particularly Brilliant, could get a mark or two for discovering a way to check for the correct answer to the warm-up question (so maybe half marks for that one) but probably have great difficulty with the rest--and maybe have to back up and do it the right way to recall how to apply and reason about use of FLT.
ploting any value of n can be used for verification if u plot n=2 then n^5-5 =2^5-2 =30 so this result is greater than 20, where n=3 n^5-5 =240 240%30==0 so ans is 30 This calculation is enough for me
It may be "enough for you" but doesn't "apply Fermat's Little Theorem" so is unlikely to get a passing grade from anyone who knows they need to check whether you actually did that; e.g., by adding "Show Your Work".
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
n 5 − n = n ( n 4 − 1 ) = n ( n 2 + 1 ) ( n + 1 ) ( n − 1 ) and rearranging factors, n 5 − n = ( n 2 + 1 ) ( n − 1 ) ( n ) ( n + 1 ) Since three of the factors are consecutive integers, the expression is divisible by 2 and by 3 and thus by 6. Also by Fermat's little theorem which states that if p is a prime number, then for any integer a , the number a p − a is an integer multiple of p . Since n is an integer and 5 is prime, n 5 − n is divisible by 5. Therefore the expression is divisible by 6 and 5 and thus by 30. For n = 2 , n 5 − n = 3 0 . Therefore the expression cannot be divisible by any integer greater than 30. So the answer is 3 0 .