Derek's multi-divisible integer

N N is the smallest positive integer which satisfies the property that any positive integer M 12 M \leq 12 divides at least one of N N , N + 1 N+1 and N + 2 N+2 .

What is N N ?

This problem is shared by Derek K .


The answer is 790.

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.

3 solutions

Let x { N , N + 1 , N + 2 } 12 x x \in \{N,N+1,N+2\} | 12 \mid x . Then x 0 ( m o d 12 ) x 0 ( m o d 3 ) x \cong 0 \pmod{12} \to x \cong 0 \pmod {3} . This means that x ( m o d 9 ) x \pmod{9} is one of 0 , 3 , 6 0,3,6 , and so it is clearly 0 0 , because if x ≇ 0 ( m o d 9 ) x \not\cong 0 \pmod{9} , none of N , N + 1 , N + 2 N,N+1,N+2 will be divisible by 9 9 . Similarly, we get x 0 ( m o d 8 ) x \cong 0 \pmod{8} and so x 0 ( m o d 72 ) x \cong 0 \pmod{72} .

\\

We consider the multiples of 72 72 modulo 11 11 . Beginning with 72 1 72 \cdot 1 , the remainders are 6 , 1 , 7 , 2 , 8 , 3 , 9 , 4 , 10 , 5 , 0 , 6 , . . . 6,1,7,2,8,3,9,4,10,5,0,6,... . Thus, if x = 72 a x = 72a , a a must be one of 0 , 2 , 4 , 7 , 9 0,2,4,7,9 modulo 11 11 , or else 11 11 can not possibly divide any of N , N + 1 , N + 2 N,N+1,N+2 .

Finally, we note that x x must be one of 0 , 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 0,1,2,8,9 modulo 10 10 , and so a a must be one of 0 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 0,1,4,5,6,9 modulo 10 10 , or else 10 10 can't divide any of N , N + 1 , N + 2 N,N+1,N+2 . We proceed to check values of a a from above, and we see that x = 72 11 = 792 x = 72\cdot11 = 792 satisfies x 0 ( m o d 72 ) , x \cong 0 \pmod{72}, x 0 ( m o d 11 ) , x 2 ( m o d 10 ) x \cong 0 \pmod{11}, x \cong 2 \pmod{10} and also satisfies x 1 ( m o d 7 ) x \cong 1 \pmod{7} , and so N = 790 N = \fbox{790} is the smallest possible value of N N which satisfies the given conditions.

P.S. In case the last few lines were not clear, we don't need to check every value up to 12 12 for divisibility. Checking divisibility by 72 , 11 , 10 , 7 72,11,10,7 is sufficient to ensure than N N satisfies the given conditions. Also, since x 2 ( m o d 10 ) x \cong 2 \pmod{10} , it must be equal to N + 2 N+2 .

Moderator note:

Nicely done! There is no real easy way to solve this problem, and you managed to keep the cases reasonably under control.

I didn't feel like writing a solution (why doesn't this site let us see the other solutions before we decide whether or not to invest the time to write a new one?) but I did it along these lines. You know you need to check for solutions to the congruences

x = {0,-1,-2} mod {72,11,10,7}.

If x is odd, then x+1 must be divisible by both 72 and 10, i.e.

x = {0,-1,-2} mod {11,7} x = 1 mod 360

This is six cases to check by hand, since x must be congruent to -2 for either 7 or 11 (otherwise you could take x-1 instead), with the Chinese remainder theorem. If x is even and divisible by eight,

x = {0, -1, -2} mod {11,7} x = 0 mod 72 x = {0, -2} mod 5,

16 more cases. If x is even but not divisible by eight, x = {0, -1, -2} mod {11,7} x = -2 mod 72 x = {0, -2} mod 5,

another 18 cases for a total of 40. Not too pleasant. I'm hoping there's a solution that requires a reasonable (<10) number of applications of the CRT.

Etienne Vouga - 7 years, 9 months ago

When denoting congruence in modular arithmetic, the standard notation is \equiv (and not \cong), as in a b ( m o d m ) a \equiv b \pmod{m} .

Jon Haussmann - 7 years, 8 months ago
John Smith
Sep 11, 2013

The two highest numbers of M are 11 and 12. Therefore we must find the LCM of them because this is the lowest possible option of N (132). Because there is N, N+1 and N+2 we must make sure as we go through the common multiples of 11 and 12 that they are with 2 numbers of a multiple of 10. So we try 130. It's not a multiple of 3 so it can't work. Next we go to 264, then 396. These aren't within 2 of a 10 so we leave them. Next is 528 which is 2 off 530. However, 530 isn't a multiple of 3 so it can't work. Next is 660 which isn't a multiple of 7 so it can't work. Next is 790 which is a multiple of everything so that's the answer.

I have difficulty understanding your justification.

Why must N N be close to gcd ( 11 , 12 ) \gcd(11,12) ? You are not told that one of the numbers is a multiple of both 11 and 12.

Calvin Lin Staff - 7 years, 9 months ago
Gabriel Tan
Sep 8, 2013

Let n = N + 1. Then n must satisfy n^3 - n = lcm(1,2,...,12) * k, for some constant k (note that this is not a sufficient condition, it is a necessary condition). Thus n^3 - n = 27720k. From here it is purely guess and check. The least integer solution for n would be calculated to be 791, hence N = 790.

Did you actually do this guess and check by hand? I don't think it is humanely possible...

The condition n^3-n=27770k is necessary but not sufficient . Indeed, it might happen that, say, 12 divides nether n-1, nor n, nor n+1 yet it divides their product.

Alexander Borisov - 7 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Well if one were to brute force it, you could do it by something like this:

Going to n 11 12 n * 11 * 12 and then checking 5 5 cases for each n n . For example, n = 1 n = 1 , then you have 132 132 . Subtracting 24 24 and 22 22 give 108 and 110, your multiples of 11 and 12, and then necessarily you need 109. Then you can check divisibility from here (most conveniently by 7). If that doesn't work, move to 120 and 121, your multiples of 11 and 12, and then check to see if 119, 120, 121, or 122 are divisible by 7, and if they are, go on with checking the rest of the factors. If that doesn't work, then try 132 and two numbers surrounding it (choosing from necessity, e.g. in this case you would need 130, 131, 132 for a multiple of 10). If that doesn't work, then 143 and 144 + another integer; if that doesn't work then 154, 155, 156. Checking those 5 cases for each n, you can get the answer in (only) 28 case checks. I don't think it would be that bad since I would think most cases get shut down immediately by lack of multiple of 7 or 10.

But yes, with the method suggested I highly doubt you could "guess and check" that.

Michael Tong - 7 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

yes i got answer by same...takes some time and can't do for big numbers

Piyushkumar Palan - 7 years, 8 months ago

Yes, this will definitely work. Unfortunately, there is no real easy way of doing this problem

Alexander Borisov - 7 years, 9 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...