N is the smallest positive integer which satisfies the property that any positive integer M ≤ 1 2 divides at least one of N , N + 1 and N + 2 .
What is N ?
This problem is shared by Derek K .
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.
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.
When denoting congruence in modular arithmetic, the standard notation is \equiv (and not \cong), as in a ≡ b ( m o d m ) .
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.
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.
Log in to reply
Well if one were to brute force it, you could do it by something like this:
Going to n ∗ 1 1 ∗ 1 2 and then checking 5 cases for each n . For example, n = 1 , then you have 1 3 2 . Subtracting 2 4 and 2 2 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.
Log in to reply
yes i got answer by same...takes some time and can't do for big numbers
Yes, this will definitely work. Unfortunately, there is no real easy way of doing this problem
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let x ∈ { N , N + 1 , N + 2 } ∣ 1 2 ∣ x . Then x ≅ 0 ( m o d 1 2 ) → x ≅ 0 ( m o d 3 ) . This means that x ( m o d 9 ) is one of 0 , 3 , 6 , and so it is clearly 0 , because if x ≅ 0 ( m o d 9 ) , none of N , N + 1 , N + 2 will be divisible by 9 . Similarly, we get x ≅ 0 ( m o d 8 ) and so x ≅ 0 ( m o d 7 2 ) .
We consider the multiples of 7 2 modulo 1 1 . Beginning with 7 2 ⋅ 1 , the remainders are 6 , 1 , 7 , 2 , 8 , 3 , 9 , 4 , 1 0 , 5 , 0 , 6 , . . . . Thus, if x = 7 2 a , a must be one of 0 , 2 , 4 , 7 , 9 modulo 1 1 , or else 1 1 can not possibly divide any of N , N + 1 , N + 2 .
Finally, we note that x must be one of 0 , 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 modulo 1 0 , and so a must be one of 0 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 modulo 1 0 , or else 1 0 can't divide any of N , N + 1 , N + 2 . We proceed to check values of a from above, and we see that x = 7 2 ⋅ 1 1 = 7 9 2 satisfies x ≅ 0 ( m o d 7 2 ) , x ≅ 0 ( m o d 1 1 ) , x ≅ 2 ( m o d 1 0 ) and also satisfies x ≅ 1 ( m o d 7 ) , and so N = 7 9 0 is the smallest possible value of 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 1 2 for divisibility. Checking divisibility by 7 2 , 1 1 , 1 0 , 7 is sufficient to ensure than N satisfies the given conditions. Also, since x ≅ 2 ( m o d 1 0 ) , it must be equal to N + 2 .