Equal Quotient in Division by 10 10 and ( 10 + 1 ) (10+1)

When 99 99 is divided by 10 \color{#3D99F6}10 , the quotient is 9. \color{#20A900}9.
When 99 99 is divided by ( 10 + 1 ) ({\color{#3D99F6}10}+1) , the quotient is 9 \color{#20A900}9 again.

Find the sum of all positive integers q \color{#20A900}q such that there is at least one positive integer m m with the following properties:

q \hspace{5mm} \color{#20A900}q is the quotient when m m is divided by 10. \color{#3D99F6}10.
q \hspace{5mm} \color{#20A900}q is again the quotient when m m is divided by ( 10 + 1 ) . ({\color{#3D99F6}10}+1).

If you think the sum is infinity, enter 0 0 as your answer.


Dessert : Generalize it for n \color{#3D99F6}n replacing 10 \color{#3D99F6}10 .


The answer is 45.

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.

2 solutions

Leonel Castillo
Jan 14, 2018

Relevant wiki: Floor Function

Two rational numbers have the same quotient if their floors are equal. Therefore, if q q is the quotient, we want to solve q = m 10 = m 11 q = \lfloor \frac{m}{10} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{m}{11} \rfloor . This translates into the inequality q m 11 < m 10 < q + 1 q \leq \frac{m}{11} < \frac{m}{10} < q + 1 . Dividing everything by m m we then get the inequality q m 1 11 < 1 10 < q + 1 m \frac{q}{m} \leq \frac{1}{11} < \frac{1}{10} < \frac{q+1}{m} . Because the middle part of this inequality is trivially true we can divide this into a system of two simultaneous inequalities: q m 1 11 \frac{q}{m} \leq \frac{1}{11} and q + 1 m > 1 10 \frac{q+1}{m} > \frac{1}{10} .

With a little algebra these can be rewritten as m 11 q , m > 10 q 10 m \geq 11q, -m > -10q - 10 and now adding both of them gives 0 > q 10 10 > q 0 > q - 10 \implies 10 > q . Which implies a solution exists for our system of inequalities as long as 10 > q 10 > q so q = 1 , 2 , . . . , 9 q = 1,2,...,9 .

We can also find explicit solutions, m = 11 m=11 gives q = 1 q=1 , m = 22 m=22 gives q = 2 q=2 , all the way up to m = 99 m=99 giving q = 9 q=9 so the previously proven inequality can be used as a guarantee that we do not need to check further, no solution exists for q = 10 q=10 and up. Also, the argument used to prove my inequality generalizes easily as I never use any particular property of 10 10 . If we replace 10 10 with n n we would get n > q n > q so solutions would exist for q = 1 , . . . , ( n 1 ) q=1,...,(n-1) and the sum of these numbers would be the ( n 1 ) t h (n-1)th triangular number.

Juan Antonio
Feb 1, 2018

Lets define the properties of m as { m = 10 q + r m = ( 10 + 1 ) q + r ´ \begin{cases} m=10\cdot q + r \\ m=(10+1)\cdot q + r^{´} \end{cases}

Then, ( α (\alpha ): 10 q + r = 11 q + r ´ q = r r ´ 10\cdot q + r = 11\cdot q + r^{´} \iff q = r - r^{´}

And by the division algorithm ( β (\beta ) : 0 r < 10 0 r ´ < 11 0 \leq r < 10 \\ 0 \leq r^{´} < 11 \\

Considering q q must be a positive intenger and ( α (\alpha ) we get : 0 < r r ´ r > r ´ 0<r - r^{´} \iff r > r^{´} By the equations of ( β (\beta ) and the new restriction, we can know: r m a x = 9 r_{max}=9 , r m i n = 1 r_{min}=1 and r m i n ´ = 0 r_{min}^{´}=0

Therefore,

q m i n q q m a x r m i n r m i n ´ q r m a x r m i n ´ 1 q 9 q_{min} \leq q \leq q_{max} \\ r_{min}- r_{min}^{´}\leq q \leq r_{max} - r_{min}^{´} \\ 1 \leq q \leq 9

Since every q must satisfy for at least one m, by the definition and the conditions exposed lets create a particular set of m.

For example: ( r ´ = 0 (r^{´}=0 , r = q r=q and q [ 1 , 9 ] q\mapsto [1,9] m = { 11 , 22 , , 99 } ) \implies m=\{11, 22, \dots\ ,99\})

q = [ 1 , 9 ] \therefore q = [1,9]

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...