Sufficiently Divisible

How many natural numbers n n are there, so that n ! n! is divisible by 2 9 871 29^{871} , but not by 2 9 872 29^{872} ?

You may use the fact that there is at least one such n n exists.


The answer is 29.

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

Christopher Boo
Dec 1, 2016

Let k k be the smallest number that satisfies the condition. Since k + 1 , k + 2 , , k + 28 k+1, k+2, \dots , k+28 is not divisible by an additional 29, their factorial still satisfies the condition. Until k + 29 k+29 it will be divisible by an additional 29. Hence, the numbers that satisfy the condition is in the range [ k , k + 29 ) [k,k+29) and there are 29 of them.

Good explanation for that claim. We didn't need to use the formula to justify this intition.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 6 months ago
Kushal Bose
Nov 29, 2016

Let n n be an integer .Total number of 29 29 can be found from n ! n! .

n 29 + n 2 9 2 + n 2 9 3 + . . . . . . + n 2 9 k = 871 \lfloor \dfrac{n}{29} \rfloor + \lfloor \dfrac{n}{29^2} \rfloor + \lfloor \dfrac{n}{29^3} \rfloor + ......+ \lfloor \dfrac{n}{29^k} \rfloor=871 where k k is the largest factor which can be extracted from n n .

Let n = 2 9 k + m n=29^k+m for an integer k , m k,m .So, if m < 29 m<29 then

2 9 k 29 + 2 9 k 2 9 2 + 2 9 k 2 9 3 + . . . . . . + 2 9 k 2 9 k = 871 \lfloor \dfrac{29^k}{29} \rfloor + \lfloor \dfrac{29^k}{29^2} \rfloor + \lfloor \dfrac{29^k}{29^3} \rfloor + ......+ \lfloor \dfrac{29^k}{29^k} \rfloor=871

2 9 k 1 + 2 9 k 2 + 2 9 k 3 + . . . . . . + 2 9 2 + 2 9 1 + 1 = 871 ( 2 9 k 1 ) 29 1 = 871 \implies 29^{k-1}+29^{k-2}+29^{k-3}+......+29^2+29^1+1=871 \\ \implies \dfrac{(29^k-1)}{29-1}=871

Here if k = 3 k=3 satisfies the equation..

If 29 m < 57 29 \leq m <57 then 1 1 factor will be extra from the first term.Again 58 m < 86 58 \leq m <86 then 2 + 1 2+1 factors will be extra.In this way we can vary m and k to get different numbers of factors of 29 29 .

Now n = a = 2 9 3 n=a=29^3 is a solution in this case then a + 1 , a + 2 , . . . . . , a + 28 a+1,a+2,.....,a+28 is also the solution because there is no more factor 29 will be there as 29 29 is a prime..Again a + 29 a+29 will lead to another one more factor 29 i.e. 872 872 factors.So total number of n n is 29 \boxed{29}

Thanks for putting in the effort to write up the solution. Unfortunately, it is incorrect because of:

  • The current version of the claim is not true. For example n = 869 is a solution, but 871 is not a solution.

When writing up a solution, remember to write exactly what you are thinking, so that it is fully conveyed to others without requiring mind-reading powers.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

I have updated my solution.Plz check it

Kushal Bose - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

The last part is correct now, though you should explain why "a+1, ... a+28 is also a solution".

Unfortunately, now the middle part is made worse. There is apriori no reason why n = 2 9 k n = 29^k must satisfy the equation. As such, if the RHS was (say) 872, do we conclude that there is solution n n ?

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Calvin Lin n=29^k is just a tentative solution to get original solution

Then solution will be n=29^k+29

Kushal Bose - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Kushal Bose Once again, write exactly what you are thinking so that it is fully conveyed. It is great that you had that in mind, but most other people do not have your mind.

IE Explain "Let's first approximate for a possible value of n n ..... As it turns out n = 2 9 2 n = 29^2 satisfies the equation so we found a solution"

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Calvin Lin Again updated plz check it

Kushal Bose - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Kushal Bose Still the same issue of "If the RHS was (say) 872, do we conclude that there is no solution n n (since there is no k k value that works? ".

This solution as written works because we happen to be in such a special case. Does this mean that if the RHS was 872, we have to approach this problem from a completely different angle? Not at all. As you expressed, all that we needed to know was that 1 solution exists, and then (for some reason) we get that there are 29 solutions.

Look at Christopher's solution for how to express this idea clearly and succiently.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Calvin Lin But we can not assume that a solution exists, we have to prove that.So I have used this method

Kushal Bose - 4 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Kushal Bose n = 2 9 3 + 29 n=29^3 + 29 will give 872 872 solutions.I have generalised n using n = 2 9 k + m n=29^k+m

Kushal Bose - 4 years, 6 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...