True or False?
n 5 − n is divisible by 30 for all positive integers n .
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.
But what if n equal 1?
Log in to reply
With n = 1 , n 5 − n = 0 , which is divisible by 3 0 since 3 0 × 0 = 0 .
Log in to reply
huh... thank you!
I suppose that throws my infinity question out the window too!
Yes 1 is also a positive integer yet does not satisfy above condition
Log in to reply
Yes, it does. See my reply to Jakub's comment below.
This solution is great. I do wonder, however, what an inductive argument might look like.
Log in to reply
The statement is true for n = 1 . Next, assuming it is true for n 5 − n for some n > 1 we can write (after some manipulation)
( n + 1 ) 5 − ( n + 1 ) = ( n 5 − n ) + 5 n ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + n + 1 ) .
Now n 5 − n is divisible by 30 by the induction hypothesis. Now n ( n + 1 ) must be even, and we can go through the options for n ( m o d 3 ) to see that one of n , n + 1 or n 2 + n + 1 must be divisible by 3 , so 5 n ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + n + 1 ) must be divisible by 3 0 as well. Thus 3 0 ∣ ( n + 1 ) 5 − ( n + 1 ) given that 3 0 ∣ n 5 − n , thus completing the proof by induction.
I've added this as an edit to my solution, so that others can more easily see this method. Thanks for raising the possibility of this method. :)
I actually did it by induction and felt like a dumbass when I saw the solution
We can point out, more generally, that a prime number p divides n M − n for all n if ( p − 1 ) ∣ ( M − 1 ) , by Fermat. Thus n 5 − n is divisible by 2, 3, 5, and 30 (and 30 is the largest number with this property).
This problem belongs under "Intermediate," not "Basic."
Can someone come up with something a 3 year old can understand.(jk i am not a 3yo)
The answer is true. Set N = n 5 − n = n ( n 4 − 1 ) = n ( n 2 − 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 ) = n ( n − 1 ) ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 )
In order to be divisible by 30, we must have N ≡ 0 m o d 2 , N ≡ 0 m o d 3 , and N ≡ 0 m o d 5 .
By method of induction it is true
The first step would be to factorize n 5 − n :
N = n 5 − n
= n ( n 4 − 1 )
= n ( n 2 − 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 )
= n ( n + 1 ) ( n − 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 )
At this point it’s clear that N has three consecutive factors, n − 1 , n , and n + 1 . This guarantees at least one even number and one multiple of three, so N is definitely divisible by 6 .
The next question is whether N is also divisible by 5 . Because a multiple of 5 isn’t guaranteed in a set of three consecutive numbers, the n 2 + 1 factor has to be able to account for that 5 .
While n 2 + 1 isn’t always divisible by 5 , remember that we only need it to be so when the three consecutive numbers aren’t ; if n − 1 , n , or n + 1 can be divided by 5 , factors, n 2 + 1 doesn’t matter.
If n is in the form 5 m − 1 , 5 m , or 5 m + 1 then n + 1 , n , or n − 1 would be divisible by 5 respectively. Thus, we only need to check if n 2 + 1 is divisible by 5 when n = 5 m + 2 and n = 5 m + 3 .
Plugging both into n 2 + 1 gets 2 5 m 2 + 1 0 m + 5 and 2 5 m 2 + 1 5 m + 1 0 respectively, both of which are multiples of 5 for any integer m .
Thus, N will always be divisible by 2 , 3 , and 5 , making it a multiple of 3 0 .
I had a similar idea cross my mind when solving this, though my reasoning boiled down to the pattern in the difference of squares last digits following 3.5,7,9, and 1, with 3 and 5 locking n^2+1 into a multiple of 5 temporarily and coincidentally locking you in when n-1, n, or n+1 are not themselves a multiple of 5.
Good solution! You assumed that n is in the form 5m-1,5m, or 5m+1 for the consecutive factors but it may not be in that form if you generalise. In this case assuming that you're being able to proof but this approach isn't a general one, what you think?
Log in to reply
I didn’t assume that n is in that form! I said “if n is in the form ...” The next step was to consider the only other two cases in which n wasn’t in that form, n = 5m + 2 and n = 5m + 3. Try coming up with an integer that can’t be expressed in one of those five forms.
I like your solution a lot, because it really does look for the factors of 30. I do not know the rules of “modulo calculation”, so other solutions are not very helpful to me. Thanks!
Great solution! One thing: (5m+2)^2+1 =25m^2+20m+5 (and likewise 30m for n=5m+3), but luckily these are still multiples of 5. I came up with a nearly identical solution today, and made the same mistake!
n^5-n factorises as n(n^2+1)(n+1)(n-1)
As n-1, n and n+1 are consecutive numbers, so at least one of these must be divisible by 2, and at least one by 3. Therefore the factoral above is divisible by 6. If any of the factors is divisible by 5, then the expression is divisible by 30.
Remember that any numbers ending in 0 or 5 are divisible by 5.
Consider the final digit of n:
If n ends in 0, then n divides by 5. If n ends in 1, then n-1 ends in 0 and is divisible by 5. If n ends in 2, then n^2 ends in 4, n^2 + 1 ends in 5 and is divisible by 5. If n ends in 3, then n^2 ends in 9, n^2 + 1 ends in 0 and is divisible by 5. If n ends in 4, then n+1 ends in 5 and is divisible by 5. If n ends in 5, then n divides by 5. If n ends in 6, then n-1 ends in 5 and divides by 5. If n ends in 7, then n^2 ends in 9, n^2 + 1 ends in 0 and is divisible by 5. If n ends in 8, then n^2 ends in 4, n^2 + 1 ends in 5 and is divisible by 5. If n ends in 9, then n+1 ends in 0 and divides by 5.
Therefore for all positive integer values of n, n(n^2+1)(n+1)(n-1) divides by 2,3 and 5, hence n^5 - n divides by 30.
This is a simple solution which doesn't use Fermat's little theorem
First we write n^5 - n as (n - 1)n (n+1)(n^2 +1)
Since it contains (n-1)n (n+1) which is the product of 3 consecutive Numbers, it is divisible by both 2 and 3 and thus divisible by 6
Now we check the number's divisiblity by 5
We know that any n can be written as
5k + r where 0 <= r <5
Now for each n = 5k , 5k +1 , 5k + 2, 5k +3, 5k + 4 we can easily check that (n-1)n (n+1)(n^2+1) will always yield an multiple of 5
So n^5 - n is divisible 30
n 5 − n = ( n − 1 ) n ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 ) Now that the expression is factored, it's easy to see that, as there are three consecutive terms, this number is divisible by 2 and 3, and therefore, by 6. As 3 0 = 5 ⋅ 6 we only need to verify if its divisible by 5. If the last digit of n is not 3 nither 7, ist obvious that the expression will be divisible by 5 ('cause one of the consecutive terms will have 5 or 0 as last digit). So, if the last digit of n is 3 or 7, the last digit of n 2 + 1 is 0, thus its squares have 9 as last digit. So the expression is definitively divisible by 30.
This is similar to the line of reasoning I did but it doesn't completely fill in the gaps when the three consecutive digits don't pass through the 5 and 0 ranges for divisibility. Now, my approach admittedly took a look at a pattern in the difference between consecutive squares, but it's pretty similar to your train of thought.Your solution forgets to mention what happens if the last digit of n is 2 or 8,in which case the last digit of n^2 + 1 is 5 (technically (n mod 10)^2 +1 giving 5 and 65, respectively). When you factor in THOSE last digits you fill in the gaps that 2,3,4 and 6,7,8 that your solution mentions, but also 1,2,3 and 7,8,9 AKA the other runs of three consecutive numbers that don't have a factor of 5 inherently within themselves.
Mathologer has helpfully provided a video on Fermat's Little Theorem.
Since 30 = 2 3 5 and these are all pairwise coprime, it suffices that show that n^5 - n is divisible by 2, 3 and 5. Note that n^5 - n = n(n-1)(n+1)(n^2 +1).
If n is even, then n^5 - n is divisible by 2. If n is odd, then n+1 is even and so n^5 - n is divisible by 2.
In any set of 3 consecutive integers, exactly one of them is divisible by 3. Then, since n-1, n, n+1 are consecutive, one of which is divisible by 3. Thus, (n-1)n(n+1) is divisble by 3. Thus, n^5 - n is divisible by 3.
In any set of 5 consecutive integers, exactly one is divisible by 5. Consider n-2, n-1, n, n+1, n+2. Exactly one of them is divisible by 5. If n-1, n, or n+1 are divisible by 5, then clearly n^5 - n is divisible by 5. If n +/- 2 is divisible by 5, then n +/- 2 = 5k for some integer k n = 5k +/- 2 n^2 = 25k^2 +/- 10k + 4 n^2 + 1 = 25k^2 +/- 10k + 5 n^2 + 1 = 5(5k^2 +/- 2k + 1) Thus, n^2 + 1 is divisble by 5. Thus, n^5 - n is divisible by 5.
Therefore, n^5 - n is divisible by 30.
Proof by mathematical induction: let P(k) = k 5 - k
P(1) is true. Let P(k) be true.
30 | k 5 - k.
P(k+1) = ( k + 1 ) 5 - (k+1).
= k 5 + 5 k 4 +10 k 3 + 10 k 2 + 5k + 1 - k - 1
= ( k 5 - k) + 5 k 4 +10 k 3 + 10 k 2 + 5k
= ( k 5 - k) + 5k( k 3 + 2 k 2 + 2k + 1)
5 | P(k+1). Since P(k) is true, ignore ( k 5 - k) below.
k( k 3 + 2 k 2 + 2k + 1)
= k(k+1)( k 2 + k + 1)
2 | k(k+1);
3 | k(k+1)( k 2 + k + 1) since ( k 2 + k + 1) = k(k+1) +1, sum of 3 consecutive integers is divisible by 3;
Therefore, 30 | P(k+1).
P(k) implies (or =>) P(k+1).
Note that n 5 − n = n ( n 4 − 1 ) and 3 0 = 2 × 3 × 5 . Using Fermat's Little Theorem:
If 2 ∤ n , then n 1 ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 ) ⟹ n 4 ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 ) ⟹ n 4 − 1 ≡ 0 ( m o d 2 ) .
If 3 ∤ n , then n 2 ≡ 1 ( m o d 3 ) ⟹ n 4 ≡ 1 ( m o d 3 ) ⟹ n 4 − 1 ≡ 0 ( m o d 3 ) .
If 5 ∤ n , then n 4 ≡ 1 ( m o d 5 ) ⟹ n 4 − 1 ≡ 0 ( m o d 5 ) .
2^5 - 2 = 30. Not a coincidence
Interesting result. Here’s a simple proof. First, note that if d is the last digit of n, then d is also the last digit of n^5. Therefore, n^5 - n ends in 0, divisible by 10. Then note that for m = 0, 1, and 2, if n is congruent to m mod 3, n^5 - n is congruent to 0 mod 3. Thus n^5 - n is divisible by 3. Done.
If you do trial and error then it will always work
You can't do trial and error for ALL positive integers. That will take you an eternity to complete!
It was literally stated in another question I found earlier
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
First note that by Fermat's Little Theorem n 5 ≡ n ( m o d 5 ) ⟹ n 5 − n ≡ 0 ( m o d 5 ) for any positive integer n , i.e., 5 divides n 5 − n .
Next, note that n 5 − n = n ( n 4 − 1 ) = n ( n 2 − 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 ) = n ( n − 1 ) ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + 1 ) . Now as n , n − 1 , n + 1 are 3 consecutive integers, at least one of these numbers must be divisible by 2 , and precisely one must be divisible by 3 , so 2 × 3 = 6 divides n 5 − n .
So finally as both 5 and 6 divides n 5 − n we can conclude that 5 × 6 = 3 0 divides n 5 − n , i.e., the statement in question is True .
==============================================================================================================
Edit: In response to Justin Johnson's query in the comments below, note that we can also prove this by induction. The statement is true for n = 1 . Next. assuming it is true for some n > 1 , we can write
( n + 1 ) 5 − ( n + 1 ) = n 5 + 5 n 4 + 1 0 n 3 + 1 0 n 2 + 5 n + 1 − n − 1 = ( n 5 − n ) + 5 n ( n 3 + 2 n 2 + 2 n + 1 ) = ( n 5 − n ) + 5 n ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + n + 1 ) .
Now n 5 − n is divisible by 3 0 by the induction hypothesis. Next, we note that n ( n + 1 ) must be even, i.e., divisible by 2 . Also, one of n , n + 1 or n 2 + n + 1 must be divisible by 3 : if n ≡ 0 ( m o d 3 ) we are done; if n ≡ 1 ( m o d 3 ) then n 2 + n + 1 is divisible by 3 ; and finally if n ≡ 2 ( m o d 3 ) then n + 1 is divisible by 3 . Thus 5 n ( n + 1 ) ( n 2 + n + 1 ) is divisible by 5 × 2 × 3 = 3 0 .
Thus 3 0 ∣ ( n + 1 ) 5 − ( n + 1 ) given that 3 0 ∣ n 5 − n , completing the proof by induction.