Sherlock Holmes and I were called to investigate the brutal clash between two gangs, taken place in a bar, a few nights ago. It was rumored that all ensued from burglary, for gold coins, to be exact. There were reports of burly men snatching numerous bags, each containing the same amount of gold coins, into their vehicle before they fled away in a hurry. Just a moment ago, Holmes returned with words from his informant, who had been spying at the thieves' whereabouts.
Holmes: My guy was there just in time to eavesdrop on the thieves' conversation outside as they were dividing the gold coins among themselves. Unfortunately, their voice was muffled, so the best clue he got was these three numbers, which I'm certain that they refer to the number of bags, the number of gold coins in each bag, and the number of thieves, of course. You can see that the difference of the highest and the lowest numbers is less than the lowest number itself.
The puzzle is that we don't know which number is for which, and there are possible combinations of these mysterious numbers . Nonetheless, my guy took a look through a peephole and saw a remainder of gold coins on the table after their division.
I: Well, with these numbers in our hands, can't we distinguish them by trying out all possible divisions?
Holmes: No, my friend, Watson. Even if we know all these numbers, we still can't rule out any combination.
What would be the least possible number of thieves in this incident?
Inspired by 3 Brothers Riddle
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.
Let a < b < c be some number of bags, gold coins, and thieves, whose orders are still unknown as in the question. We can be sure that there would be no cases of equal numbers because it will result in a remainder of 0 for some cases, which is not under such constraint. Also, given the remainders of 6 for all modulos a , b , c , we can conclude that 6 < a < b < c as well.
It is clear then that the total amount of gold coins is the product of some two numbers, leaving the other as the divisor and 6 as the remainder for all combinations. In other words, from Holmes' wording, since we can't rule out any combination by trials of divisions, we can deduce that all such divisions lead to the same remainder of 6. Thus, we can set up the modular equivalences, as followed:
a b ≡ 6 ( m o d c ) b c ≡ 6 ( m o d a ) c a ≡ 6 ( m o d b )
Then suppose that b − a = x and c − b = y for some positive integers x , y . That will make c − a = x + y . We can rewrite the above equivalences into these:
− ( x + y ) ( − y ) ≡ y ( x + y ) ≡ 6 ( m o d c ) x ( x + y ) ≡ 6 ( m o d a ) y ( − x ) ≡ − x y ≡ 6 ( m o d b )
Rearranging the terms so that there remainders are zeros:
y ( x + y ) − 6 ≡ 0 ( m o d c ) x ( x + y ) − 6 ≡ 0 ( m o d a ) x y + 6 ≡ 0 ( m o d b )
Given x , y be positive integers, for the upper equivalences, y ( x + y ) − 6 ≥ 0 and x ( x + y ) − 6 ≥ 0 because x , y ≥ 1 , making y ( x + y ) , x ( x + y ) ≥ 2 . Then y ( x + y ) − 6 , x ( x + y ) − 6 ≥ − 4 . If such product is less than 6, it will leave only remainders of − 1 , − 2 , − 3 , − 4 , none of which can be divisible by modulo a , b , c > 6 .
Now let us transform those equivalences into ordinary Diophantine equations, for some non-negative quotients q :
y ( x + y ) − 6 = c q 1 x ( x + y ) − 6 = a q 2 x y + 6 = b q 3
We are then attempting to find the lowest possible quotients, yet, one issue remains: whether q is allowed to be zero for the upper two equations.
Suppose x ( x + y ) − 6 = 0 ; x ( x + y ) = 6 = 2 × 3 = 1 × 6 . Given x + y > x , there are two possible scenarios: x = 2 ; y = 1 or x = 1 ; y = 5 . For the former one, it will result in y ( x + y ) − 6 = − 3 < c q 1 , which is contradicted. For the latter scenario, it will result in y ( x + y ) − 6 = 2 4 = c q 1 , but x y + 6 = 1 1 = b q 3 . Thus, b must be 1 1 , leading to c = 1 1 + 5 = 1 6 , but 2 4 is not a multiple of 1 6 , thus contradicted as well.
Similarly, if y ( x + y ) = 6 = 2 × 3 = 1 × 6 , for y = 2 ; x = 1 , x ( x + y ) − 6 = − 3 < c q 1 and for y = 1 ; x = 5 , it will result in b = 1 1 and a = 1 1 − 5 = 6 . However, a > 6 , so it is contradicted as well.
Hence, all quotients must be positive, and the lowest possible values occur when all quotients equal 1 .
Let us explore whether these Diophantine equations will hold true:
y ( x + y ) − 6 = c = a + x + y _1 x ( x + y ) − 6 = a _2 x y + 6 = b = a + x _3
By subtracting equations (1)-(2) and (1)-(3), we will obtain:
( x + y ) ( y − x ) = x + y y 2 − 1 2 = y
Hence, it would be obvious that:
y − x = 1 y 2 − y − 1 2 = ( y − 4 ) ( y + 3 ) = 0
Given x , y as positive integers, we can conclude that y = 4 and x = 3 . Therefore, a = 3 ( 3 + 4 ) − 6 = 1 5 . Then b = 1 5 + 3 = 1 8 , and c = 1 8 + 4 = 2 2 . Since all work with this set-up, there is no need to investigate other higher quotients.
Checking the answers, we can see that:
1 5 × 1 8 = 2 2 × 1 2 + 6 1 8 × 2 2 = 1 5 × 2 6 + 6 2 2 × 1 5 = 1 8 × 1 8 + 6
Finally, even though we still don't know which number is for which, we can be certain that there are at least 1 5 thieves in this story.