Use 25 distinct positive integers to fill up the grid, such that the integers in any two connected squares have a greatest common divisor that is greater than 1.
What is the smallest possible value of the largest positive integer used?
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.
I think you meant Greatest Common Divisor and not G.C. denominator
Am I mistaken?
Log in to reply
You are right. Thanks for catching that. :) And congrats on being the only person to solve the problem so far.
Log in to reply
Firstly,I am sorry for a v e r y v e r y late reply. Somehow,this notification had escaped me.
Thank you for your compliment!
I followed the same strain of thought which you have outlined in your solution,but have been trying to extend the results to matrices of higher dimensions.I must add that I haven't exactly gotten anywhere close.
If possible,can you please suggest an opening to the same?
i started going down the path of Brian, realized I had to start with 2, recognized 3 was not going to be a fit, then extrapolated that all prime numbers would likewise not be a fit, and then simply added the count of prime numbers to 25, count(1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 23)=8 and added that to 25 and arrived at 33, all in less than a minute. Was this a coincidental lucky guess?
Log in to reply
Well, perhaps a bit lucky since you missed 19 in your tally of odd primes, but had 1 in your list, (which is not a prime), which had the effect of "making up" for the absence of 19 in your list. As clearly 1 cannot be used in the grid, your approach would exclude 1 and the 8 primes less than 25 for a total of 9 exclusions, which would lead to 25 + 9 = 34 as your maximum, (by your approach). Also, in excluding 1 and the primes less than 25 you would have only 16 positive integers ≤ 2 5 remaining, which you would have to make up for by using the next 9 integers greater than 25, two of which are prime. So I think in the end, your arrival at 33 was a fortunate guess. :)
Note that my sample solution grid does include 3,5,7 and 11, so you don't need to rule out odd primes right from the start.
@Brian Charlesworth: I think that "... consider what happens with primes >= 11..." in your solution maybe okay!
will the 6 × 6 grid has a solution equal to 3 × 1 3 and so on?
Log in to reply
With the 6 x 6 grid I find that we can introduce 1 3 into the list of primes used, leading to a smallest maximum of 4 5 . With the 7 x 7 grid we can introduce 1 7 and 1 9 as well, leading to a smallest maximum of 5 8 . With the 8 x 8 grid we can introduce 2 3 , leading to a smallest maximum of 7 7 . With the 9 x 9 grid we can introduce 2 9 and 3 1 , leading to a smallest maximum of 8 5 . There won't be a general formula because the prime gaps are uneven, but the general idea is to introduce successive primes into the list to try and reduce the maximum number used. The grids themselves actually become easier to form as they get larger as there are more options available.
@Rohith M.Athreya I just noticed your comment below. I'm sorry for not replying earlier, but my response to Mehdi should address your question to some degree.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
To establish an upper bound, note that we could use the first 25 positive even integers in any configuration, in which case the gcd of adjacent numbers will always exceed 1. This gives us an upper bound of 5 0 for the smallest maximum. Also, we cannot include 1 , as the gcd of it and any other positive integer will be 1. Thus at best we would be using the integers 2 through 2 6 .
However, consider what happens with primes ≥ 1 7 . Each square is adjacent to at least two other squares, so any number included must have two other numbers with which it shares a non-unit gcd. With 1 7 , we would have to include 3 4 and 5 1 at best, but as we know that 5 0 is an upper bound we know that 1 7 cannot be part of an optimal solution. The same goes for 1 9 and 2 3 . So at this point the best we could do is find a solution that involves the first 25 positive integers greater than 1 and excluding 1 7 , 1 9 and 2 3 . This would raise our largest integer from 2 6 to 2 9 , but then 2 9 would have the same issue as 1 7 , so we would drop 2 9 and add 3 0 .
But now we have to deal with 1 1 and 1 3 . If we include 1 1 , we would have to include 3 3 , (with 2 2 already in play), and if we include 1 3 we would have to include 3 9 , (with 2 6 already in play). If we dropped 1 1 and 1 3 then the next available integers to add to the list would be 3 2 and 3 3 , (since 3 1 would have the same issues as 1 7 ). This is one possibility, but if we keep 1 1 and only drop 1 3 then we would have to add 3 3 as the 25th integer for reasons already discussed. So either way the best we can do is to work with a group of 25 integers the maximum of which is 3 3 , with the latitude to drop one otherwise suitable number less than 3 3 from the grid. So if we can create a suitable grid with this group of 25 integers, (with one degree of flexibility), then the smallest maximum would be 3 3 . Here is such a grid, (with 2 7 chosen to be excuded):
7 2 1 1 8 1 5 3
1 4 2 8 2 1 2 9
4 8 1 6 2 6 2 4
1 0 2 0 3 2 6 2 2
5 2 5 3 0 3 3 1 1