Inspired By Garrett Clarke

For a natural number n n , let n n' denote the arithmetic derivative .

Find the number of integers n 0 n\geq 0 such that n = n = n = n = . n = n' = n'' = n''' = \cdots .


Inspiration .


The answer is 5.

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.

1 solution

Kazem Sepehrinia
Jul 4, 2015

In my previous solution to the Garrett's problem , I proved that for natural number n n with prime factorization i = 1 k p i a i \prod_{i=1}^{k} p_i^{a_i} we have n = n ( a 1 p 1 + a 2 p 2 + . . . + a k p k ) ( 1 ) n'=n \left(\frac{a_1}{p_1}+ \frac{a_2}{p_2}+... + \frac{a_k}{p_k} \right) \qquad(1) For this problem, note that 0 0 is a solution, because all p p -th derivatives of 0 0 is zero. Now, we need to have n = n n=n' , which from equation ( 1 ) (1) gives a 1 p 1 + a 2 p 2 + . . . + a k p k = 1 ( 2 ) \frac{a_1}{p_1}+ \frac{a_2}{p_2}+... + \frac{a_k}{p_k}=1 \qquad(2)

We must have p k a k p_k \ge a_k . Multiply both sides of equation ( 2 ) (2) by p 1 p 2 . . . p k 1 p_1 p_2 ... p_{k-1} . It follows that p 1 p 2 . . . p k 1 a k p k p_1 p_2 ... p_{k-1}\frac{a_k}{p_k} is an integer. Thus p k a k p_k | a_k . Hence a k p k a_k \ge p_k and a k = p k a_k=p_k . Subsequently a 1 = a 2 = . . . = a k 1 = 0 a_1=a_2=...=a_{k-1}=0 and n = p p n=p^p for some prime number p p .

Then its easy to see that answers to this problem are 0 , 2 2 , 3 3 , 5 5 , 7 7 0, 2^2, 3^3, 5^5, 7^7 . Thanks @Abhinav Raichur for the beautiful problem.

I love to read your solutions, they're so well crafted. I was fairly certain from my research that p p p^p where p p is prime was the only solution, glad to see it proved here. My only concern is that the number 1 1 is tacked to the end of your answer there. The p p th derivative of 1 1 is clearly 0 for all p > 0 p>0 , but are we to exclude p = 0 p=0 as a member of the set? If not then A 1 = { 1 , 0 , 0 , . . . } A_1=\{1,0,0,...\} and is clearly not a singleton set. This problem does not define p p as a natural number, so I feel that we cannot assume it to be greater than 0 0 , therefore I feel the answer should be 4 4 , not 5 5 . What say you Abhinav Raichur? Thank you by the way for posting this problem, I was honored to see "Inspired by Garrett Clarke" pop up on my feed!

Garrett Clarke - 5 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks for the kind comment Garrett :-). I think you are right, it should have mentioned that p p is a positive integer.

Kazem Sepehrinia - 5 years, 11 months ago

YES I agree ...... p should be declared natural, and THANK YOU for getting me closer to a new type of NT { maybe NT calculus :p } , It helps me keep my mind busy while doin borin stuff { bathin, lectures etc.. } ....... NICE READ :)

Abhinav Raichur - 5 years, 11 months ago

love your solutions :) ... i've observed an algebraic essence in each of your NT problems { vieta root jumping for example} ... How do you manage to do that? . all I can do in NT is form the best possible algorithms :P {and compute in head}

Abhinav Raichur - 5 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks man! question is that how do you manage to do and understand heavy mathematics stuff at such a young age!? And Abhinav please edit the question and mention that p N p \in \mathbb{N} .

Kazem Sepehrinia - 5 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

edited the problem .... I did not get your comment :) could u plz be more clear?

Abhinav Raichur - 5 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Abhinav Raichur Nothing man, I just said that I wonder about you and other young people like you in brilliant that have such great mathematical knowledge.

Kazem Sepehrinia - 5 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Kazem Sepehrinia I feel the same for these 14 yr olds ...... I got nervous initially , things hav improved now! :p

Abhinav Raichur - 5 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Abhinav Raichur Time has changed man! :))

Kazem Sepehrinia - 5 years, 11 months ago

I also notice that n = p p n=p^p for p p prime were solutions so why there aren't infinytely many solutions??

Théo Leblanc - 2 years ago

Log in to reply

In the original problem, a limit was given. It was n < 1 0 10 n<10^{10} , if I remember it correctly.

Kazem Sepehrinia - 2 years ago

Log in to reply

Therefore the problem should be edited !

Théo Leblanc - 1 year, 9 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...