1
2
+
2
2
is not divisible by
1
+
2
.
2
2
+
3
2
is not divisible by
2
+
3
.
3
2
+
4
2
is not divisible by
3
+
4
.
4
2
+
5
2
is not divisible by
4
+
5
.
5
2
+
6
2
is not divisible by
5
+
6
.
True or False?
If m and n are consecutive positive integers, then m 2 + n 2 is never divisible by m + 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.
The comments mention never seeing a number theory proof done with geometry before. When number theory was invented, it was unified with geometry. One of the most famous number theory proofs of all is that there are infinitely many primes. I have rendered Euclid's original proof from 2,300 years ago below.
(Note: Euclid somtimes names lengths by single letters, sometimes by naming both the start and endpoint. I have kept his convention.)
We assume a unit length that can be used to make all other lengths by repeated iteration. We exclude the unit length from the list of primes.
We can then think of "primes" as distinct lengths where we can't divide the length into equal parts such that the length of those parts represent another prime. (For example, if we know the length of 2 is a prime, then 12 is not prime because we can divide it equally into lengths of 2.)
Let A, B, and C (shown above) represent the entire set of primes. We will show we can make a larger prime in this case. (Note: Euclid doesn't mention this, but we can apply the same logic of this argument without loss of generality to any number of primes in the starting set.)
Form the length DE by combining the lengths of A, B, and C. Add the unit segment to the length to form EF.
EF is either prime or not.
First suppose EF is prime. Then we have found a new prime that is larger then A, B, and C, and so have a contradiction.
Now suppose EF is not prime. Therefore it is measured by some prime number; call it G.
Claim: G is not the same as A, B, or C.
If G was the same as A, B, or C, then G can be used to measure DE. However, since it also measures EF, G measures the remainder (DF) which is a unit segment. Primes aren't the unit segment by definition, so this is a contradiction.
Therefore G is not the same as A, B, or C. Therefore it must be some new distinct prime. So our assumption that A, B, and C was the comlete set of primes is false.
Therefore prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.
Love this, thanks for posting
Neat, thanks for the graphics
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a geometrical solution to a number theory problem! +1 for making it interesting
Nice, thanks!
the explanation is just awesome thanks for adding ur solution
"never" is impossible for anything.
Log in to reply
Sorry, could you please explain what this is in context to?
"It is never possible to have two magnets attract each other with the same poles facing each other."
There. You happy?
Larger than, not then
I didn’t get this one 😕
"Combining" numbers together generally means adding them. From the wording here it's not clear till you work through your proof that by combining you mean multiply.
I really like this proof!
I simply did long division to prove the result.
Hey it can be 0 and 1 the it is divisible
Log in to reply
They can't, because both must be positive integers, and 0 isn't considered to be positive.
Log in to reply
in this case we say strictly positive, it's basic mathematical rigor.
Relevant wiki: Modular Arithmetic - Problem Solving - Basic
Since m and n are consecutive Let, m n We have, m 2 + n 2 ( m o d m + n ) We have 0 < x + 1 < 2 x + 1 ⟹ m 2 + n 2 is not divisible by = x = x + 1 ≡ x 2 + ( x + 1 ) 2 ( m o d x + ( x + 1 ) ) ≡ 2 x 2 + 2 x + 1 ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) ≡ ( 2 x 2 + x ) + ( x + 1 ) ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) ≡ ( x + 1 ) ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) 2 x 2 + x ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) ≡ 0 m + n for any pair of consecutive positive integers m,n
But why can't m =0 and n =1?
Log in to reply
positive integers only.
Log in to reply
hmm the thing is that it could cause some confusion since some discipline consider it as a positive integer while others seperate zero of negative or positive. I think they should mention it ...
Log in to reply
@Rahme Awad – 0 is never considered positive.
The term "natural number" can be fuzzy, as can "whole number", but positive has the very specific meaning of "greater than 0" which can't include zero.
what is mod?
Log in to reply
If you divide the first number by the second, what's the remainder? 10 mod 7 is 3. 100 mod 3 is 1.
Shouldn't the question specify that the result is an integer? It seems to me all of the solutions are divisible. They just don't result in an integer.
One can also notice at the step when you divide 2 x 2 + 2 x + 1 by 2 x + 1 that it would be integer iff 2 x + 1 divides 2 x 2 , but one obviously odd and another one is even, therefore it's impossible QED
I believe that this is just long division, not synthetic division
Log in to reply
Somewhere along the way performing division with polynomials rather than numbers was called "synthetic division" by someone I had reason to think would use the correct terms, in either a math or computer programming class, and that bit of misinformation stuck with me until today. I have made the necessary change and posted it.
m 2 + n 2 = ( m + n ) 2 − 2 m n
If m + n ∣ m 2 + n 2 , then m + n ∣ 2 m n . As they are consecutive, m + n ∣ m n .
m = 0 [ n ] is never satisfied for m higher than 2 .
How do you justify that the sum of two consecutive numbers does not divide their product?
If k ( m + n ) = m n , then k m = 0 [ n ] . We can deduce that k ⩾ n > 0 is not possible, and as m = − 1 [ n ] , there is a contradiction.
(m+n)^2 = m^2 + n^2 + 2mn. The LHS can be divided by m+n. But m^2 + n^2 cannot be divided by m+n unless m and n are 0.
Let n = m + 1 , then
m 2 + ( m + 1 ) 2 = 2 m 2 + 2 m + 1 = ( 2 m + 1 ) m + ( m + 1 )
where m + 1 is the integer remainder of the division 2 m 2 + 2 m + 1 by 2 m + 1 . But m + 1 = 0 only if m = − 1 , which is not positive.
Lets have m^2 + n^2 modified as (m+n)^2 - 2mn
Hence (m^2 + n^2) / (m+n) is equivalent to (m+n)^2)/(m+n) - 2mn/(m+n)
So the question is just about the last term 2mn/(m+n)
Numerator 2mn - always even Denominator m+n - always odd (m,n are consequtive)
Hence they never divide each other.
This explanation is flawed i suppose , because 2mn which is an even number could be a multiple of odd number such as m+n if it is multiplied even times . For ex. 6/3 =2
yes.. you are correct aniket.. that was a mistake from my side
I think my solution is a bit lengthy compared to other, but this is what I found.
Suppose there exists 2 consecutive positive integers m and n such that m + n ∣ m 2 + n 2
Let m = k
n = k + 1
for some k ∈ N
⇒
m 2 + n 2 = 2 k 2 + 2 k + 1
⇒
m + n = 2 k + 1
Then,
2 k + 1 2 k 2 + 2 k + 1 = 2 k + 1 2 k 2 + 1
Now we have to show that 2 k + 1 2 k 2 is irreducible ∀ k ∈ N
By Extended Euclidean Algorithm, one can show that,
2 k 2 = ( 2 k + 1 ) ( k ) − k
⇒
2 k 2 − ( 2 k + 1 ) k = − k
2 k + 1 = ( − k ) ( − 2 ) + 1
⇒
2 k + 1 + 2 ( − k ) = 1
Substituting − k in the equation, we have
2 k + 1 + 2 [ 2 k 2 − ( 2 k = 1 ) k ] = 1
⇒
( 2 k + 1 ) ( 1 − 2 k ) + 2 ( 2 k 2 ) = 1
Therefore there are No consecutive positive integers that satisfy the condition.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 |
|
Neat code. But does this work for all consecutive positive integers ( m and n ) larger than 100 as well?
Often there are number theory conjectures that hold for very large values. A famous example is A^4 + B^4 + C^4 = D^4
My question was to ask what is the result of dividing m 2 + n 2 by m + n ? The answer must be less than n because n ∗ ( m + n ) = n ∗ m + n ∗ n which is more than m ∗ m + n ∗ n . And it must be more than m because m ∗ ( m + n ) = m ∗ m + m ∗ n which is less than m ∗ m + n ∗ n . And there's no positive integer between two consecutive integers so it will never be exactly divisible, the answer will always be m with remainder n .
Any number squared results always in an even number.
One of two consecutive numbers is always odd. So the sum two consecutive numbers is always odd.
Since even numbers can never be divisible by odd numbers the statement has to be true.
Why would any number squared be always even
A squared number isn't always even, For instance- 3^2 is 9, which is odd. Even numbers can be divisible by odd numbers, for instance, 6 is even, and can be divided by 3, which is odd, to yield 2.
Because m and n are consecutive:
n = m + 1
In order to be divisible by m + n there must be an integer k that fulfils:
m 2 + ( m + 1 ) 2 = k ⋅ ( m + ( m + 1 ) )
By reordering we get:
2 m 2 + ( 2 − 2 k ) ⋅ m + ( 1 − k ) = 0
where we can solve m as a second order equation:
m = 2 k − 1 ± k 2 − 1
We know that m must be an integer, so the square root must solve as an rational number. The only way k 2 − 1 is rational, is when k = 1 , which gives the solution m = 0 , n = 1 , which is not valid because m is not positive. So, there is no valid solution.
◆int x≧3 ◆m=(x-1)/2 ◆n=(x+1)/2 ◆(m²+n²)/(m+n)=(((x-1)/2)²+((x+1)/2)²)/((x-1)/2+(x+1)/2)=…=1/2(x+1/x) ◆m²+n² is never divisible bym+n .
m 2 − n 2 is divisible by m + n
For m 2 + n 2 to be divisible, ( m 2 − n 2 ) − ( m 2 + n 2 ) = k ( m + n )
Or, 2 n 2 = k ( m + n )
2 n 2 = k ( 2 m + 1 ) (m and n are consecutive);
The above expression is clearly false as m,n are integers.
Clearly false?
Suppose, that the fact is f a l s e .
Let those numbers be k and k + 1 .
Then k 2 + ( k + 1 ) 2 = 2 k 2 + 2 k + 1 = 1 ⋅ ( k + ( k + 1 ) ) + 2 k 2 . So, we need to prove that 2 k 2 is divisible by k + ( k + 1 ) = 2 k + 1 .
However, 2 k 2 is always even and 2 k + 1 is always odd. No even number is divisible by odd number.
We got a contradiction, hence the fact is t r u e
But 6 is divisible by 3 isn't it
Let m = n + 1 . Therefore, m 2 + n 2 = 2 n 2 + 2 n + 1 = 2 n 2 + ( m + n ) which is divisible by m + n if and only if 2 n 2 = k ( m + n ) , where k = 1 , 2 , 3 , . . . . In other words 2 n 2 − 2 k n − k = 0 . This quadratic eqution solves for n = 2 k ( 1 ± 1 + k 2 ) , which is not an integer because 1 + k 2 cannot be a square number.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Here's a visual proof.
Let m 2 and n 2 represent two squares. Their combines area is m 2 + n 2 as shown below.
The total length of the bottom is m + n . If we multiply that value by m, we get the following blue area.
However, that's not the total area of m 2 + n 2 , because it misses the 1 ∗ n rectangle in the top right. So maybe we just need to multiply m + n by one more. Since m and n are consecutive positive integers, the next integer is n. When multiplying m + n by n, we get the following area:
The area of ( m + n ) ∗ n is the blue area and the red area combined. This also isn't the total area of m 2 + n 2 , because it overshoots the area by the red rectangle of 1 ∗ m .
Therefore m 2 + n 2 is never divisible by m + n .