How many 3 digit numbers have exactly 3 factors?
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.
For clarification, you should elaborate why "Any number can have only 3 factors when it is the square of a prime.".
Did u get it correct at your first attempt? Coz I got it only at the 3rd attempt..
Log in to reply
it is very blurred i though 3 factors a perfect square is only 2 factors so it is not 3 factors, it is indeed 3 digit but only two factors not 3...
A number having only 3 factors must be the square of a prime by virtue of the converse of the theorem of number of divisors .
The main thing to note here is that 3 is a prime. It cannot be factorized any further. Now, by the theorem of divisors and primality of 3 , we know that the numbers required must be of the form p 3 − 1 = p 2 where p is a prime.
What about 166 (83,2,1), that's not square of any of the prime.
Log in to reply
The number itself is also counted as a factor, so 166 is a factor of itself which means 166 has 4 (positive) factors.
Log in to reply
This means that we will count 1 also as a factor, then we have find all composite 3 digit numbers that have only one factor other than 1 and itself!!!!
Log in to reply
@Shanu Jindal – Yes. Basically, we require that n has exactly one nontrivial factor. Since n is composite, we can write n = p q where p is a prime and q is some integer. Our claim is that q = p . Suppose to the contrary that q = p . But then p , q are two nontrivial factors of n , a contradiction. Hence, n = p q = p 2 , i.e., n must be the square of some prime p .
For that we should consider 1 to be a factor.. or the number itself.. as a factor.. is that allowed.. both? or any one of them? which one of them?
reported...
2* 163 = 326 is also found to follow the given definition of "Only 3 Factors". No?
Log in to reply
Yes, the usual definition of "factor of a number" also allows for 1 and the number itself. In case we don't consider those two trivial factors, the factors found are called proper factors. You can read more about this in the factors wiki.
So, following the usual definition, 326 has 4 factors, namely 1,2,163 and 326.
Log in to reply
yeah.. Thanks... The question should mention which definition to be considered.. Thanks for the wiki link. :)
If a number has an odd number of factors, then it's a perfect square. The factors of a perfect square x are [1, a, b, sqrt(x), c, d, x], when a x d = x and b x c = x, and both a and b are factors of sqrt(x). For a number to have 3 factors, then sqrt(x) must have no other factor than 1 and itself, therefore a prime number.
Did you mean 2 factors?
What about the numbers 102 = 2 * 3 * 17, or 105 = 3 * 5 * 7, or 110 = 2 * 5 * 11 ?
Log in to reply
Yes I also don't agree with this solution
Apparently, though the question does not make this clear, 1 and n count as factors of n . So the factors of 102 are actually 1, 2, 3, 17, and 102.
Personally I disagree with this, as it screws up the definition of a perfect number, which is "the sum of its factors".
Log in to reply
6, perfect number, is the sum of it's factors other than itself=1+2+3 Besides, by definition, they are factors...
Bro you should mention except 1 and the no. Itself too
That's how I did it
If a number greater than 1 is NOT a power of a prime, then it has at least 4 different divisors. In fact if p , q are prime numbers such that p < q and both are divisors of a number n so we have 1 , p , q , p q are four different divisors of n . So the number IS a power of a prime. It is very easy now to see that p n has exactly n + 1 divisors, namely
1 = p 0 , p = p 1 , … , p n
Since the number has 3 divisors and is a power of a prime, then it must have the form p 2 . It is a prime squared.
2 is greater than 1, and yet it has neither four different divisors nor is it a power of a prime, can you explain why ?
Log in to reply
Thanks for your question! I guess 2 = 2 1 is a power of a prime. Reading your question probably there's something I can't understand, if so please let's discuss about it. I am open and happy to talk.
EDIT: I just noted that the Hypotesys "greater than 1" could be omitted since it is included in "not a power of a prime". In fact 1 = p 0 for every prime p . Taking a number that is NOT a power of a prime, it is then automatically greater than 1.
Any number having three factors has to be a square of a prime no. so tht factorising that number would give only 1, the number itself and the square root of that no. So there are only 7 such no. between 100 & 999(where prime no. are decided as 6n+/_ 1; where n=1,2....)
For example: 8 = 2 x 4. The factors 2 and 4 pair each other and so the number of divisors is even. For odd number of divisors, the number is paired to itself so it is not counted again. The other 2 factors are it and itself (which is confirmed since it has 3 factors only) thus reducing the problem to what is shown above?
So, only prime squares qualify. The primes must be in the range 1 0 0 ≤ p < 1 0 0 0 so that our prime squares are 1 1 2 , 1 3 2 , 1 7 2 , 1 9 2 , 2 3 2 , 2 9 2 , 3 1 2
Here's a little Ruby script that answers the question:
1 |
|
Only squares can have an odd number of factors (every factor has a counterpart that is different except squares as the factor is repeated) For example 12 has (1,12) (2,6) (3,4) but 16 has (1,16) (2,8) (4,4) Any square with non prime factors also has the factors of those numbers as well, 8 is a factor of 16 so automatically 2 and 4 are as well. This does not happen with prime factors. 9 for example only has 1, 3 and 9, because 3 has no factors other than 1 and 3
Let one of the 3-digit numbers that we are looking for be N for 1 0 0 ≤ N ≤ 9 9 9 . It should be noted that N can be represented in the form of primes factorization i.e N = p 1 k 1 p 2 k 2 . . . p j k j for primes p 1 , p 2 , . . . , p j and natural numbers k 1 , k 2 , . . . , k j
The total amount of positive divisor of N ( denoted τ ( N ) ) is ( k 1 + 1 ) ( k 2 + 1 ) . . . ( k j + 1 )
We know that τ ( N ) = ( k 1 + 1 ) ( k 2 + 1 ) . . . ( k j + 1 ) = 3
Since k 1 , k 2 , . . . , k j are all natural numbers and is by definition; does not include zero, then the only value for τ ( N ) = 3 is when j = 1 . It's impossible to have any j ≥ 2 because if so, an example would be; τ ( N ) = ( k 1 + 1 ) ( k 2 + 1 ) = 3 . In this case, either of the k 1 , k 2 could be equal to 0 while the other one could be equal to 2 , but we know that k j must be a natural number. Therefore, having j ≥ 2 is impossible, implying that j = 1
Now:
τ ( N ) = k 1 + 1 = 3 ⇔ k 1 = 2
Recalling N = p 1 k 1 = p 2
This suggests that the particular 3-digit number N that we are finding, must be a perfect square with the base of this square being a prime, that ranges from 1 0 0 → 9 9 9 . This gives us all values of p 2 being from p = 1 1 to p = 3 1 , and between 1 1 → 3 1 inclusive, there are 7 primes. Therefore, there are exactly 7 3-digits number that have exactly 3 factors
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Any number can have only 3 factors when it is the square of a prime.
The range for 3 -digit prime-squares is from 1 1 ( 1 2 1 ) to 3 1 ( 9 6 1 ) .
The numbers of of primes between 1 1 and 3 1 is 7 − 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 7 , 1 9 , 2 3 , 2 9 , 3 1