Page Progression - Part 2

Algebra Level 2

I have started reading a new novel, and when I went out for an evening walk, I met my friend Aniket. The following conversation took place-

Aniket: Satvik, what is the sum of all the page numbers you have read so far?

Satvik: Hm let me think ... it is 2000.

Aniket: Hey, that's impossible, you must have counted a page number twice.

Satvik: Ah yes, you're right.

Which page number did I count twice?

Details: - It turns out that I really counted one and only one page number twice. The novel starts from page number 1, a zero would not make a difference though!


The answer is 47.

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.

11 solutions

The sum of the first n n natural numbers is n ( n + 1 ) 2 \dfrac{n(n+1)}{2} , and by the problem we know that:

n ( n + 1 ) 2 + x = 2000 \dfrac{n(n+1)}{2}+x=2000

Where n n is the page number, and x x is the page conted twice. So, let's solve only for n n :

n ( n + 1 ) 2 = 2000 \dfrac{n(n+1)}{2}=2000

n 62.74 n\approx62.74

So, the actual page is n = 62 n=62 . Now, let's replace that value to find x x :

62 ( 62 + 1 ) 2 + x = 2000 \dfrac{62(62+1)}{2}+x=2000

1953 + x = 2000 1953+x=2000

x = 47 x=\boxed{47}

So, the page conted twice is the 47th one.

Wow, Alan. A solution can't be better.....thanks.

Satvik Golechha - 7 years, 2 months ago

nice solution

Arijit Banerjee - 7 years, 1 month ago

That's elegant!

Danish Wazir - 7 years, 1 month ago

same as I did

Chitranshu Vashishth - 7 years ago

The more appropiate equation will be n(n+1)/2 <2000. This gives n(max)=62.Otherwise same method.

Chandrachur Banerjee - 7 years ago

one needs to add a remark: n cannot be less than 62 because if n=61, x=109 and if n<61, x>109. Thus n=62 is the only possibility.

Rao Nagisetty - 4 years, 5 months ago

y cnt we take n = 63 as solution

maheshbabu chaluvadi - 7 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

because the product of n and (n+1) should be less than 2000 as one number is added twice. That's why we need to take an integer lesser than 62.74 (and closest to it) that is 62, and not 63.

Simran Gade - 7 years, 1 month ago

If n=63 then it will exceed 2000 i.e 2016

Ramasubramaniyan Gunasridharan - 7 years, 1 month ago

Sum of n natural numbers = n(n+1)/2. Since a page is counted twice, let the twice counted page be x and n(n+1)/2 = 2000 - x This implies, n^2 +n -4000+2x=0 Thus, Discriminant should be a perfect square and n the number of pages and x should always be a natural number. Thus, D=16001-8x is a perfect square. Thus, by solving we get x = 47 ( whole number). Where D = 15625 = 125^2 We may also get D=15876 = 126^2 but 16001-15876 = 125 will not be divisible by 8 for x E W. Thus, x=47

ur solution is better than alan's solution.

Aneesh Kundu - 7 years, 1 month ago

"Thus, by solving we get x = 47".
This step could probably use a bit more explanation. Does one simply run through values of x until finding a perfect square? There is elegance to this approach, but you're hiding the computational difficulties.

Richard Desper - 4 years, 7 months ago
Aditya Raj
Apr 17, 2014

Let, no page is counted twice &he; read x pages So,, x(x+1)/2=2000 or,x^2+x-4000=0 {√4000=63.24}[as the no. of pages never be a fraction, so we factorises the quadratic eqn x^2+63x-62x+3906=0] We can't write x as 64x-63x because then the summation of pages will be >2000(63×64/2=2016). It is't possible as Satvik count only 1page twice. So the actual sum of the pages is 62×63/2=1953 So he repeated the page (2000-1953)=47 twice. so easy...............

Arghyanil Dey
Apr 10, 2014

Let, no page is counted twice &he read x pages So,, x(x+1)/2=2000 or,x^2+x-4000=0 {√4000=63.24}[as the no. of pages never be a fraction, so we factorises the quadratic eqn x^2+63x-62x+3906=0] We can't write x as 64x-63x because then the summation of pages will be >2000(63×64/2=2016). It is't possible as Satvik count only 1page twice. So the actual sum of the pages is 62×63/2=1953 So he repeated the page (2000-1953)=47 twice.

Rodrigo Machado
Feb 20, 2017

Abide the clear solutions presented already, you can always counter proof by subtracting all the integers progressively from 2000. The left over is your result: 2000 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5....- 62 = 47

Mukund Krishna
Feb 11, 2017

Let number of pages be n, page counted twice be k. Then we have n(n+1)/2 + k = 2000. We can find the upper bound of n by letting k = 1 and solving the quadratic which gives the maximum possible value of of n as 63 ( rounded off). So now we try the lower values to see which works .. Trying n = 62 we find n(n+)/2 = 1953 , which leads to a valid value of k = 2000 -1953 which is 47. Also k satisfies the constraint , n => k.

Khushi Jain
Nov 2, 2016

I solved this sum by a formula- n ( n + 1 ) 2 \frac{n(n+1)}{2} ... so, lets assume the pages he read in total be 62(by calculation certainly) so by formula- = 62 ( 62 + 1 ) 2 \frac{62*(62+1)}{2} = 62 63 2 \frac{62*63}{2} = 3906 2 \frac{3906}{2} =1953 then, subtracting 1953 from 2000, we get 2000-1953=47... that means he counted 47 twice.. therefore, 47 is the ans..

We all know the sum of hundred numbers is 5050. Therefore we know it's somewhere in between. For 50 numbers it's 1275 where we can check by adding more numbers which I found by brüte force 47

Ankit Kumar Jain
Mar 21, 2015

You can simply use the method n ( n + 1 ) 2 \frac{n(n+1)}{2} = 2000 to obtain approx 62.

Now replacing n = 62 you get 1953.

So the required page is 2000-1953 = 47 \boxed{47}

Vishal Dm
Jul 13, 2014

Sum of 'n' terms of an A.P is "S=n/2 [2a + (n-1)d]

a = first term

d = common difference

Now,

=>2000=n/2[2(1) + (n-1)*1]

=>4000=n(n+1)

If you take n=62 you will get n(n+1)=62(63)=3906<4000(that is what , we need)

Then 4000-3906=94

=>Number of the page counted twice = 94/2=47!!

Manohar Tn
Apr 10, 2014

How do we solve this other than by trial and error method.

Can we arrive at a formula which could be applied to any (sum+repeated_number) ?

This is not trial and error, Manohar, although it seems to be. If we take the page numbers to be 61, we see that the repeated digit is greater than the total number of pages, which is obviously impossible.

Satvik Golechha - 7 years, 2 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...