2 6 7 4 7 9 8 1 2 3 5 6 2 0 9 9 9 9 0 0 7 ⟹ 2 2 = 2 × 1 1 ⟹ 6 7 7 6 = 2 × 3 3 8 8 ⟹ 4 7 9 9 7 4 = 2 × 2 3 9 9 8 7 ⟹ 8 1 2 3 3 2 1 8 = 2 × 4 0 6 1 6 6 0 9 ⟹ 5 6 2 0 9 9 0 2 6 5 = 5 × 1 1 2 4 1 9 8 0 5 3 ⟹ 9 9 9 0 0 7 7 0 0 9 9 9 = 7 × 1 4 2 7 1 5 3 8 5 8 5 7
You have a machine that does some very interesting prime arithmetic. The machine takes in a prime number, reverses its digits, and attaches the resulting number to the prime input to form a new number.
It seems that for every prime number shown above (in the far left column), the machine produces a composite number (as implied by the right side of the equation).
Does there exist a prime for which the machine will produce another prime?
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 that 1 doesn't work, but also that since 1 isn't prime it isn't accepted as an input by the machine. ( Discussion on if 1 is prime is at our wiki here .)
Note that, historically but not universally, 1 used to be considered prime. (Euler, in a work from 1770, did not consider 1 a prime. Yet in 1914, the Carnegie Institution published an engrossing work entitled List of Prime Numbers from 1 to 10006721 .) However, there came to be many instances where we wanted something to be true for all prime numbers "except 1". Excluding 1 as a prime is now standard. (From what I gather, some European countries were the last holdouts on this -- if you believe you heard back in school that 1 is a prime number, you might not be mistaken.)
The most prominent example is the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic which states any integer 2 or larger has a unique factorization into primes. If 1 was allowed as a prime, this wouldn't be true (consider 1 0 = 2 × 5 = 2 × 5 × 1 = 2 × 5 × 1 × 1 = … ) .
Cool! Another way to say it is that the machine produces palindromic numbers with an even number of digits which, as you explain well, are divisible by 11.
Log in to reply
Yes , by the same argument every palindromic number with an even number of digits is divisible by 1 1
Sorry I got it wrong! When I was in school they taught me 1 was a prime number.
Thanks for the solution. Using $n$ for a number and its length in decimal representation at the same time is confusing however.
Given the Challenge Master Note, it seems that, since the problem did not exclude 1 explicitly, as it should have, nor exclude trivial answers, it is not appropriate to deny 1 as an acceptable response. Otherwise, it's a trap.
Log in to reply
Right, this is a trap question that isn't specific enough. The answer is intuitively obvious if 1 is excluded.
What about 1
Log in to reply
As I already said, 1 is not a prime number so you can't give it to the machine
But, the first one (11) is a prime
Log in to reply
The machine can produce 1 1 only when the input is 1 . But 1 is not a prime number so the machine doesn't accept it
Another nice way of seeing this relationship without relying on divisibility rules is using the fact that x + 1 ∣ ( x + 1 ) 2 n − 1 as follows. Let the prime number be
p = a n ∗ 1 0 n + a n − 1 ∗ 1 0 n − 1 + . . . + a 1 ∗ 1 0 1 + a 0
Then the new number is
n = ∑ i = 0 n a i ⋅ ( 1 0 i ) ( 1 + 1 0 2 n + 1 − 2 i ) )
Since each one of these parts of the sum is divisble by 11, as 1 + 1 0 ∣ 1 + 1 0 2 n − 1 , the whole sum is also divisible by eleven, and since n is not 11 (1 is not prime), n will always be composite.
How did you get the new number?
If you look at it, you can see it makes an a.0 as the ones digit and the 10^2n+1 digit, the a.1 as the tens digit and the 10^2n digit, and so on. I just combined like a.i terms and factored out the 10^i.
It looks like you missed some braces in the exponentiation: ( x + 1 ) 2 n − 1 should be ( x + 1 ) 2 n − 1 .
Your formula is for the reversed number attached to the left, for the case at hand the terms would be a i ( 1 0 n + 1 + i + 1 0 n − i ) , which factorizes into a i 1 0 n − i ( 1 + 1 0 2 i + 1 ) .
If you closely observe, each number will be divisible by 11. Hence, there's just no question of the number being a prime.
Be careful: it is easy to observe a few cases but to generalize this to all cases is much harder, but more rigorous. Keep in mind that we cannot jump to conclusions about a few cases and make them represent all cases.
You would need to prove that each number will be divisible by 11.
What about 3
Log in to reply
if you reverse the 3 and add it to the end of the other 3 you get 33
I checked every prime up to 139 and found no solutions. At some point I had to determine this pattern would likely continue. Though, I don't have a way to write a proof.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Divisibility Rules
Let the prime number p be
p = a 1 a 2 … a n
Where the a i i ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , n } are the digits of p
After the process we get m = a 1 a 2 … a n a n … a 2 a 1
m is divisible by 1 1 if and only if the sum S of its digits with alternated signs is divisible by 1 1
S = a 1 − a 2 + … ± a n ∓ a n … a 2 − a 1 = 0 ≡ 0 m o d 1 1
Since m is a positive integer divisible by 1 1 and it's not 1 1 itself (because that would imply p = 1 , which is not prime), m is always composite