What is the smallest positive multiple of hundred which can be expressed as the product of two consecutive integers?
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.
Correct. Bonus question: What would the answer be if I replace the word "hundred" by "thousand"?
l set up the equation n ( n + 1 ) = 1 0 0 x and factored the RHS to get 4 × 2 5 x . Rearranging you notice 4 x × 2 5 which easily gives 2 4 × 2 5 since 24 is a multiple of 4 and satisfies our consecutive requirement. Thus, our solution is 2 4 × 2 5 = 6 0 0 .
Bonus question, our numbers would now be 125 and 8, since 124 and 126 is not divisible by 8, let's try 375 the next odd number divisible by 125. This gives us 375 and 376, or the product 141000.
Log in to reply
Similar thinking
Same way I got it.
This is my correctly done 3 0 0 0 t h problem, so I must provide the solution, which is same as Eamon Gupta 's.
Let m and n be positive integers such that:
1 0 0 n = m ( m + 1 ) ⇒ n = 1 0 0 m ( m + 1 ) = 1 0 0 m ( m + 1 ) = 2 2 × 5 2 m ( m + 1 )
We note that the nominator of RHS m ( m + 1 ) is a product of an odd and an even numbers. For n to be an integer, the odd number in the nominator of RHS must divisible by 2 5 and the even one, 4 . The smallest 1 0 0 n is when the odd number of nominator is 2 5 and since 2 5 − 1 = 2 4 is a multiple of 4 , it meets the bill. Therefore the smallest multiple of 1 0 0 which can be expressed as the product of two consecutive numbers is 2 4 × 2 5 = 6 0 0 .
Yes, just notice that two consecutive numbers must be coprime kills this problem. Donald Osmeyer made a valid point, you have shown that 2 4 is the upper bound of the answer, what's left is to show that no other values below 2 4 satisfy the condition, which should be pretty straightforward from then on. Bonus question: Would the answer change if I replace the word "two" with "three"?
You are right the coprimes kill it. For three consecutive numbers. It would be 2 3 × 2 4 × 2 5 = 1 3 8 0 0
For 1 0 0 0 instead of 1 0 0 , the smallest multiple is 3 7 5 × 3 7 6 = 1 4 1 0 0 0 . 1 2 5 = 5 3 does not have a multiple of 8 = 2 3 as neighbor.
Requiring the odd number to be divisible by 25 and the even one divisible by 4 does not follow from what you wrote before that. For instance, m=99, m+1=100 has the even number divisible by both 4 and 25, and n=m*(m+1)/100 is an integer as needed (9900). Your requirement that the odd number must be divisible by 25 does conveniently lead to the right answer, but seems invalid here, and without that result, the rest of the proof falls apart.
Brute force
boolean found = false;
int x = 11;
while(!found){
if( x * (x-1) % 100 == 0){
found = true;
}else{
x +=1;
}
}
System.out.println(x * (x - 1));
i=1 while i>0 :
if i*(i+1) % 100==0 :
ans=i
break
else: i+=1
print" answer is : " ans*(ans+1)
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Note that in order to be divisible by 100, the product of these 2 numbers is divisible by both 25 and 4. So from this we can deduce that one of the numbers is a multiple of 25, otherwise they would not be consecutive.
25 - 1 = 24 which is a multiple of 4. Therefore the 2 numbers are 24 and 25, because 25 is the smallest multiple of 25. 2 4 × 2 5 = 6 0 0