Product of N N Consecutive Integers Divided by N N

1 is divisible by 1.
2 × 3 2\times 3 is divisible by 2.
4 × 5 × 6 4\times5\times6 is divisible by 3.
7 × 8 × 9 × 10 7 \times 8 \times 9 \times 10 is divisible by 4.
11 × 12 × 13 × 14 × 15 11 \times 12 \times 13 \times 14 \times 15 is divisible by 5.

True or False?

The product of any N N consecutive integers must be divisible by N . N.

False True

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.

10 solutions

Stephen Mellor
Dec 9, 2017

Quite simply,

If you have n n consecutive numbers, one of them must be a multiple of n n (as multiples of n n occur every n n integers)

Yes, or can we conclude it to Pigeonhole Theorem?

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

I suppose that the Dirichlet principle (pigeon hole) can be used to prove this result using modular arithmetic, but there is no need to make it more complicated than my above solution

Stephen Mellor - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Doesn't the pigeonhole theorem is equivalent to your solution? I thought is the same.

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Kelvin Hong The pigeon hole theorem is a method for solving combinatorical problems. My solution can be proved using this theorem, but I wouldn't say they are equivalent

Stephen Mellor - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Stephen Mellor Actually your solution does follow from the pigeonhole principle.

Assume that the statement "Out of any n n consecutive numbers,one must be divisible by n n " is false.

This implies that all of the n n consecutive numbers have non-zero remainders upon division by n n .But there are n 1 n-1 possible non-zero remainders.

Therefore there are two numbers A , B A,B in this list such that they have the same remainder upon division by n n .Name the remainder as x x .

However,when you increase a number by 1,the remainder increases by 1 as well.So,since the remainder is never decreasing,the only way two numbers in this list of n n consecutive numbers could have the same remainder upon division by n n is if the remainders "looped around" and eventually reached x x again from below.

But in order to loop around,the list of remainders of all these numbers must have gone through 0 0 as well,which is an immediate contradiction to our initial assumption!

Hence proved.

Abdur Rehman Zahid - 2 years, 10 months ago

Just out of curiosity, What if one of the numbers was zero?

Flynn Collins - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Then the product would be 0. Any number can divide 0, so no problem.

Note that there would arise a problem if we were dividing by zero, but in the context of the problem this makes no sense as you can't have the product of 0 numbers

Stephen Mellor - 3 years, 5 months ago

No, N must be non-zero

Donald Zacherl - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

How do you work that out?

Stewart Gordon - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

If N was zero, you would be taking the product of 0 numbers which makes no sense

Stephen Mellor - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Stephen Mellor Actually it does make sense - the product of 0 numbers is always 1, the multiplicative identity. A consequence of this is that 0 ! = 1 0! = 1 .

Just realised that this is indeed a flaw, since 1 isn't divisible by 0. So we need a proviso that N > 0 N > 0 .

Stewart Gordon - 3 years, 5 months ago

Yes, otherwise it will be meaningless.

Kelvin Hong - 3 years, 5 months ago

The statement does not exclude non-positive integers (a notable flaw). So a series “-1, 0, 1, 2” disproves the statement. Most people are answering correctly the question they wanted to be asked (positive integers), not the actual one stated.

Simon Mitchell - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Care to explain how your series disproves the statement?

-1,0,1,2 = 4 numbers ( N = 4 ) (N = \boxed{4})

1 × 0 × 1 × 2 = 0 -1 \times 0 \times 1 \times 2 = \boxed{0}

0 / 4 = 0 0 / 4 = \boxed{0} (which is an integer)

Stephen Mellor - 3 years, 5 months ago

This works for negative number sequences or positive number sequences but not for sequences including zero.

Greg Covarr - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

See Simon Mitchell's comment, and my reply to him

Stephen Mellor - 3 years, 5 months ago

set of integers include 0, the negative, and the positive natural numbers. Answer is true only if N is non-zero.

GarENt sIrUS - 3 years, 5 months ago

Answered false got the question wrong

Guguji Ge - 3 years, 5 months ago

Yes, I almost answered false before I remembered this. My dad once asked me to find primes that were 3 consecutive odd numbers, like 3, 5, 7. I couldn't, but when I was told why I understood.That reminded me of this rule.

Zoe Codrington - 2 years, 9 months ago
Chan Tin Ping
Dec 8, 2017

The product of any N N consecutive integers not only divisible by N N , but also divisible by N ! N! .

Proof: Let the N N positive consecutive integers as k + 1 , k + 2 , , k + ( N 1 ) , k + N k+1,k+2,…,k+(N-1),k+N . Consider the integer ( k + N k ) \binom{k+N}{k} , which is a i n t e g e r \large integer . ( k + N k ) = ( k + N ) ! k ! × N ! = ( k + 1 ) × ( k + 2 ) × × ( k + ( N 1 ) ) × ( k + N ) N ! \begin{aligned} & \binom{k+N}{k} \\ =& \dfrac{(k+N)!}{k! \times N!} \\ =& \dfrac{(k+1) \times (k+2) \times … \times (k+(N-1)) \times (k+N)}{N!} \end{aligned} This imply that ( k + 1 ) × ( k + 2 ) × × ( k + ( N 1 ) ) × ( k + N ) N ! \dfrac{(k+1) \times (k+2) \times … \times (k+(N-1)) \times (k+N)}{N!} is also an integer, which means that N ! [ ( k + 1 ) × ( k + 2 ) × × ( k + ( N 1 ) ) × ( k + N ) ] N! \space | \space [(k+1) \times (k+2) \times … \times (k+(N-1)) \times (k+N)]

For product of N N consecutive negative integers, we just need to take out the negative signs of them, and we will get a number which is product of N N consecutive positive integers with negative sign or maybe not. As the negative sign doesn't affect the divisibility, we can conclude that it must me divisible by N ! N! . If the N N consecutive number include positive integers and negative integers, then it must include 0 0 , so the product is equal to 0 0 , which is divisible by any N ! N! .

The Classic Proof!

Muhammad Rasel Parvej - 3 years, 6 months ago

Your proof is almost correct, but you need to show this holds true for negative integers, not just non-negative.

Sharky Kesa - 3 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

Yah, forget already, Thanks!

Chan Tin Ping - 3 years, 6 months ago

Ooo. Nice point. I overlooked.

Muhammad Rasel Parvej - 3 years, 6 months ago

We must recognize first that─

The product of N N consecutive integers is divisible by N N if and only if at least one of N N consecutive integers is divisible by N N .


  • Let a + 1 , a + 2 , , a + N a+1, a+2, \ldots \ldots \ldots, a+N be N N consecutive integers with a a is an integer.

  • Let's assume that none of ( a + k ) (a+k) with ( 1 k N ) (1\leq k \leq N) is divisible by N N . So, there remain ( N 1 ) (N-1) possible remainders, namely, 1 , 2 , 3 , , N 1 1, 2, 3, \dots \ldots \ldots, N-1 , for N N integers ( a + k ) (a+k) when divided by N N .

  • ( N 1 ) (N-1) possible remainders for N N integers. So, by the Pigeonhole Principle , at least two of numbers ( a + k ) (a+k) will share the same remainder when divided by N N .

  • Let's assume that ( a + i ) (a+i) and ( a + j ) (a+j) give same remainder when divided by N N , with 1 i < j N 1 \leq i < j \leq N . So, ( a + j ) ( a + i ) = ( j i ) (a+j)-(a+i)=(j-i) is divisible by N N . But as 1 i < j N 1 \leq i < j \leq N , so, 1 ( j i ) < N 1\leq (j-i) < N . So, j i j-i cannot be divisible by N N . Therefore, assuming none of N N consecutive integers is divisible by N N leads to a contradiction.

So, YES \boxed{\text{YES}} , The product of N N consecutive integers is divisible by N N .

I really am trying to understand this but I'm struggling to grasp some of the concepts at the end could you explain them further.

Andrew Stobie - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

From exactly which point, you are facing difficulty, please?

Muhammad Rasel Parvej - 3 years, 5 months ago

I guess it's important to remember that zero is divisible by any integer, so that -1 x 0 x 1 = 0 which is divisible by 3.

Edward Rogers - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

exactly - this got me

Roger Terrill - 3 years, 5 months ago
Ankush Menat
Dec 17, 2017

If you're clueless start with simpler problem. Why should product of any two consecutive positive integers be divisible by 2?

Munem Shahriar
Dec 17, 2017

In the product of N N consecutive integers, one of them must have N N as its factor.

Hence the product of any N N consecutive integers is always divisible by N N .

{5,6,7} doesn't contain number 3. "Product of N consecutive positive integers must have N as its prime factor" this what you probably meant.

Ankush Menat - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Yes it does, 6 is 2x3(in this case 3 is your N), Munem is right

Gian Carlo - 3 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

Maybe he should have written "N as one of its factors" but i think what he means is quite clear

Gian Carlo - 3 years, 5 months ago
Tate Calem
Dec 19, 2017

11x12x13x14x15 is the same as 11x12x13x14x3x5, which is divisible by 5

1 is divisible by 1.

2 × 3 2\times 3 is divisible by 2.

4 × 5 × 6 4\times 5\times 6 is divisible by 3.

7 × 8 × 9 × 10 7 \times 8 \times 9 \times 10 is divisible by 4.

11 × 12 × 13 × 14 × 15 11 \times 12 \times 13 \times 14 \times 15 is divisible by 5.

Show j = 0 n 1 ( n + ( n 2 ) ( n 1 ) 2 + j ) = n k \prod_{j = 0}^{n - 1} (n + \dfrac{(n - 2) (n - 1)}{2} + j) = n * k for some integer k k .

For n n odd the last term of the above product is p n 1 = n ( n + 1 ) 2 = n k n p_{n - 1} = \dfrac{n(n + 1)}{2} = n * k \implies n is a factor of the product for n n odd.

For n n even the n 2 2 \dfrac{n - 2}{2} term of the above product is p n 2 2 = n 2 2 = n ( n 2 ) = n k n p_{\dfrac{n - 2}{2}} = \dfrac{n^2}{2} = n * (\dfrac{n}{2}) = n * k^{*} \implies n is a factor of the product for n n even.

n \therefore n is a factor of the product j = 0 n 1 ( n + ( n 2 ) ( n 1 ) 2 + j ) \prod_{j = 0}^{n - 1} \:\ (n + \dfrac{(n - 2) (n - 1)}{2} + j) for every positive integer n n .

Note: The product can be written backwards as j = 0 n 1 ( n ) ( n + 1 ) 2 j \prod_{j = 0}^{n - 1} \dfrac{(n)(n + 1)}{2} - j from which you can see that for n n even j = n 2 p ( n 2 ) = n 2 2 = n ( n 2 ) = n k j = \dfrac{n}{2} \implies p_{(\dfrac{n}{2})} = \dfrac{n^2}{2} = n * (\dfrac{n}{2}) = n * k^{*} and for n n odd j = 0 p 0 = n ( n + 1 ) 2 = n ( n + 1 2 ) = n k j = 0 \implies p_{0} = \dfrac{n(n + 1)}{2} = n * (\dfrac{n + 1}{2}) = n * k .

Rocco Dalto - 3 years, 5 months ago

Since 3 has its multiple after every 3 number So if you choose any 3 consecutive numbers , then there will definitely exist one multiple of 3.

And the same happens with every no. other than 3. Hence it's true

That is exactly what the problem is asking you to verify! :P

Abdur Rehman Zahid - 2 years, 10 months ago
Junzhe Chai
Dec 22, 2017

无论如何每行个数等于因数必然排列中存在它的倍数

Since one factor is 15 15 (and 15 15 is divisible by 5 5 ), the product is divisible by 5 5 .

Leon Conrad
Dec 21, 2017

This does not hold if zero, which is an integer , is included in the series.

0 x 1 x 2 = 2, which is not divisible by 3.

0 x 1 x 2 x 3 = 6, which is not divisible by 4, etc

0 x anything is 0 which is divisible by any number.

Ivar Svensen - 3 years, 5 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...