6
is divisible by
6
.
6
×
6
is divisible by
6
+
6
.
6
×
6
×
6
is divisible by
6
+
6
+
6
.
Is it true that n times 6 × 6 × ⋯ × 6 is divisible by n times 6 + 6 + ⋯ + 6 for all positive integers n ?
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.
With this sort of problem, one thing that helps prevent being fooled is to rewrite the expressions in compressed form:
6 6 2 × 6 6 2 3 × 6 6 3 4 × 6 6 4 5 × 6 6 5
Just eyeballing the fifth expression is enough to note that there will be no "5" factor in the numerator.
Great job on showing why this not only fails, but also showing why it seemed to work.
@Venkatachalam J has generalized this result
The statement is:
Is it true that 6 n is divisible by 6 n for a positive integer n ?
Let
A
=
6
n
6
n
. We're going to prove that
A
is not always an integer.
A
=
6
n
6
n
⇒
A
=
n
6
n
−
1
⇒
A
=
n
6
n
−
1
=
n
2
n
−
1
⋅
3
n
−
1
Now we see that; for A to always be an integer, n = 2 a , 3 b or 2 a × 3 b for some a , b ≤ n − 1 because if so, it will divide with the 2 n − 1 or 3 n − 1 or 6 n − 1 on the numerator. Since n is of all positive integers, it can not just be of the form n = 2 a , 3 b or 2 a × 3 b . An example would be n = 5
Therefore, 6 n is not divisible by 6 n for ∀ n ∈ Z +
Nice, proof-based answer.
So, for exactly which values of n does this work?
Log in to reply
2 a , 3 b or 2 a × 3 b for some a , b ≤ n − 1
Log in to reply
n=12 and n=18 work as well. Combinations of powers of 2 and powers of 3 would appear to be excluded from the proposed solution set.
Log in to reply
@Kevin Weatherwalks – thanks for the comment ill fix it :)
In general, the pattern will not work for the prime number of times excluding 2 and 3.
6^(prime number of times other then 2 and 3) will not divisible by (prime number of times other then 2 and 3)*6
with three it is possible but it's impossible for other primes other than 2 and 3
I like this explanation. It might generalize further to any number n that has a non-2 or non-3 factor. So 6^n will not be divisible by n*6 for n={5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, ...}.
So I guess you could just say that it will work if n does not have any prime factors other than 2 and 3 (so this includes all primes other than 2 and 3, any coprimes of 6 (e.g. 25) and the rest.
we don't have to go far,
6 1 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 6 4 all are divisible according to the condition.
but, 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 6 5 = 5 1 2 9 6
as, 6 5 is not multiple of 5,so it is not divisible by 30(multiple of 5)
Good work! We just need to find a example to disprove a "Is it true for all n?" statement.
Counterexample: n = 5 . Hence, No .
Such a short solution haha! I guess it's not much of a challenge if the counterexample is too small.
What would the counterexample be if we replace all the 6's with the gigantic number lcm ( 1 , 2 , 3 , … , 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ) ?
Log in to reply
n = 2 7 4 2 0 7 2 8 1 − 1 ;)
Fine, I'll do a proper solution.
Log in to reply
Actually, I have problem in mind and my solution would ruin it.
Log in to reply
@Jesse Nieminen – Products, sums and divisors 2
The prime factors of 6 n are only 2 and 3 for any n; For any number n which has a different prime factor (e.g. n = 5, 7, 10, 11, 14,...) the number n × 6 has this prime factor as well, so 6 n is not divisible by it in those cases.
Yup, that's the reason why I chose the number 6. Good work!
6^n-1/(n) is not for every positive integer
Yes, but can you prove it?
Not even close. The divisor is 6 x n Powers of 6 have only factors 2 and 3. The power of 6 will stop being divisible by 6 x n as soon as n has a factor that is not 2 or 3, at n=5.
Awhhh, it's not challenging if the counterexample is too small right?
If I were to set another question, what number should I replace (all the) 6's with so that the counterexample is large?
Up to 4 terms it seems favorable but as we calculate with 5 terms, we the answer NO
6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 and 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6
6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 and 6 ( 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 )
6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 and 6 x 5
Hence, answer is NO
Yup, you can just say that 6^5 is not divisible by 5, so 6^5 is not divisible by (6x5=30) either. +1
This is actually a poorly worded question. As the question is phrased the answer is yes. If the words 'is divisible' in the question were reworded to 'is evenly divisible' then the answer would be no.
I don't think that's necessary.
Are you saying that all the statements "x is divisible by y" should be replaced with "x is evenly divisible by y" ?
Any number is not divisible by a prime number not in its prime factorisation. Here, for a number not,we are basically checking 6^n/(6n). We get 6^(n-1)/n. =2^(n-1)*3^(n-1)/n. If n is a prime number other than 2 or 3, it is indivisible.
Wait, this mean that 6^4 is not divisible by (6 x 4) either. Do you know where you went wrong?
Here we have the form 6×6×6.....(n times)/(6+6+6......{n times}) so, we can simplify it to 6^n/(6n) so here we can see it is written as 6^(n-1)/n so if 6^(n-1) is divisible by n then it is true but 6^(n-1) is not always divisible by n hence the answer is NO
Yay! For completeness, you should provide a counterexample, like (n=7).
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
To prove that the pattern does not work for any n , it is enough to give one counterexample.
6 × 6 × 6 × 6 × 6 is not divisible by 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 5 × 6 because it is not a multiple of 5 .
...
The reason it seemed to work was because 6 + 6 = 2 × 6 and 2 is a divisor of 6 . As is 3 in 6 + 6 + 6 .
Next 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 4 × 6 , and 4 is a divisor of 6 × 6 . It is 5 where it finally does not work.