The set { 1 , 3 , 8 , 1 2 0 } has the interesting property that if you take any two numbers in that set and multiply them together, you will get precisely one less than a square number.
And one more number to this set such that it retains its property. (Your answer will be the number you add to the set.)
Bonus: Is than more than one number that you can add to this set such that it retains its property?
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.
Mr. Mendrin, I presume. :)
Log in to reply
only from the Y!A days... I'm starting to miss them
Log in to reply
Yeah, I know what you mean.
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – @Brian Charlesworth , sir , does Mr.Mendrin have any other 'active account'? These have been deleted and his problems are also nice
Log in to reply
@Mr. India – Yes, you can enter Michael Mendrin into the search field to gain access to his problems, or go here to see his profile page.
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – Ok thank you, has he stopped using brilliant?
Log in to reply
@Mr. India – He is not as active as he used to be, but I don't think he has completely stopped.
Proof?
Log in to reply
Ask Mendrin for the proof. He knows everything. He'll probably say, "go look up this one" D(-1) Quadruple Conjecture or something like that
Log in to reply
Mendrin? Never heard of him. I know someone who is omniscience though, he goes by the name Scythian1950.
You could ask Mendrin, of course. But Baker and Davenport proved this back in 1969; their paper is behind a paywall, but this paper goes further and provides a generalization of their result.
@Michael Scythian Hahaha I posted my comment at the same time you were adding the reference to yours. At least they are different papers, so Pi Han Goh has a choice. :)
Log in to reply
Let me go check out Baker & Davenport.
says that the Diophantine pair {1, 3} cannot be extended to a Diophantine qunituple, so I think this paper is definitive on this matter, whether or not there's a 5th term {1, 3, 8, 120, ?}. Ask Mendrin for details on this.
If you multiply any number in that set by 0 , it will be 0 , which is one less than 1 2 .
As Michael points out, (and I'm guessing you already know, otherwise there wouldn't have been a unique solution), there is no fifth positive integer, as noted here .
Log in to reply
I was not aware there was no fifth positive integer, I was just aware that if there was one, it was incredibly big, or it hasn't been discovered yet. Thank you for letting me know.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
No such fifth positive integer is possible