1 × 2 × 3 × ⋯ × 8 8 8 is obviously divisible by 888.
But what is the smallest value of N such that 1 × 2 × 3 × ⋯ × N is divisible by 888?
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.
Your answer is incomplete.
If both the numbers 888 are replaced with 300, then would the answer be 5 or 5 2 ?
Log in to reply
3 0 0 = 2 2 ∗ 5 2 ∗ 3 , so we need two numbers that are divisible by 5. 5 an 10, bingo. So all we need to do is to check if 300 divides 10!, which is true.
I still don't really get what you mean when you ask that, even though this solution is, of course, incomplete (of the "cover the other required factors" part)
Log in to reply
The way Stephen phrased it implies that the answer is simply the largest prime factor of 888, hence my rebuttal.
For the use of the number 888, my answer is complete (although I could have been more explicit with the cover other factors part). As 37 is a prime factor, I showed that the lower bound for N is 37. I then said that if N = 37, we have covered the 2x2x2x3 in the numbers less than 37 (e.g. simply by the 24).
For 300, (as @Steven Jim said), we would do the prime factorisation, get the largest prime factor as the lower bound, however the lower bound is not possible. Therefore, we need 2 lots of the number 5, so 10 is the answer.
Factoring out 8 8 8 we get that 8 8 8 = 3 × 8 × 3 7 .
Since 3 7 is prime, it cannot be made by multiplying any other numbers in the multiplication up to N . Therefore, N = 3 7
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Prime factorisation of 8 8 8 = 2 3 × 3 × 3 7 . Therefore we must go up to at least 37 to get this factor. Using N = 3 7 , we cover the other required factors so this is the answer.