Ace school

with brainly

  • Get help from millions of students
  • Learn from experts with step-by-step explanations
  • Level-up by helping others

A community for students.

@whpalmer4 asked an interesting question. If there is only one 3-digit number in the base \(b\) the sum of the numbers of which is \(b+1\) times less then the number.

Linear Algebra
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

here's what we noticed: There is only one such number in base \(b\) such that its sum of the number's digits is \(\dfrac{1}{b + 1}\) of the number.
We want to prove if that is true. :-)
For example, in base \(10\), there is only one such number such that the sum of its digits is \(\dfrac{1}{10 + 1}\) the number: 198. In base 16, he told us that there is only one such number which has its sum of digits equal to \(\dfrac{1}{17}\) the number.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

Can we prove this?
This is the beginning of this problem. @ParthKohli solved it. I wrote a code in Mathematica and got this. \(b=2\quad n=6=110_2\) \(b=3\quad n=16=121_3\) \(b=4\quad n=30=132_4\) \(b=5\quad n=48=143_5\) \(b=6\quad n=70=154_6\) \(b=7\quad n=96=165_7\) \(b=8\quad n=126=176_8\) \(b=9\quad n=160=187_9\) \(b=10\quad n=198=198_{10}\) \(b=11\quad n=240=\text{1a9}_{11}\) \(b=12\quad n=286=\text{1ba}_{12}\) \(b=13\quad n=336=\text{1cb}_{13}\) \(b=14\quad n=390=\text{1dc}_{14}\) \(b=15\quad n=448=\text{1ed}_{15}\) \(b=16\quad n=510=\text{1fe}_{16}\) For any base there is only one number.
Yes, we did it!
We have completed a discovery!
Can we expand this discovery outside three-digit numbers?
Proof: Any 3-digit number in base \(b\) can be given as \(a_2b^2+a_1b+a_0\). Now divide this number by \(b+1\): \(a_2b^2+a_1b+a_0=(a_2b+(a_1+a_2))(b+1)+(a_0-a_1+a_2)\) If we want this number to be divisible by \(b+1\) we need \(a_0-a_1+a_2=0\). Next one is the statement of the problem: \((b+1)(a_2+a_1+a_0)=a_2b^2+a_1b+a_0\) Change this a little: \(a_2(b^2-b-1)-a_1-a_0b=0\) As we know from the previous \(a_1=a_0+a_2\) Put this into the last expression: \(a_2(b^2-b-2)-a_0(b+1)=0\) Can divide by \(b+1\): \(a_2(b-2)-a_0=0\) That means that \(a_0\) must be divisible by \(b-2\). But \(a_0\) can take only values \(0,1,\ldots,b-1\). Among them only \(b-2\) is divisible by \(b-2\). So \(a_0=b-2\) Using the last 2 equations \(a_2=1\) And then \(a_1=b-1\) The answer: Only one number exists and it is \(n=\overline{1(b-1)(b-2)}\). That was 198 for b=10. Check this for other b.
@Preetha Look what we achieved! Thanks to @klimenkov :-)
@ParthKohli, @whpalmer4 How can we expand our problem on non 3-digit numbers?
This is awesome. I can't say I understand it, but it is a great example of collaborative learning, where together you achieved something. Thanks so much for sharing.
nice :).. however i was wondering about one of your statements, wat about the assumption that ao-a1+a1=n(b+1)
There is a theorem in algebra about dividing polynomials. We can divide polynomials with the reminder. And the degree of the reminder must be lower than the degree of the divider. So it will never happen.
i did not know its such an old post! wow but still pretty awesome
you have any new proofs?
Yes, some day I will post some of them.
everything makes sense but just 1 more question again if you dont mind xD you said the degree must lower than the divider in this polynomial division but what if a0-a1+a2 just so happens to be b-1
and cool:) i look forward to it
is that also not possible being equal?
Yes, because \(b-1\) has degree 1. It has to be lower than 1, only 0 degree will be okay.
ok just making sure thnx

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question