Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

Official TSR Mathematical Society

Announcements Posted on
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes but you can't say that 33 (mod 10) = 3*11 (mod 10) and therefore 33 mod 10 is divisible by 3 and 11 (but not 9 so it can't be a square, which is what the proof says).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    Yes but you can't say that 33 (mod 10) = 3*11 (mod 10) and therefore 33 mod 10 is divisible by 3 and 11 (but not 9 so it can't be a square, which is what the proof says).
    No, 33 (mod 10) is not necessarily divisible by 3 or 11.
    43 = 33 (mod 10)...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh! Yeah, what you're saying makes perfect sense. The mix-up was on my part. Here's another way to look at the question:

    For n>4, S always ends in 3 and hence isn't a perfect square.

    Proving that if a number ends in 3 it isn't a perfect square basically uses SsEe's method.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dvs)
    I don't get what you're saying. The proof isn't really dividing per se, it's considering the prime decomposition of 33 (mod 10).
    just to add, some care is needed when saying prime in mod arithmetic.
    for example 3=3.1 and 3=9.7 mod 10.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Even better and slicker, mod 5.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can 801,345,230,914 be written as the sum of 3 cubes?
    Is the answer yes?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Is that a guess or do you have some reasoning to go with that?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I have some reasoning. (That I don't want to show in case I'm talking BS again. )
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well let's see the reasoning then.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Let's consider perfect cubes modulo 7:
    a³ = b (mod 7)
    0³=0, 1³=1, 2³=1, 3³=-1, 4³=1, 5³=-1, 6³=-1 and 7³=0 (all mod 7)

    So perfect cubes leave remainders 0, 1 or -1 when divided by 7. In other words, perfect cubes are of the form:
    7k+1, 7k-1 or 7k.

    Now consider the sum of 3 cubes of the form 7k-1, it'd be of the form 7p-3=7n+4. So numbers of the form 7n+4 can be written as the sum of 3 perfect cubes. Let's check this for n={1,2,3}:
    7*1+4 = 11 = 3³ + (-2)³ + (-2)³
    7*2+4 = 18 = 3³ + (-2)³ + (-1)³
    7*3+4 = 25 = 3³ + (-1)³ + (-1)³

    Finally, let's consider 801,345,230,914 modulo 7:
    801,345,230,914 = 4 (mod 7), which means it's of the form 7k+4 and can be written as the sum of 3 cubes.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nice. Sadly you've only proved that a solution exists modulo 7.

    I have another question.
    a² + b² = 6ab. Find the value of (a+b)/(a-b).
    This is from an SMC so shouldn't be too hard.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    a² + b² = (a+b)² - 2ab = (a-b)² + 2ab = 6ab

    So (a+b)/(a-b) = sqrt((a+b)²/(a-b)²) = sqrt(8ab/4ab) = sqrt(2)
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well done . I knew the efforts of the TSR mathmos wouldn't fail to solve that really hard question :rolleyes: hehe
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    Nice. Sadly you've only proved that a solution exists modulo 7.
    But isn't that sufficient? I mean, I showed that numbers of the form 7k+4 can be written as the sum of 3 perfect cubes, and then showed that the number in the question is of the form 7k+4.

    How'd you do it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You showed that numbers of the form 7k+4 can be written as 3 cubes modulo 7. In fact it can't be written as 3 cubes:
    Consider modulo 9:
    cubes modulo 9 can only be 0, 1 or 8.
    If a solution exists:
    a³ + b³ + c³ = 801,345,230,914
    +-(0, 1 or 8) +- (0, 1 or 8) +- (0, 1 or 8) = 4 (mod 9)
    (+- because 1=-8 and 8=-1)
    No combination of these make 4 mod 9 so no solution can exist.
    If it was congruent to any of these there would be a solution mod 9 (but not necessarily mod 1) : 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 (I think that's all).

    Somebody should check this as I'm having some doubts.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    You showed that numbers of the form 7k+4 can be written as 3 cubes modulo 7. In fact it can't be written as 3 cubes:
    Consider modulo 9:
    cubes modulo 9 can only be 0, 1 or 8.
    If a solution exists:
    a³ + b³ + c³ = 801,345,230,914
    +-(0, 1 or 8) +- (0, 1 or 8) +- (0, 1 or 8) = 4 (mod 9)
    (+- because 1=-8 and 8=-1)
    No combination of these make 4 mod 9 so no solution can exist.
    If it was congruent to any of these there would be a solution mod 9 (but not necessarily mod 1) : 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 (I think that's all).

    Somebody should check this as I'm having some doubts.
    Sorry, I cant see how you need to get 4 (mod 9) :confused:.
    801 = 0 (mod 9), 345 = 3 (mod 9), so you cant say anything about these two... However,
    230 and 914 = 5 (mod 9), but since cubes modulo 9 are -1,0,1, no sum of 3 can make 5, so these 2 cannot be written as the sum of 3 cubes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dvs)
    But isn't that sufficient? I mean, I showed that numbers of the form 7k+4 can be written as the sum of 3 perfect cubes, and then showed that the number in the question is of the form 7k+4.

    How'd you do it?
    No, it is not a sufficient condition. You have not proved that *every* single number which can be written in the form 7k+4 can be written as the sum of 3 cubes, only that the sum of 3 cubes will always be a number of the form 7k+4.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesF)
    No, it is not a sufficient condition. You have not proved that *every* single number which can be written in the form 7k+4 can be written as the sum of 3 cubes, only that the sum of 3 cubes will always be a number of the form 7k+4.
    I don't think he's proven that, because it isn't true. e.g. 0^3 + 0^3 + 0^3.

    Rather he has shown that mod 7 considerations don't provide reasons why a number of the form 7k+4 couldn't be written as the sum of three cubes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichE)
    I don't think he's proven that, because it isn't true. e.g. 0^3 + 0^3 + 0^3.

    Rather he has shown that mod 7 considerations don't provide reasons why a number of the form 7k+4 couldn't be written as the sum of three cubes.
    Oops yea, I didnt read the actual post lol
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    345 = 7^3 + 1^3 + 1^3.

    9^3 < 801 < 10^3, so a,b,c < 10
    One of the cubes must be larger than 801/3 = 267, therefore
    10 > a > 6
    Then try a = 7,8,9
    801 - 9^3 = 72,
    801 - 8^3 = 289
    801 - 7^3 = 458
    Then its the same but showing each of those can or cannot be written as the sum of 2 cubes.
    Starting with 72, 5 > b > 3, so b = 4, c = 2
    So we have a solution
    801 = 9^3 + 4^3 + 2^3

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 29, 2014
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.