Turn on thread page Beta

Prove 16x(4x+5)(x+1) is a multiple of 48 where x is greater than or equal to 1. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone prove this?

    16x(4x+5)(x+1) is a multiple of 48 where x is greater than or equal to 1.

    This should be obvious but its not - ive checked it up to x = 10 and it works.

    Thanks in advance!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    Can someone prove this?

    16x(4x+5)(x+1) is a multiple of 48 where x is greater than or equal to 1.

    This should be obvious but its not - ive checked it up to x = 10 and it works.

    Thanks in advance!
    x has to be one of

    3n
    3n+1
    3n+2

    since all numbers are
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    x has to be one of

    3n
    3n+1
    3n+2

    since all numbers are
    All numbers are not one of 3n, 3n+1 or 3n+2 (unless n can be 1/3, 2/3, etc.). In that case surely you could say that for any number of ns. For example x is one of 100n, 100n+1, 100n+2, 100n+3, ... and prove that it is a multiple of 1600?

    This doesn't make sense to me, can you explain more?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    All numbers are not one of 3n, 3n+1 or 3n+2 (unless n can be 1/3, 2/3, etc.). In that case surely you could say that for any number of ns. For example x is one of 100n, 100n+1, 100n+2, 100n+3, ... and prove that it is a multiple of 1600?

    This doesn't make sense to me, can you explain more?
    All integers are of the form 3n, 3n+1, 3n+2

    I have assumed that x is an integer - otherwise your question does not actually make sense

    Not sure what you mean with the 1600 but as that would not work
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    I have assumed that x is an integer - otherwise your question does not actually make sense

    Not sure what you mean with the 1600 but as that would not work
    Sorry, I should have specified. x is an interger. Yes, I now understand what you mean by all intergers are of form 3n, 3n+1, 3n+2. However are all intergers not also of the form 4n, 4n+1,4n+2,4n+3 and 5n,5n+1 etc...

    I don't understand how this effects the question though. Could you please explain in a bit more detail how what you said effects the proof?

    thanks
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    Sorry, I should have specified. x is an interger.

    I still don't understand though. could you please explain in a bit more detail how what you said effects the proof?

    thanks
    Have you tried putting the possibilities into the original expression

    All should become clear
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    Sorry, I should have specified. x is an interger.

    I still don't understand though. could you please explain in a bit more detail how what you said effects the proof?

    thanks
    If x is an integer and you divide it by 3, there are 3 possible results:

    remainder 0 i.e. x is divisible by 3 i.e. x = 3n for some integer n
    remainder 1 i.e. x = 3n + 1 for some integer n
    remainder 2 i.e. x = 3n + 2 for some integer n
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like a proof by induction, given the condition on x...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexmufc1995)
    Sounds like a proof by induction, given the condition on x...
    My method is much simpler
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexmufc1995)
    Sounds like a proof by induction, given the condition on x...
    hmm ok, that seems strange considering this is not in that section of my course
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    My method is much simpler
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    hmm ok, that seems strange considering this is not in that section of my course
    If you don't know it, try TenOfThem's method. It's more intuitive anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    Have you tried putting the possibilities into the original expression

    All should become clear
    Yes, I have tried up to x=10 and all work.
    But I still don't understand how you can prove this. Please can someone talk me through the steps they would take?

    Edit: Are you telling me to sub 3n, 3n+1 and 3n+2 into the equation and see if they come out with multiples of 48?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    Yes, I have tried up to x=10 and all work.
    But I still don't understand how you can prove this. Please can someone talk me through the steps they would take?
    SO you have not put the possibilities in


    The steps I would take

    Realise that 3 x 16 is 48
    Realise that all integers are of one of these forms
    3n
    3n+1
    3n+2
    Put these options into the original statement
    Look for a factor of 3 in a bracket
    Show the 48 is a factor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    SO you have not put the possibilities in


    The steps I would take

    Realise that 3 x 16 is 48
    Realise that all integers are of one of these forms
    3n
    3n+1
    3n+2
    Put these options into the original statement
    Look for a factor of 3 in a bracket
    Show the 48 is a factor
    Ok thank you! I now understand and all forms work.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    Ok thank you! I now understand and all forms work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    In a rigorous proof, would I have to specify that n>=1 ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    In a rigorous proof, would I have to specify that n>=1 ?
    hmmmm interesting question

    I would say that is implied by the fact that x is greater than or equal to 1
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    hmmmm interesting question

    I would say that is implied by the fact that x is greater than or equal to 1
    Ok thanks, sorry for the silly comments earlier then, I was overlooking the fact that n could also = 0 (when x = 3n+1 and when x = 3n+2, but not when x = 3n)

    Thanks for all your help
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bnosnehpets)
    Ok thanks, sorry for the silly comments earlier then, I was overlooking the fact that n could also = 0 (when x = 3n+1 and when x = 3n+2, but not when x = 3n)

    Thanks for all your help
    No Problem

    Glad that you have understood
 
 
 
Poll
Are you chained to your phone?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Equations

Best calculators for A level Maths

Tips on which model to get

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.