This discussion is closed.
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 16 years ago
#61
(Original post by theone)
That'll do, although i was thinking of a nicer method imho.
That'll do for you then it'll do for me, yay I got one right! Well sort of... please enlighten us theone but don't be all "haha I know everything and you suck" about it
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 16 years ago
#62
(Original post by ZJuwelH)
That'll do for you then it'll do for me, yay I got one right! Well sort of... please enlighten us theone but don't be all "haha I know everything and you suck" about it
Oh and thanks for the rep!
0
mikesgt2
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 16 years ago
#63
Why are we looking for a proof? It is bloody obvious that there are no solutions when there a 4 or more digits.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#64
(Original post by mikesgt2)
Why are we looking for a proof? It is bloody obvious that there are no solutions when there a 4 or more digits.
i feel a big proof coming up.........
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#65
Report 16 years ago
#65
(Original post by mikesgt2)
Why are we looking for a proof? It is bloody obvious that there are no solutions when there a 4 or more digits.
Well not really, so the proof is supposed to make it obvious.
0
theone
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 16 years ago
#66
(Original post by elpaw)
so what's your method?
Let n be the integer and s(n) the sum of the digits of n.

Let n have x digits.

It is clear that s(n) =< 9x and n >= 10^(x-1)

So if 10^x-1 > 99x (i.e. 11s(n)) then n > 11s(n) and the inequality holds with x >=4 (you can prove this by induction if u need convincing)
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#67
(Original post by theone)
It is clear that s(n) =< 9x and n >= 10^(x-1)
Umm how is that clear?
0
theone
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 16 years ago
#68
(Original post by 2776)
Umm how is that clear?
Because n has x digits. and s(n) is maximised with each digit being 9, so s(x) <= 9x. Also we know n has x digits and so must be greater than or equal to 10^(x-1).
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#69
Report 16 years ago
#69
(Original post by theone)
Let n be the integer and s(n) the sum of the digits of n.

Let n have x digits.

It is clear that s(n) =< 9x and n >= 10^(x-1)

So if 10^x-1 > 99x (i.e. 11s(n)) then n > 11s(n) and the inequality holds with x >=4 (you can prove this by induction if u need convincing)
Too small and concise for me, please explain to a future UEL graduate <vomits> how all that works...
0
theone
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#70
Report 16 years ago
#70
(Original post by ZJuwelH)
Too small and concise for me, please explain to a future UEL graduate <vomits> how all that works...
*see above* and ask if you need further explanation
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#71
(Original post by theone)
Because n has x digits. and s(n) is maximised with each digit being 9, so s(x) <= 9x. Also we know n has x digits and so must be greater than or equal to 10^(x-1).
umm how is it that n=> 10 ^(x-1) ?
0
theone
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 16 years ago
#72
(Original post by 2776)
umm how is it that n=> 10 ^(x-1) ?
n = a.10^x-1 + b.10^x-2 ... + (some constant).

Now n is minimised with b=c=d=... = 0 and a=1 since a must be > 0.

So n is minimised with n = 10^x-1.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#73
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#73
(Original post by theone)
So if 10^x-1 > 99x (i.e. 11s(n)) then n > 11s(n) and the inequality holds with x >=4 (you can prove this by induction if u need convincing)
Can u explain this bit please oh angel of maths
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#74
(Original post by 2776)
Can u explain this bit please oh angel of maths
bump
0
meepmeep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 16 years ago
#75
(Original post by 2776)
Can u explain this bit please oh angel of maths
So if 10^x-1 > 99x (i.e. 11s(n)) then n > 11s(n) and the inequality holds with x >=4 (you can prove this by induction if u need convincing)

10^x-1 is the minimum value of the number n with x digits. 99x is the maximum value of 11 times the sum of the digits. Therefore, the number must be greater than 11 times the sum of its digit as the minimum value of n is greater than the maximum value of 11 times the sum of the digits:

10^x-1 > 99x

This implies n>11S(n)

When x=4, then 10^x-1=10^3 and 99x=396.

Therefore, the basis case works.

Assume P(k) is true and prove P(k+1)

Therefore, 10^x-1>99x

If 10^x-10^(x-1)>99(x+1)-99x then P(k+1) will be true if P(k) is true:

10^x-10^(x-1)=[10^(x-1)](10-1)
=9(10^(x-1))
>9*99x

As x>=4, then 9*99x>=3564

99(x+1)-99x=99x+99-99x=99
=> 99(x+1)-99x<9*99x

Put back above, this gives 10^x-10^(x-1)>99(x+1)-99x

Therefore, if P(k) is true then P(k+1) is true. As the basis case P(4) it true, by induction P(x) is true where x is a positive integer greater than or equal to four.

Therefore, n>11S(n) when x>=4, so there are no solutions when the number n has more than three digits.

Nice proof theone and who have you got interviewing you at Trinity?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you do not get the A-level grades you want this summer, what is your likely next step?

Take autumn exams (141)
46.23%
Take exams next summer (46)
15.08%
Change uni choice through clearing (73)
23.93%
Apply to uni next year instead (31)
10.16%
I'm not applying to university (14)
4.59%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed