Proving N Consecutive Integers Divisible by N

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter decibel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether n consecutive integers are always divisible by n factorial (n!). Participants explore various interpretations of the question, including the divisibility of sums of consecutive integers and the properties of consecutive integers in relation to modular arithmetic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the wording of the original question, suggesting that it may be misphrased and asserting that no two consecutive integers can be divisible by any integer greater than one.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify the original question, proposing that it may refer to the sum of n consecutive integers rather than the integers themselves.
  • Several participants provide mathematical reasoning using modular arithmetic to argue that no two consecutive integers can share a common divisor greater than one.
  • A participant introduces a related concept about finding n consecutive composite numbers, suggesting a different mathematical exploration that may be more common in discussions of consecutive integers.
  • There is a side discussion regarding the properties of binary operators in modular arithmetic, with participants questioning the validity of certain expressions and their applicability to different operations.
  • One participant recalls a theorem related to n consecutive integers and n!, referencing a source but not providing specific details.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the original question's interpretation and the implications of divisibility among consecutive integers. There is no consensus on the original question or its intended meaning, and multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of modular arithmetic and the conditions under which certain statements hold true. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the properties of integers and divisibility.

decibel
Messages
107
Reaction score
1
is there a way to prove that n consecutive integers is always divisible by n!?

thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think you have worded this question incorrectly. Going strictly by your wording, the answer would be : No...in fact, there are no two consecutive numbers that are divisible by any given number ( >1).

I think I know what you might be intending to ask, but I'll let you pose the question correctly, first.
 
sorry, but i don't know what your saying, where did two come from?
 
If no two consecutive integers are divisible by any integer ( >1), how can you find n consecutive integers ?
 
starting equations:
n mod y = 0
(n+1) mod y = 0

work:
((n mod y) + (1 mod y)) mod y = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = n mod y
1 = (n mod y) - (n mod y)
1 = 0

conclusion:
FALSE

No two consecutive integers are divisible by the same factor.

That's what he's talking about. (THIS IS NOT YOUR ANSWER)
 
Easier: let n=3. The statement is that 3 consequtive integers is divisible by 6. Well, 1,2,3 provides a counterexample.

Wait. I'm not sure what you mean now. Do you mean the SUM of n consequtive integers is divisible by n!?

If that's what you meant, then 2, 3, 4 has sum 9 and is not divisible by 6(=3!).
 
The more common question is : Prove that you can always find n consecutive composite numbers.

Of course, these are be (n+1)!+2, (n+1)!+3, (n+1)!+4, ...(n+1)!+(n+1), and the proof is quite self-evident.
 
Just to make this complete (not to nitpick)

starting equations:
n mod y = 0
(n+1) mod y = 0

work:
((n mod y) + (1 mod y)) mod y = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = 0 {y <> +/- 1}
(n mod y) + 1 = n mod y
1 = (n mod y) - (n mod y)
1 = 0

conclusion:
FALSE

No two consecutive integers are divisible by the same factor (>1).
 
Gokul43201 said:
Just to make this complete (not to nitpick)

starting equations:
n mod y = 0
(n+1) mod y = 0

work:
((n mod y) + (1 mod y)) mod y = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = 0 {y <> +/- 1}
(n mod y) + 1 = n mod y
1 = (n mod y) - (n mod y)
1 = 0

conclusion:
FALSE

No two consecutive integers are divisible by the same factor (>1).

I was thinking about that when I wrote it. I got lost on a tangent of what the remainder of mod 0 was... undefined, bah.

Gimme a break, it's the second time I try to prove something using modulo.

I have a question though, is:
(x op y) mod z == ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z
true? (op being +, -, *, / , ^, etc) is it true for functions? (sin, f())
 
  • #10
Sorry 'bout that.

To answer your question : In general, NO.
It is true, however for +, - and *.

I'm not sure how your question applies to functions like sin(x), when you are asking about binary operators.
 
  • #11
Gokul43201 said:
Sorry 'bout that.

To answer your question : In general, NO.
It is true, however for +, - and *.

I'm not sure how your question applies to functions like sin(x), when you are asking about binary operators.

So, could I say:

If x op y = y op x then (x op y) mod z = ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z

Alright, the sin() thing won't work, I was off on a tangent. What about binary operations on the numbers? (XOR, OR, AND)
 
  • #12
To clarify, when I said 'binary operator', I meant an operator defined on 2 numbers (such as addition, subtraction, exponentiation, etc), not operators defined on the binary representation of numbers.

I'm pretty sure that rule doesn't work for AND, OR, XOR, etc...but I haven't verified this.

"If x op y = y op x then (x op y) mod z = ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z"

In general, this is not necessarily true.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Gokul43201 said:
To clarify, when I said 'binary operator', I meant an operator defined on 2 numbers (such as addition, subtraction, exponentiation, etc), not operators defined on the binary representation of numbers.

I'm pretty sure that rule doesn't work for AND, OR, XOR, etc...but I haven't verified this.

"If x op y = y op x then (x op y) mod z = ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z"

In general, this is not necessarily true.

I understand what you meant by binary operators. It just made me think of the logical operations. (computer programmer here...)

Do you have an example or shall I find one myself?
Got it:
5 and 7 = 5
5 mod 3 = 2
(5 and 7) mod 3 = 2
((5 mod 3) and (7 mod 3)) mod 3 = (2 and 1) mod 3 = 0 mod 3 = 0
0 <> 2
 
Last edited:
  • #14
i know there's a theorem similar to what decibel asked about in lozansky's "winning solutions". i can't remember exactly how it went though, but it definitely had something about n consecutive integers & n!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K