Finding Integers Divisible by 2, 3 or 5 - Solve Here!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physics is Phun
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the number of integers between 1 and 100 that are divisible by 2, 3, or 5, using the principle of inclusion-exclusion. Participants are exploring the application of this principle and the arithmetic involved in calculating the correct count.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the sum rule and the inclusion-exclusion principle to count integers divisible by multiple numbers. There are questions about the correct application of the formula and the need to account for overlaps in the counts.

Discussion Status

Some participants are clarifying the arithmetic involved and questioning the necessity of adding back the count of integers divisible by all three numbers. There is an acknowledgment of mistakes in calculations and a collaborative effort to understand the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework problem and are focused on understanding the reasoning behind the inclusion-exclusion principle without arriving at a final answer.

Physics is Phun
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
We have a question that asks to find the number of integers between 1 and 100 that are divisible by 2,3 or 5.
So i use the sum rule

let E,F and G be the the integers. so,
n(EUFUG) = n(E) + n(F) + n(G) - n(EnF) - n(EnG) - n(FnG)
but this doesn't work. it gives me the answer of 70 but the actual answer is 74. Since I know the answer is 74 this one doesn't matter but the next question asks to find the number of integers between 1 and 100000. So it's obvious that I can't count them.
just to make sure I did the above part right
n(EUFUG) would be 100/2 + 100/3 + 100/5 - 100/6 - 100/10 - 100/15 correct?
I hope someone can figure out where I've gone wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you forget to add the number divisible by both 2,3,5, in your notation, it is n(EnFnG)
2*3*5=30, so, you got to add 3 in your final answer, one more thing,n(E) + n(F) + n(G) - n(EnF) - n(EnG) - n(FnG)=71 instead of 70, you made a arithmatic mistake, also
 
Physics is Phun said:
just to make sure I did the above part right
n(EUFUG) would be 100/2 + 100/3 + 100/5 - 100/6 - 100/10 - 100/15
I'm not familiar with what you are doing, but wouldn't you also need to subtract 100/30? 100/6 would be the ones common between 2 and 3, 100/10 would be the ones common between 2 and 5, 100/15 would be the ones common between 3 and 5, and 100/30 would be the ones common between 2, 3, and 5.
Of course it would make you even farther from the "correct" answer, but I'm just saying.
 
the ones that are common to 2, 3, and 5 were taken care of when you took account for the other combinations. Not only that, but it was subtracted twice. Thats why you have to add it again.
 
I still don't get it. when using the sum rule, you add the parts together, the subract the overlaping sections. I don't see why n(EnFnG) needs to be added. and thanks for the arithemtic point out. I was adding the exact values and not rounding each section which actually makes the answer more wrong (unlike most math problems)
 
Parth Dave said:
the ones that are common to 2, 3, and 5 were taken care of when you took account for the other combinations. Not only that, but it was subtracted twice. Thats why you have to add it again.
I was going to challenge you on that, but I guess you're right. Try it with 1, 2, and 3 between 1 and 10. The real answer is obviously 10, so it's easy to check the method.
Here are each of em:
10/1 = 10, 10/2 = 5, 10/3 = 3. Sum: 18
The common between 2:
10/2 = 5, 10/3 = 3, 10/6 = 1. Sum: 9
The common between 3:
10 / 6 = 1
Subtract the ones common between 2 from from the single ones:
18 - 9 = 9. We're trying to get to 10, so add the one common between all 3 to get 10 :biggrin:
 
ok I get it now. I just had to reread ur post parth dave.
thanks
:)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
986
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K