Register to reply

Math Q&A Game

by Gokul43201
Tags: game, math
Share this thread:
Gokul43201
#1
Apr13-05, 10:03 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
A Q&A game is simple: One person asks a relevant question (it can be research, calculation, a curiosity, something off-the-top-of-the-head, anything ... as long as it's a math question) and other people try to answer. The person who posts the first correct answer (as recognized by s/he who asked the question) gets to ask the next question, and so on.

Let me start this off with a simple number theory problem :

What is the least number than must be multiplied to 100! (that's a factorial) to make it divisible by [itex]12^{49} [/itex] ?

(throw in a brief -couple of lines or so- explanation with the answer)
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Professor quantifies how 'one thing leads to another'
Team announces construction of a formal computer-verified proof of the Kepler conjecture
Iranian is first woman to win 'Nobel Prize of maths' (Update)
JonF
#2
Apr13-05, 12:12 PM
P: 617
1/(99!*50)
Gokul43201
#3
Apr13-05, 12:22 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Not correct. "Multiplying" by your number gives a "product" of 2 (=100!/50*99!), and 2 is not divisible by 12^{49}.

JonF
#4
Apr13-05, 12:24 PM
P: 617
Math Q&A Game

i think i read it backwards...
matt grime
#5
Apr13-05, 12:36 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
There are 50 factors of 100 divisibile by 2, 25 by 4, 12 by 8, 6 by 16, 3 by 32 1 by 64 so the power of two in 100! is 97.

similiarly there are

33 div by 3, 11 by 9, 3 by 27 and 1 by 81 making 48 times 3 divides, so i guess

2*3^50 will do
Gokul43201
#6
Apr13-05, 01:09 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Quote Quote by matt grime
There are 50 factors of 100 divisibile by 2, 25 by 4, 12 by 8, 6 by 16, 3 by 32 1 by 64 so the power of two in 100! is 97.

similiarly there are

33 div by 3, 11 by 9, 3 by 27 and 1 by 81 making 48 times 3 divides, so i guess

2*3^50 will do
I'm not sure I follow the finish...

You've shown that 100! has 2^{97} * 3^{48}. And what happened after that ?

In any case : Next question is yours ...
matt grime
#7
Apr13-05, 01:15 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
Duh, do i feel stupid from typing too quickly whilst someone is talking to me. should have been 6.

Willl think of a question later tonight.
matt grime
#8
Apr13-05, 01:35 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
Ok, here's one that I hope isn't too tricky.

Let A be an nxn matrix over C, the complexes.

Suppose that Tr(A^r)=0 for all r. Show A is nilpotent.

All the other ones I could think of were too easily looked up.
CRGreathouse
#9
Apr13-05, 03:45 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by Gokul43201
I'm not sure I follow the finish...

You've shown that 100! has 2^{97} * 3^{48}. And what happened after that ?
[tex]12^{49}=2^{98}3^{49}[/tex], so [tex]100!=2^{97}3^{48}X[/tex] must be multiplied by [tex]6=2^{98-97}3^{49-48}[/tex] before [tex]12^{49}[/tex] will divide it.
Gokul43201
#10
Apr13-05, 03:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Yes, CRG : matt clarified this in his subsequent post. Thanks !

Back to matt's question :

Quote Quote by matt grime
Let A be an nxn matrix over C, the complexes.

Suppose that Tr(A^r)=0 for all r. Show A is nilpotent.
matt grime
#11
Apr13-05, 04:09 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
If there's no progress on this after a couple of days i'll post hints. perhaps people should post what they think they need to do. i like tyhe question cos it uses lots of bits from here there and everywhere.
snoble
#12
Apr13-05, 06:08 PM
P: 127
Well it seems that first you need to show that such a matrix does not have n distinct eigenvectors and then show that not having n distinct eigenvectors implies nilpotents.

The first question relates to the fact that if a matrix had a full set of Eigenvectors then diagonalization gives us that [tex]\sum \lambda_i^n =0 [/tex] for all n>0.

For the second half I would gather you need to consider the vectors not in the span of the Eigenvectors and consider where they may be mapped.

hmmm... that may not be enough for the first half. You may need to also show that any vector that is a eigenvector is in fact in the kernel.

Experimentally it appears like we are dealing with upper or lower triangular matrix if you just assume Tr(A^r) =0 for r=1..n. But that could just be maple not returning all possible answers which it sometimes does.

That's what I've been thinking
Hurkyl
#13
Apr13-05, 06:32 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Hrm.

If a matrix A is diagonalizable, then I claim that there exists an n such that all of the nonzero eigenvalues of An lie in the right half-plane. The requirement that Tr(An) = 0, forces all the eigenvalues to be 0, and thus A is zero... clearly nilpotent!

So the trick, then, is when the matrix is not diagonalizable.


Then again, this only works for complex valued matrices.
matt grime
#14
Apr14-05, 04:08 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
I did state the matrix was over C, though this is largely for conveniece.

And, snobel, the matrix 0 has a full set of eigen values and is certainly nilpotent an satisfies the criterion.
snoble
#15
Apr14-05, 07:40 AM
P: 127
Oops... of course that is the sole matrix with a full set of 0 eigenvalues and [tex]\lambda_i=0[/tex] is the sole set of solutions in C satisfying my condition.
uart
#16
Apr14-05, 10:12 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,751
Quote Quote by Gokul43201
What is the least number than must be multiplied to 100! (that's a factorial) to make it divisible by [itex]12^{49} [/itex] ?
Sorry but the correct answer is the rational number 12^49 / 100! , it's smaller than the previous answer of 6 by a factor or approx 10^104.

Ok so here's my QA puzzle : Why is it that mathematicians are worse than the general layperson when it comes to not specifying that they require a whole number solution when that is the case. :p
matt grime
#17
Apr14-05, 10:59 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
If you're going to take that attitude, there is no answer; think negatives.
shmoe
#18
Apr14-05, 11:04 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 1,994
Quote Quote by uart
Ok so here's my QA puzzle : Why is it that mathematicians are worse than the general layperson when it comes to not specifying that they require a whole number solution when that is the case. :p
Because a mathematician will expect the reader to see the words "divisible" and "number theory" and realize that the interesting solution lies in the whole numbers. In fact if you are throwing rationals into the mix, the concept of "divisibility" collapses into something really dull (as with any field). The overlying assumption we're interested in whole numbers here is just like when you saw "least number" you assumed it had to be positive, 0 works fine and is smaller than yours, so is -6, etc.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Help with game theory (specific knowledge in game theory probably not required) Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
Fun math game General Discussion 20
Math guessing game. General Math 33
GROOVY math game General Discussion 17