How Can We Make 100! Divisible by 12^{49}?

  • Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Game
In summary, the conversation was about a Q&A game where one person asks a math question and others try to answer it. The first correct answer gets to ask the next question. One of the questions was about finding the least number that must be multiplied to 100! to make it divisible by 12^{49}. The correct answer was 12^{49} / 100!. There was also a question about why mathematicians often forget to specify that they require a whole number solution.
  • #71
D H said:
It doesn't work for arbitrary [itex]c[/itex].

If [itex]f(x)=cx[/itex] then [itex]f(\frac{xy}{2}) = c \frac{xy}{2}[/itex] and [itex]\frac{f(x)f(y)}{2} = c^2 \frac{ xy}2[/itex]. Equating these two yields [itex]c=c^2[/itex] so the only solutions for [itex]c[/itex] are the two Matt has already found.

What doesn't work for arbitrary c?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #72
From f(2x/2) = f(x), we get that either:

a) f = 0, OR
b) f(2) = 2

From case b), using that f(0) = f(0)f(x)/2 for all x, we get either:

b1) f(0) = 0, OR
b2) f(x) = 2 for all x

b2) is impossible given the condition that f'(1) = f(1), so we have two cases overall:

a) f = 0
b) f(0) = 0 and f(2) = 2

In general, it holds that f(x) = +/- f(-x) since f(xx/2) = f((-x)(-x)/2). In fact, by looking at f((-x)y/2) = f(x(-y)/2), we can make an even stronger claim that either for all x, f(x) = f(-x) or for all x, f(x) = -f(-x).

Note that this gives a solution f(x) = |x| which satisfies the criteria (it is not required that f be differentiable everywhere, only at 1 is necessary) but is neither 0 nor identity.

Suppose f(x) = 0 for some non-zero x. Then for all y, f(y) = f(x(2y/x)/2) = 0, so f(0) = 0, and either f(x) is non-zero for all other x, or f(x) is zero for all other x:

a) f = 0
b) f(0) = 0, f(2) = 2, f is either odd or even, and f(x) is non-zero for x non-zero.
 
  • #73
AKG said:
Note that this gives a solution f(x) = |x| which satisfies the criteria (it is not required that f be differentiable everywhere, only at 1 is necessary) but is neither 0 nor identity.
I followed what you said up until this part, but I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you explain it in more detail so that I can understand?
 
  • #74
siddharth, you asked:
Can you prove that the only possible solutions are f(x)=x and f(x)=0
I'm simply saying that f(x) = |x| satisfies the given criteria [i.e. |xy/2| = |x||y|/2 for all real x, y and f'(1) = 1 = |1| = f(1)] but f is neither of those two solutions you proposed above. The stuff I wrote in brackets in my post #72 was to acknowledge that f(x) = |x| is not differentiable at x=0, but the given criteria only require that f be diff'able at 1, not necessarily everywhere.
 
  • #75
Stupid brain. Must read before posting.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
So, other than f(x)=x, f(x)=|x| and f(x)=0, is there a forth solution?
In general, we are not even assuming continuity except at x=1, at which point f is also differentiable?
 
  • #77
AKG said:
I'm simply saying that f(x) = |x| satisfies the given criteria [i.e. |xy/2| = |x||y|/2 for all real x, y and f'(1) = 1 = |1| = f(1)] but f is neither of those two solutions you proposed above. The stuff I wrote in brackets in my post #72 was to acknowledge that f(x) = |x| is not differentiable at x=0, but the given criteria only require that f be diff'able at 1, not necessarily everywhere.

Ok then, my question was incorrect. So the only solutions are
[tex] f(x) = 0 [/tex] , [tex] f(x) = |x| [/tex] ,ie ( f(x) = x for x>0 and f(x)=-x for x<0 )

I hope this is the final edit to the question. Can you prove that the only solutions are f(x) = 0 and f(x) = |x| from the given conditions?

chingkui said:
In general, we are not even assuming continuity except at x=1, at which point f is also differentiable?

I picked this question up from a calculus book and no information is given in the question in the book about it's differentiability at points other than x=1.

But I think it is necessary for the condition that f(x) is differentiable at all points except x=0 to be given.
So you are given that f(x) is differentiable at all points except x=0.

I hope that the question is still clear and I did not confuse everyone too much
 
Last edited:
  • #78
I thought the setter was supposed to know the answer so that they could agree upon the first correct response? Without imposing some more conditions I don't see that you can conclude there won't be some more answers. And as you keep changing the question we presume that you don't know the answer, which makes it a little unfair on those attempting it.

If we were to require that the function had a taylor series with radius of convergence infinity about 0 then you could get the answer but that would necessarily exclude AKG's answer.

Didn't the original question ask for f(x) for positive x only? Because then, assuming that the function is smooth in some neighborhood of 1, you can get the answer since every number is nth the power of a number close to 1.
 
  • #79
I thought we have a much more interesting question... it would be a lot more fun to assume nothing about continuity and differentiability (except at x=1)... I think we can prove continuity everywhere and differentiability except possibly at x=0 with the assumption of differentiability at x=1.
 
  • #80
We have a question with no known answer, that doens't really make it useful for this particular thread.
 
  • #81
matt grime said:
I thought the setter was supposed to know the answer so that they could agree upon the first correct response? Without imposing some more conditions I don't see that you can conclude there won't be some more answers. And as you keep changing the question we presume that you don't know the answer, which makes it a little unfair on those attempting it.

I understand that I messed up this question, so I'll provide the answer which I was expecting. The reason I had to change the question was that the book I picked it up from did not give the correct answer.
Besides, I wanted to revive interest in this thread.

From the given condition
[tex]
f(\frac{x+y}{2}) = [f(x) f(1+\frac{y}{x})]/2 [/tex] so [tex] x \neq 0 [/tex]

Here put y=0.
So,

[tex] f(\frac{x}{2})=\frac{f(x)f(1)}{2} [/tex]

ie,

[tex] 2f(x)=f(2x)f(1) [/tex]

Now
[tex] f'(x) = \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h} [/tex]

[tex] = \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(\frac{2x+2h}{2}) - f(x)}{h} [/tex]

[tex]= \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(2x)f(1+\frac{h}{x}) - 2f(x)}{2h} [/tex]

Since [tex] 2f(x)=f(2x)f(1) [/tex]
we have,
[tex]=(\frac{f(2x)}{2x}) \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(1+\frac{h}{x}) - f(1)}{\frac{h}{x}} [/tex]So, we have
[tex] f'(x) = \frac{f(2x)}{2x} f'(1) [/tex]

Since [tex] 2f(x)=f(2x)f(1) [/tex] and [tex] f(1)=f'(1) [/tex]

[tex] f'(x)=\frac{f(x)}{x} [/tex]

[tex] f(x)=|cx| [/tex]

Hence, by substituting back into the original condition, the only solutions are

[tex] f(x) = |x| [/tex] and [tex] f(x) = 0 [/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Your 'solution' somhow omits the identity function and appears to claim that |x| is everywhere differentiable, and makes untold assumptions about f
 
  • #83
That's why I changed the question, so that f(x) is differentiable everywhere except x=0 was given

siddharth said:
So you are given that f(x) is differentiable at all points except x=0.

May I know what untold assumptions are being made?
 
  • #84
Firstly I must admit I've given up on rereading the new assumptions you keep making, and secondly you conclude f(x)=|x| is a solution. That is not an everywhere differentiable function, and you *do not conclude* that f(x)=x is a solution. Read your own proof and its conclusion that states the solutions are f(x)=|x| and f(x)=0!
 
  • #85
matt grime said:
Firstly I must admit I've given up on rereading the new assumptions you keep making, and secondly you conclude f(x)=|x| is a solution. That is not an everywhere differentiable function, and you *do not conclude* that f(x)=x is a solution. Read your own proof and its conclusion that states the solutions are f(x)=|x| and f(x)=0!

I agree, and that is why I messed up the question. Sorry. I changed the question in post #77 so that the solutions are f(x)=0 and f(x)=|x|
 
  • #86
But as I observed in my first post f(x)=x is a solution and not one of the ones you derive, or have you altered the conditions so that f(x)=x is not a solution?
 
  • #87
matt grime said:
But as I observed in my first post f(x)=x is a solution and not one of the ones you derive, or have you altered the conditions so that f(x)=x is not a solution?

No, I did not alter the conditions so that f(x)=x is not a solution. In retrospect, it should have been positive x.
That's a lesson then. Next time, I'll research the question thoroughly before I post it.
 
  • #88
You don't even need to assume f(x) is continuous to prove the result. All you need is f(xy/2)=f(x)f(y)/2 and f is differentiable at x=1 with f'(1)=f(1).
With just these, you can prove that f(x)=x or f(x)=|x| or f(x)=0.
Siddharth had proved differentiability of f(x) at every non-zero x in post 81.
You can use similar argument to show f(x) is continuous everywhere including x=0.
 
  • #89
How about another question. I heard this on the radio (Chris Maslanka, I think, presents a panel show with puzzles in on BBC radio 4) a few months ago.

There is a tribe of gnomes, each gnome, except the chief gnome, wears either a red or blue hat but doesn't know which (they're stuck on and there are no mirrors and whatever makes sense here). The chief gnome wants to conduct a census with the minimal opf fuss so he can count the number of red and blue hats. The gnomes being sensible people do this without even needing to communicate: one day they walk into the central clearing and form the red group and the blue group and the chief gnome can count them all. How do they do this? Remember, no communictation is needed (no gnome asks the colour of his hat).

It's quite an interesting puzzle even if you don't think it's maths.
 
  • #90
matt grime said:
It's quite an interesting puzzle even if you don't think it's maths.

This is a sorting problem, which is an kind of applied mathematics.

Insertion sort: Gnomes arrive one-by-one. The first two gnomes stand next to each other. The third gnome stands between the first two if the third gnome sees two different colored hats, otherwise the third gnome goes to the end of the line (after the second gnome). Each newly arriving gnome inserts himself between the two gnomes with different colored hats or goes to the end of the line if all of the gnomes in line have the same color hat.

Some jostling is needed to make room for the newly arriving gnomes in the insertion sort method. This jostling is a kind of communication, just not talking. I assume that jostling and other physical contact is allowed. Therefore,

Heap sort: The gnomes all meet in the clearing. The chief tells the gnomes they are to take any punches they receive like a gnome. He then tells the gnomes to pummel all the gnomes they see wearing red hats into unconsciousness and pile them in a heap. When the brawl ends, the chief gnomes counts all the standing gnomes (the blue group) and the unconscious gnomes (the red group).
 
  • #91
naturally, it being radio 4, the first method was the one used. so ask a question (hoping to breathe life into this thread)
 
  • #92
matt grime said:
naturally, it being radio 4, the first method was the one used. so ask a question (hoping to breathe life into this thread)

Sticking with the radio show puzzles, here's one from Car Talk.

Three different numbers are chosen at random, and one is written on each of three slips of paper. The slips are then placed face down on the table. The objective is to choose the slip upon which is written the largest number.

Here are the rules: You can turn over any slip of paper and look at the amount written on it. If for any reason you think this is the largest, you're done; you keep it. Otherwise you discard it and turn over a second slip. Again, if you think this is the one with the biggest number, you keep that one and the game is over. If you don't, you discard that one too.

The chance of getting the highest number is one in three. Or is it? Is there a strategy by which you can improve the odds?
 
  • #93
Turn over the first slip and remember the number. Discard it, then turn over the second slip. If the number on it is higher than the first slip, take it. It has a 2/3 chance of being the largest. If the number on the second slip is smaller than the first slip, you know it's not the largest, so you should go on to the third slip. In this case there's a 1/3 chance. (Unless, of course, you can go back to the first slip, in which case there's a 2/3 chance).
I'm more sure about the strategy than the odds though, seeing as I've never taken a probability class, and haven't bothered reading the book I got about it >.<
 
  • #94
Moo, you got it. Now it's your turn -- ask a question.
 
  • #95
Yarr... I totally don't have a question. I pass this round. Someone take it. >.<
 
  • #96
Well, that didn't work. Alright then. The next question will go to the first person to post a proof of the following:

Let [tex]a,b \in \mathbb{N}[/tex] and [tex]S=\{ n \in \mathbb{N}\ |\ n=ax+by[/tex] for some [tex]x,y \in \mathbb{Z} \}[/tex].

Prove [tex]\inf{(S)}=\gcd{(a,b)}[/tex].

(Note: in this case [tex]\mathbb{N}[/tex] does not include 0.)
 
Last edited:
  • #97
You mean min, not inf, for what it's worth. There's no need to invoke the unnecessarily opaque inf. The min exists, it is less than the gcd by... and greater because...
 
  • #98
It's been a while, so I`ll have a go.
Just let me know if I use something that may not be regarded as known for the purpose of solving this problem.

For given positive integers a,b we can find integers x,y such that ax+by=gcd(a,b). (This is Bézout's Identity, which follows from the Euclidian Algoritm). This is also the smallest positive integer that can be expressed in this way. Thus gcd(a,b) is the minimum of S.
 
  • #99
matt: Yeah, I guess min would be better.

Galileo: I'd say Bézout's Identity is off-limits because it's practically what we want to prove. But I guess finding a proof of that would be no big deal... so, ehm... you got it. Post something! :)
 
  • #100
i don't get it!

matt grime said:
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
you said the thing that in the quotation.
i don't really get it
how can you get 100!=2^98*3^49?
 
  • #101
Moo Of Doom said:
matt: Yeah, I guess min would be better.

Galileo: I'd say Bézout's Identity is off-limits because it's practically what we want to prove. But I guess finding a proof of that would be no big deal
Yeah, thought so, that's why I chose not to participate for a while, but I want to revive the thread a bit.
So here's a question that requires no real math knowhow.

Given any five points on a sphere. Show that some four of them must lie on a closed hemisphere.
 
  • #102
Pick any two points and consider the great circle passing through them. This splits the sphere into two closed hemispheres (that overlap on the great circle), but there are three remaining points. By the pigeonhole principle, one of the hemispheres must contain two of these points. That hemisphere has four, since it has the two just mentioned, plus the original two used to make the great circle.
 
  • #103
That is, ofcourse, correct. Your turn AKG.
 
  • #104
WARGREYMONKKTL said:
you said the thing that in the quotation.
i don't really get it
how can you get 100!=2^98*3^49?

But I didn't say anything like that. Try reading it again, all of it, all the preceding posts too.
 
  • #105
Thanks.
I Have A Question. How Can We Apply Calculus In Physics.
Can You Give Me Somelinks About It Or Else...
Thanks
Hae A Godd Day Everyone!
 
<h2>1. How do we make 100! divisible by 12<sup>49</sup>?</h2><p>To make 100! divisible by 12<sup>49</sup>, we need to find the highest power of 12 that is a factor of 100!. This can be found by dividing 100 by 12, which gives us 8. This means that 12<sup>8</sup> is the highest power of 12 that is a factor of 100!. To make it divisible by 12<sup>49</sup>, we need to multiply 12<sup>41</sup> to 100!.</p><h2>2. Can we make 100! divisible by 12<sup>49</sup> without changing its value?</h2><p>Yes, we can make 100! divisible by 12<sup>49</sup> without changing its value by multiplying it with 12<sup>41</sup>. This ensures that the value of 100! remains the same, but it becomes divisible by 12<sup>49</sup>.</p><h2>3. Why is it important to make 100! divisible by 12<sup>49</sup>?</h2><p>Making 100! divisible by 12<sup>49</sup> is important because it allows us to easily perform calculations involving large numbers. By making it divisible by 12<sup>49</sup>, we can break down the calculation into smaller, more manageable parts.</p><h2>4. What is the significance of 12<sup>49</sup> in this context?</h2><p>12<sup>49</sup> is the highest power of 12 that is a factor of 100!. This means that it is the smallest number that can divide 100! without leaving a remainder. It is significant because it allows us to make 100! divisible by a large number, making calculations easier.</p><h2>5. Is there a general rule for making a factorial divisible by a large number?</h2><p>Yes, there is a general rule for making a factorial divisible by a large number. We need to find the highest power of the number that is a factor of the factorial, and then multiply it to the factorial. This will ensure that the factorial is divisible by the large number without changing its value.</p>

1. How do we make 100! divisible by 1249?

To make 100! divisible by 1249, we need to find the highest power of 12 that is a factor of 100!. This can be found by dividing 100 by 12, which gives us 8. This means that 128 is the highest power of 12 that is a factor of 100!. To make it divisible by 1249, we need to multiply 1241 to 100!.

2. Can we make 100! divisible by 1249 without changing its value?

Yes, we can make 100! divisible by 1249 without changing its value by multiplying it with 1241. This ensures that the value of 100! remains the same, but it becomes divisible by 1249.

3. Why is it important to make 100! divisible by 1249?

Making 100! divisible by 1249 is important because it allows us to easily perform calculations involving large numbers. By making it divisible by 1249, we can break down the calculation into smaller, more manageable parts.

4. What is the significance of 1249 in this context?

1249 is the highest power of 12 that is a factor of 100!. This means that it is the smallest number that can divide 100! without leaving a remainder. It is significant because it allows us to make 100! divisible by a large number, making calculations easier.

5. Is there a general rule for making a factorial divisible by a large number?

Yes, there is a general rule for making a factorial divisible by a large number. We need to find the highest power of the number that is a factor of the factorial, and then multiply it to the factorial. This will ensure that the factorial is divisible by the large number without changing its value.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
930
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
3
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
3
Replies
87
Views
4K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top