MHB Apc.1.1.13 what is the prime factorization of 30,030

karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
$\tiny{apc.1.1.13}$
The number 1,001 is the product of the primes 7, 11, and 13
Knowing this,
What is the prime factorization of 30,030?

a, ${3 \cdot 7\cdot 10\cdot 13}$
b. ${30\cdot 7\cdot 11\cdot 13}$
c. ${2 \cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 11\cdot 13}$
d. ${3\cdot 7\cdot 10\cdot 11\cdot 13}$
e. ${2\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 11\cdot 13}$

Ok I never studied number theory so don't know theorems
but a b and d don't have all primes, by observation c won't make it
so that leaves e

I hope
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not bad. I'd say take a look at a couple of factors. It's clearly divisible by 3. It's also clearly divisible by 10 = 2 x 5, so you are left with e).

-Dan
 
You are told that "1001 is the product of the primes 7, 11, and 13" and 30030= 30(1001).
So 30030 is 30(7*11*13) and 30= 3(10)= 2*3*5. 30030= 2*3*5*7*11*13
 
ok weird i didn't see that
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top