Can a set of 11 numbers be divided into two equal subsets with the same sum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arcnets
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Among any six consecutive natural numbers, at least two will have no common divisor greater than one. This is established by noting that the least common denominator of two consecutive integers is one, leading to the conclusion that m consecutive integers contain at least m - 1 pairs with no common divisors exceeding one. The discussion clarifies that the correct terminology is Greatest Common Factor (GCF), not Least Common Denominator (LCD). The analysis further explores the properties of even and odd numbers within the set, demonstrating that among any grouping, certain divisibility rules apply, such as only one number being divisible by three and none being divisible by four if they are odd. A related problem is introduced, involving a set of eleven numbers where one number can be removed to create two subsets of five with equal sums, prompting further mathematical exploration.
arcnets
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Prove this: Among any 6 natural numbers in a row (e.g. 20,21,22,23,24,25) there's at least 2 of them which have no common divisor larger than 1.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
All you need too do in this case is prove that the LCD (Least Common Denominator) of two consecutive integers is 1. It then follows that m consecutive integers have at least m - 1 pairs of integers that have no common divisors greater than 1. But, since I am a Sadistic Mathematician, I shall leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.
 
Good, Ben-CS. Except the L in LCD means largest not least. - Anyone?
 
We're both wrong: It should be GCF, for Greatest Common Factor. (Those *...* fractions are messing with my mind!)
 
call the numbers x, x+1, x+2...x+5

Now, either x or x+1 is even, along with two other numbers. Regardless, we can redefine the set that is not divisible by 2 as y,y+2,y+4 with y defined as odd. The other numbers are multiples of 2.

Only one of these can be divisble by 3. Any multiple of 3 +/- 2 or 4 is not a multiple of 3.

We might think that if y is a multiple of 4, that y+4 would be as well, but none of them is even, so none of them is a multiple of 4.

For any higher multiples, if y=nz, where z>4, (n+1)z>y+4, ruling out higher multiples.

Njorl
 
Correct IMO, Njorl.
 
Another problem:

consider a set of 11 numbers

Define the that sets can you do the following:
Remove 1 arbritary number from the set then divide the set into 2 subsets of 5 numbers each and make sure that the sum of the numbers of the first subset equals the sum of the numbers of the second subset.
 
Back
Top