Discover the Proof for Primes: Solving the Mystery of Interesting Sets"

  • Thread starter Thread starter newchie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Primes Proof
newchie
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Would like to see a proof for the following question.

Let p be a prime number. Define a set interesting if it has p+2 (not necessarily distinct) positive integers such than the sum of any p numbers is a multiple of each of the other two. Find all interesting sets.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
how interesting is this?
 
mathwonk said:
how interesting is this?
:))))

If one such collection is 'interesting', such as {1,1,1,1,3} for p=3, then any scaled-up version is also 'interesting': {2,2,2,2,6}, {10,10,10,10,30}, or the like. So call these collections 'primitive' (there goes another wordo) if they don't have any common factor among all numbers (the numbers could still be non-coprime when taken pairwise).

The issue is that, if you try with a computer, the only 'primitive' collections appear to be: A) the "all ones" collection, (p+2 ones), or B) the "almost all ones" (p+1 ones and one 'p'). For example, for p=3, you find only {1,1,1,1,1} and {1,1,1,1,3} (assume the order is irrelevant, otherwise place the '3' in any of the 5 possible positions).

It's expensive to try with the computer for any but small numbers, so the issue is: is this the only solution, of is any other possible for larger numbers?
 
The only interesting primitive sets are {1,1,1,...,1} and {p,1,1,...,1}.

Let {x1,...,xp+2} be interesting and primitive, and let Sk=(Ʃxi) - xk.

First observe that if one number, say xk, is divisible by p, then all other xi are congruent Sk modulo p. (Since xk|Sk-xi.)

Conclude that at most one of the xi are divisible by p.

For i≠j, we have Sj-xi=aixj, and this equation summed over all i (with i≠j), gives pSj=axj.
In particular, since xj|pSj and xj|p(Sj-xi), we must have xj|pxi for all i and j.

Conclude that all xi not divisible by p must be equal, and if any xj is divisble by p, it must be p times as much.
 
There should be an :applauding: smilie here. It took me some time, but I think I followed the whole thing. Nice!
 
Dodo said:
There should be an :applauding: smilie here. It took me some time, but I think I followed the whole thing. Nice!


I second that. :smile:
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top