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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter newchie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Primes Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of a mathematical question regarding "interesting sets" defined in relation to prime numbers. Specifically, participants are investigating the conditions under which a set of positive integers, containing p+2 elements, can be classified as interesting based on the property that the sum of any p numbers is a multiple of the other two. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical proofs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a proof for the definition of interesting sets based on prime numbers.
  • Another participant humorously questions the level of interest in the topic.
  • A participant suggests that if a collection is interesting, scaled versions of it are also interesting, proposing the term 'primitive' for collections without a common factor.
  • It is noted that computational attempts to find primitive collections yield limited results, specifically the collections {1,1,1,...,1} and {p,1,1,...,1} for small values of p.
  • A participant presents a mathematical argument regarding the divisibility of elements in interesting sets and concludes that all elements not divisible by p must be equal, while those that are must be scaled by p.
  • Several participants express appreciation for the clarity of the mathematical explanation provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the limited nature of interesting primitive sets, but the discussion remains open regarding the existence of other potential solutions for larger numbers.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the question of whether other interesting sets exist beyond those identified, leaving the exploration of larger numbers and their properties unresolved.

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:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
902
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K