Do All Primes Except 2 and 5 Divide Infinite Repunits?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter benorin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether every prime number other than 2 and 5 divides infinitely many repunits, which are numbers consisting solely of the digit 1, such as 1, 11, 111, etc. The conversation explores various proofs and mathematical reasoning related to this topic.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if a prime p divides one of the repunits, it can be used to generate infinitely many such numbers.
  • One participant suggests that the nth term of the sequence can be expressed as \(\frac{10^n-1}{9}\), which leads to further exploration of divisibility.
  • Another participant applies the pigeonhole principle to argue that since the set of repunits is infinite and the set of their residues modulo p is finite, there must be some repunits that are divisible by p.
  • Further elaboration includes defining the repunits in terms of a variable m, leading to a similar conclusion about divisibility by primes.
  • One participant argues that if a prime p is not equal to 2 or 5, then the division of 10 by p leads to a non-terminating decimal, suggesting that the repunits cannot be finite.
  • Another participant challenges this reasoning, providing a counterexample to the claim that non-terminating decimals imply non-divisibility.
  • There is a discussion about the conditions under which the division of repunits by primes results in terminating or non-terminating decimals, with references to the factors of 10.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the proofs and reasoning presented, with some supporting the idea that primes other than 2 and 5 divide infinitely many repunits, while others challenge the validity of certain arguments and examples. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correctness of the various claims and proofs.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on specific assumptions about the properties of numbers and their divisibility, and there are unresolved mathematical steps in the proofs presented. The discussion also highlights the complexity of determining the conditions under which certain primes divide the repunits.

benorin
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,442
Reaction score
191
Prove that every prime other that 2 and 5 divides infinitely many of the numbers 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, 111111, ...

THIS IS NOT A HOME WORK PROBLEM! So don't hold back, just put 'em out there.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Homework or no, you're only a couple getting hints for now :smile:

If you get one of them divisible by p, you can use it to produce infinitely many.

Consider the term with p*(p-1) 1's in it. (This won't be the first one on the list, but it's the first one I thought of how to prove is divisible by p without much effort)
 
Silly me, here's a much simpler way- the nth term in your sequence is just [tex]\frac{10^n-1}{9}[/tex]
 
then what? little fermat? (with n = p-1)
 
Suppose p is a prime that is not 2 nor 5.
A = {1, 11, 111, ...} is an infinite set.
Let B = {1 mod p, 11 mod p, 111 mod p , ...}.
B is a finite set.
Let f : A -> B be the natural function mapping each element of A to an element of B.
Since A is infinite and B is finite, there exist x > y in A such that f(x) = f(y). (Pigeon hole's principle)
Then p must divide x - y.
For example, if x is 1111111 and y is 111, then x-y is 1111*1000, so p divides 1111, because 1000 is relatively prime to p.

conclusion: p divides at least one element of A.
 
For a more stronger conclusion, let m denote 111. we denote mm = 111111, mmm = 111111111, etc.

A = {m, mm, mmm, ...} is an infinite set.
Let B = {m mod p, mm mod p, mmm mod p , ...}.
B is a finite set.
Let f : A -> B be the natural function mapping each element of A to an element of B.
Since A is infinite and B is finite, there exist x > y in A such that f(x) = f(y). (Pigeon hole's principle)
Then p must divide x - y.
For example, if x is mmmmmmm and y is mmm, then x-y is mmmm*1000000000, so p divides mmmm, because 1000000000 is relatively prime to p.

conclusion: p divides a number of the form mmm...mm. But mmm...mm is of the form 111...11 and is greater than m = 111. Therefore p divdes a number in A greater than 111.

general conclusion: p divides a number in A greater than any given number.

the general conclusion means that p divides infinitely many numbers in A.
 
The only proof needed, is that if x is a prime number that is not equal to 2 or 5, b is not a finite number.

10/x = b

If b would be a finite number, with d number of digits, when multiplied by [tex]10^{d-1}[\tex] the result would be an integrer. Since b = 10/x, this means that [tex]\frac_{10^{d-1}(10)}{b}[\tex] would be an integrer which imply the fact that 10^d-1 can be devided by x. Since a power has the same factors than its roots, this is impossible and thus 10/x cannot give a finite awnser. Each of these number (1,11,111...) is equal to the sum of consecutive powers of 10, such as 111 = 10^0 + 10^1 + 10^2. If devided by x, the result will be equal to the sum 10^0/x + 10^1/x + 10^2/x. By the same kind of proof, the result has to be infinite.[/tex][/tex]
 
Werg22 said:
If devided by x, the result will be equal to the sum 10^0/x + 10^1/x + 10^2/x. By the same kind of proof, the result has to be infinite.

It seems like you're trying to show you never get an integer and therefore prove these numbers are never divisible by primes? This is obviously false.

Knowing each of the terms 10^0/x, 10^1/x, 10^2/x is a non-terminating decimal (<-this is the terminology, not "infinite") does not tell you their sum is a non-terminating decimal, just take x=3 for a counterexample.
 
  • #10
Alright, thanks, you made realize the exeptions. To develop on that, It would be better to proove that if a and b have no common factor, the result of a/b, let say c is non-terminating, to the exeption of a = 2, 5 and b = 2, 5
a/b = c
If c is terminating, with d number of digits, it would mean
10^d-1 a/b is an integrer
which means that 10^d-1 has b as one of its factors. Since a power has the same factors than its roots, and 10 = 5*2, this is not possible. Thus a/b cannot be an integrer.
Taking the case of the set {1, 11, 111...}
Each one of this number is equal to 1 + 10^1 + 10^2...10^n and thus equal to
[tex]\frac{10^n-1}{9}[/tex]
Thus, if devided by a, the result is
[tex]\frac{10^n-1}{9a}[/tex]
Since a is prime, in order for this to be terminated is that [tex]\frac{10^n-1}{9}[/tex] has a as one of its factor. So The numbers that do exeptions to the rule are the numbers that satisfy this condition.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K