MHB Does a Decimal Representation of the Form 111...1 Exist for Every Prime p > 5?

Click For Summary
For every prime number p greater than 5, there exists a natural number k such that the product pk can be expressed in decimal form as a number consisting entirely of the digit 1 (i.e., pk = 111...1). The discussion emphasizes the need for a proof of this assertion. Participants share different approaches to demonstrate the existence of such a k. The conversation highlights the complexity of the problem while acknowledging simpler methods to arrive at a solution. Overall, the existence of a decimal representation of the form 111...1 for primes greater than 5 is affirmed.
lfdahl
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
747
Reaction score
0
Let $p$ be a prime number exceeding $5$.

Prove that there exists a natural number $k$ such that

each digit in the decimal representation of $pk$ is $1$ :

$pk = 1111...1$
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
lfdahl said:
Let $p$ be a prime number exceeding $5$.

Prove that there exists a natural number $k$ such that

each digit in the decimal representation of $pk$ is $1$ :

$pk = 1111...1$

because p is a prime > 5 so p is co-prime to 10
hence as per Fermats Little Theorem
we have $10^{p-1} \equiv 1 \pmod {p}$
so a sequence of 9's ( p-1 9's) is divisible by p
further as p is co-prime to 9 so sequence of 1's ( p-1 1's) is divisible by p.
so for k = p-1 this holds. this may hold for k a factor of p-1( for example p = 13 and k = 6).
 
kaliprasad said:
because p is a prime > 5 so p is co-prime to 10
hence as per Fermats Little Theorem
we have $10^{p-1} \equiv 1 \pmod {p}$
so a sequence of 9's ( p-1 9's) is divisible by p
further as p is co-prime to 9 so sequence of 1's ( p-1 1's) is divisible by p.
so for k = p-1 this holds. this may hold for k a factor of p-1( for example p = 13 and k = 6).

Hi, kaliprasad! Thankyou for your participation! Well done :cool:Here is an alternative approach:

\[a_k = \underbrace{1111..1}_{k \: \: positions} = b_k \cdot p +r_k, \: \: \: 0\leq r_k < p.\]By pigeons hole principle for some $n$ and $m$, $n>m$, we have $r_n = r_m$.

It follows, that the difference: $a_n-a_m$ is divisible by $p$.Note, that $a_n-a_m = \underbrace{111..1}_{n-m \: pos.} \underbrace{000..0}_{m \: pos.}=
\underbrace{111..1}_{n-m \: pos.} \cdot 10^m$.Since $10^m$ is not divisible by $p$, $p$ divides $\underbrace{111..1}_{n-m \: pos.}$.
 
lfdahl said:
Hi, kaliprasad! Thankyou for your participation! Well done :cool:Here is an alternative approach:

\[a_k = \underbrace{1111..1}_{k \: \: positions} = b_k \cdot p +r_k, \: \: \: 0\leq r_k < p.\]By pigeons hole principle for some $n$ and $m$, $n>m$, we have $r_n = r_m$.

It follows, that the difference: $a_n-a_m$ is divisible by $p$.Note, that $a_n-a_m = \underbrace{111..1}_{n-m \: pos.} \underbrace{000..0}_{m \: pos.}=
\underbrace{111..1}_{n-m \: pos.} \cdot 10^m$.Since $10^m$ is not divisible by $p$, $p$ divides $\underbrace{111..1}_{n-m \: pos.}$.

Above approach is simpler
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

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