Hard? least common multiple problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hello Kitty
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hard Multiple
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical problem concerning the least common multiple (LCM) of a set of natural numbers. Participants explore whether, given that the LCM of every subset of size n-1 equals the LCM of the entire set, it necessarily follows that one of the numbers in the set equals this LCM. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and attempts to find counterexamples.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a conjecture regarding the relationship between the LCM of subsets and the elements themselves, seeking to prove or disprove it.
  • Another participant suggests testing additional cases for different values of n to identify potential patterns.
  • A third participant examines the case for n=3, proposing a construction of numbers that could serve as a counterexample, specifically using the greatest common divisors of pairs of numbers.
  • One participant acknowledges the oversight in their initial reasoning and indicates that their exploration is part of a broader problem they are addressing in another forum section.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; instead, there are competing views and ongoing exploration of the problem, with some suggesting counterexamples while others seek to establish the conjecture.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the relationships between the numbers and their LCMs, and it remains unresolved whether the conjecture holds true in all cases or if counterexamples can be definitively established.

Hello Kitty
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to prove or disprove the following:

Let a_1, ..., a_n be natural numbers such that the least common multiple of EVERY n-1 of them is equal to lcm(a_1, ..., a_n) = m. Is it true that a_i = m for some i?

The method I've tried so far is to build systems of equations using the information known to prove it in the positive, but it gets very messy. I've also had no luck finding a counter example.

n=2 is easy (it's true), but the method doesn't generalize.

Thanks in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Try it for a few more n's and do you see a pattern?
 
Consider n=3: (a,b,c), and let's try to find a counterexample. Let d=gcd(a,b), e=gcd(b,c), f=gcd(a,c). Clearly we must have d,e,f>1 or one would be the lcm of the other two. Let's assume that (d,e,f)=1 for simplicity. The simplest way to construct a triple would be (df,de,ef). Then:
lcm(df,de)=lcm(de,ef)=lcm(df,ef)=lcm(df,ef,de)=def=m > a,b,c. Or a more concrete example: (6,10,15) then the lcm = 30.
 
Many thanks. Yes, silly of me not to spot this sooner. Actually I'm trying to solve a more general problem and this would have been a sufficient condition if it were true. My post in the algebra section has the details.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K