How Can We Make 100! Divisible by 12^{49}?

[The Bob]

Are there any finite (only contains finitely many elements) paired sets such that there exists an irrational number in the set. Give an example or prove why not.

If I understood what you meant I might give it a go. Call me stupid but it makes no sense to me.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Moo Of Doom]

If I understood what you meant I might give it a go. Call me stupid but it makes no sense to me.

The Bob (2004 ©)

He means that if there is a finite set, A, in [0,1] so that 0 and 1 are in A, and the difference between any two members of A, excluding the difference between 0 and 1, occurs with two different pairs of numbers in the set. So if you have two members of the set that are 2/7 apart, you need another pair that is 2/7 apart (Though this can share one of the members of the other pair, I think).

Can you construct a finite set of that kind, so that it includes an irrational number?

(My guess is no, but I'm a long way from proving it.)

 

[uart]

(My guess is no, but I'm a long way from proving it.)

That was definitely my impression too Moo. Put it this way, if there does exist a finite example of such a set (that includes an irrational) then I'd be very interested to see it.

 

[snoble]

That's the question alright. An example of a paired set is {0,1/5,2/5,4/5,1}. Yes, two pairs can share a member; this example requires that since 2/5=4/5-2/5=2/5 -0. So to reiterate can you find a paired set that is both finite and contains an irrational. Or show why one can't exist.

 

[eNathan]

Here is a new question.

Why is the answer to life the universe, and everything = 42? How was this derived?

:rofl"

 

[CRGreathouse]

Here is a new question.

Why is the answer to life the universe, and everything = 42? How was this derived?

:rofl"

"What is six multiplied by nine"?

...at least according to Douglas Adams.[/size]

 

[eNathan]

"What is six multiplied by nine"?

...at least according to Douglas Adams.[/size]

Ye, I read something of that sort. But why 6 and why 9? Why not 6+9? Why not \frac {6} {9}

 

[matt grime]

Please, can we get back on topic and not ruin Gokul's admirable idea with asinine comments.

 

[snoble]

Thanks matt,
I'll post a hint if anyone's interested. The problem is a bit out of the range of most high school math students but anyone with a bit of university experience has the tools to solve it. I hope nobody is scared off by it.

Steven

 

[Gokul43201]

yes please...some big hints.

 

[snoble]

The first of the big hints. This is a linear algebra problem but the vector space you want isn't over the reals. Think about what would be a useful basis and what would be in the span of that basis.

 

[snoble]

Does anybody want to post any work in progress or thoughts of a solution? That way at least a next questioner can be chosen. I apologize if I bogged this game down with a poor question . I still have feel someone out there can solve it. I solved it as a junior undergraduate and I wasn't that amazing of a junior undergrad.

 

[mansi]

Let’s say you have an irrational x in A which is a paired set. You’re sure of 0,x and 1 being in the set. Now, obviously x-0 != 1-x .So there must be at least one additional point in the set (or two points p,q distinct from x such that p-q=x-0) .Now this point is irrational( in the other case, at least one of p & q is irrational). If we go on this way…we get infinitely many irrationals in the set. That , I guess ,amounts to saying that a paired set containing an irrational point contains infinitely many irrationals.
All of this seems too simple to be correct….and what’s infinitely worse is that I don’t see any use of the hint given by snoble...and lastly, why are the biggies like matt and gokul not coming up with smart ideas,like they always do?
i guess the odds aren't in my favour...THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING WRONG IN THIS!

 

[matt grime]

I guessed the first and thus set the last one; I haven't even bothered to think about this one really, other than to clarfiy something with the setter.

 

[snoble]

mansi you are on the right line of thought but as always the devil is in the details. If you can formalize "If we go on this way" you've basically proven it. Try even just take it to the next stage... why can't there be only two irrationals in a paired set... why can't there be only n irrationals.

 

[mansi]

i'm writing down the proof...i'm onto it ,head on...
but there's something i'd like to clarify...
in a paired set ,is it possible to have 3 pairs of elements having the same distance between them...or do we consider it to be exactly two pairs?

 

[snoble]

3 of the same distance is totally cool. That's why {0,1/5,2/5,4/5,1} is a paired set even though 1/5 shows up 3 times.

 

[mansi]

Ok…so I think I’ve got something (not a proof) here…
Let A be a paired set containing an irrational point, say x. 0,x,1 belong to A and x-0 != 1-x, so there exists at least one additional point which is irrational or two points,at least one of which is irrational.
In the first case, say , the irrational point is p. so you have 0,x,p,1 belonging to A. p –x !=p-0 and p-x !=1-x. The only possibility is that p-x =1-p and p-0=1-x but that contradicts the fact that x is irrational. Therefore, there exists at least one more irrational point in the set….and so on.
In the second case , say you’ve 2 points p and q and WLOG p is irrational.
i.e. we have x-0= p-q .
If q is rational…and if q=1/2 then you don’t have another rational point but taking all the possible combinations of the distances between rational and irrational , you have to have an irrational…
If q != ½ then there’s definitely another rational point z in the set. Consider the difference x-z. We need a pair of elements giving us this difference.
x- z !=p-z (contradicts the fact that z is rational) and x-z !=1-p and x-z !=p-0. Therefore , we’re sure that there’s another irrational in the set…
So , now you have 3 irrationals in the set…x,p and q(say). Consider the difference between the two irrationals q and x. Picking up all possible
Pairs, you get to know that another irrational exists in the set .
Finally,as I said earlier…existence of an irrational in a paired set implies the existence of infinitely many irrationals in the set…
I think this is more like an observation, not a proof in the typical sense…

 

[mansi]

so...am i supposed post a new question,or not??

 

[Gokul43201]

Give snoble a day or two to respond...

 

[snoble]

Unless somebody minds how about we wait until tomorrow morning to see if anyone wants to fill in the details. Otherwise I'll say it's all yours mansi (and I'll post a proof myself for why there are no finite paired sets containing an irrational number)

Steven

 

[snoble]

go ahead and ask a new question mansi. I'll post a solution to my problem some time soon (today or tomorrow)

 

[mansi]

Hi!

Here is a problem I've been struggling with,so it appears real tough to me.just for the record...i haven't (yet) been able to write down a proof for it...

prove that Z + 2^(1/2)Z is dense in R.
(in words the given set is the set of integers + (square root of 2) times the set of integers and R is is the real line)

 

[chingkui]

I am thinking you only need to consider the interval [0,1] and study if sqrt(2)*z (mod 1) is dense in the interval. Then, it will look like a circle (by identifying 1 with 0). Explore the consequence if it is not dense (i.e. prove by contradiction).

 

[mansi]

i know it's a bad idea but looks like this is going to be the end of this sticky...


anyways...i want to work on the problem i posted...chingkui,could you elaborate the circle part...didn't quite get that...

 

[chingkui]

the reason to just look at [0,1] is that if it is dense there, then, it is dense in [n,n+1] (by translation) and you know that the set Z+\sqrt{2}Z is dense in R.

As for n\sqrt{2} mod(1), let's clarify what it means:
\sqrt{2} mod(1)=0.4142...=\sqrt{2}-1
2\sqrt{2} mod(1)=0.8284...=\sqrt{2}-2
3\sqrt{2} mod(1)=0.2426...=\sqrt{2}-4
So, it is just eliminating the integer part so that the number fall between 0 and 1.
This is what I mean by "circle", it is like you have a circle with circumference 1, you start at point 0, go clockwise for\sqrt{2} unit, you will pass the point 0 and reach 0.4142..., and go clockwise for another \sqrt{2}, you will get to 0.8284...

Now, if \sqrt{2}Z (mod 1) is not dense in [0,1], then there are a<b, where a=m\sqrt{2} (mod 1) and b=n\sqrt{2} (mod 1) such that nothing between a and b is a multiple of \sqrt{2} (mod 1). Note that \mu=b-a>0 is irrational.

The set S={c|a<c<b} is a "forbidden region" (meaning that S is free of multiple of \sqrt{2} (mod 1). Then, for any integer k, k\sqrt{2}+S (mod 1) is also forbidden. Pick any integer M>1/\mu, the total length of the M+1 sets S, \sqrt{2}+S,..., M\sqrt{2}+S exceed 1, so, at least two of them, say S_{p}=p\sqrt{2}+S and S_{q}=q\sqrt{2}+S must intersect. If S_{p}!=S_{q}, then a boundary point is inside a forbidden region, wlog, say upper boundary of S_{p} is inside S_{q}, then, since that boundary point is just b+p\sqrt{2} (mod 1), which should not be in any forbidden region, we are left with S_{p}=S_{q}. But this is impossible, since \sqrt{2} is irrational. So, we have a contradiction.

 

[chingkui]

Where is Steven's proof?

 

[snoble]

I have posted the proof to the paired set problem in a separate thread to avoid clutter. Please make any comments about it there.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=74511

thanks,
Steven

 

[mansi]

here's a proof of the question i had posted...thanks to matt grime(he sent me the proof) and i guess chingkui's done the same thing...so he gets to ask the next question...

Let b be the square root of two, and suppose that the numbers
If nb mod(1) are dense in the interval [0,1), then m+nb is dense in R. Proof, let r be in R since there is an n such that nb and r have as many places after the decimal point in common as you care, we just subtract or add an integer onto nb so that m+nb have the same bit before the decimal point too. Thus m+nb and r agree to as much precision as you care.

So it suffices to consider nb mod 1, the bits just after the decimal point.

now, there is a nice map from [0,1) to the unit circle in the complex plane, which we call S^1


t --> exp(2pisqrt(-1)t)


the map induced on the circle by t -->t+b is a rotation by angle 2(pi)b radians.

it is a well known result in dynamical systems that such rigid rotations have dense orbits if and only if b is irrational, and then all orbits are dense.

the orbit of t is just the images of t got by applying the rotation repeatedly. Thus the orbit of 0 is just the set of all points nb mod(1), whcih is dense.

The proof of density isn't too hard, though you need to know about compactness and sequential compactness, at least in the proof I use.


Let r be a rotation by angle 2pib for some irrational b, then the images of t, namely

t+b,t+2b,t+3b... must all be distinct, otherwise

t+mb=t+nb mod 1 for some m=/=n

that is there is an integer k such that

k+mb=nb, implying b is rational.

thus the set of images of t must all be distinct. S^1 is compact, thus there is a convergent subsequence.

Hence given e>0, there are points t+mb and t+nb such that

|nb-mb|<e mod 1.

Let N=n-m, and let p and q be the points

mb and nb mod 1.


Consider the interval between p and q, and its image under rotating by 2pibN. These intervals are no more than e long, and the cover the circle/interval, hence the forward orbit under rotating by 2pibN is dense, thus so is rotating by 2pib, and hence all forward orbits are dense as required.

 

[chingkui]

Sorry for not posting so long. I have a counting question that is not very difficult (at least after I saw the solution), some of you might know the answer already. If you have already seen it somewhere, please wait 1 or 2 days before posting, let people think about it first. Thanks.

Here is the question:

I was thinking about this problem with a number of friends when we were cutting a birthday cake: How many pieces can be produced at most when we are allowed to cut n times (no need to have equal area/volume).

More precisely, in 2 dimensions, we want to know with n straight lines (extend to infinite at both ends), how many pieces at most can we cut the plane (R^2) into? In this case, the answer is 1+1+2+3+...+n=1+n(n+1)/2.

In 3D, it looks a lot more complicated. Again we have n infinite planes, and we wish to cut R^3 into as many pieces as possible. Does anyone know the answer?

How about in m dimensions? n hyperplanes to cut R^m.