MHB Is the Converse of the Given Statement True for Any Positive Integer n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnny009
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Structure
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the difference between the smallest perfect square greater than or equal to a positive integer n (where n is prime) is itself a perfect square. Initial examples using prime numbers like 3 and 5 show that the difference can be a perfect square, suggesting that the original statement may not hold universally. Counterexamples, such as when n equals 6, indicate that the converse is also not true, as the difference is not a perfect square. Participants clarify the conditions of the problem, emphasizing that m must be greater than or equal to n. Overall, the inquiry reveals complexities in the relationship between prime numbers and perfect squares.
johnny009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
if n is a positive integer greater than 2 and m the smallest integer greater than or = n, that is a perfect square.
Let a = m-n.

Show that if n is prime, then a is not a perfect square.

Also, is the converse of above true, for any integer n?

any guidance, will be much appreciated?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
johnny009 said:
if n is a positive integer greater than 2 and m the smallest integer greater than or = n, that is a perfect square.
Let a = m-n.

Show that if n is prime, then a is not a perfect square.

Also, is the converse of above true, for any integer n?
any guidance, will be much appreciated?Thanks

Hey johnny009! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)Guidance: let's try a couple of examples, starting with the simplest we can think of.The smallest prime $n$ is $3$, in which case $m=2^2=4$, and $a=4-3=1$, which is a perfect square!
Ah well, maybe $a=1$ is a special case...

Let's try again, the next prime $n$ is $5$, so that $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-5=4$, which is again a perfect square!

Erm... I think it's not true, and we have 2 counter examples to prove it.Continuing with $n=6$, we get $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-6=3$, which is not a perfect square... and $n$ is not prime.
So we have a counter example for the converse as well.
 
I like Serena said:
Hey johnny009! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)Guidance: let's try a couple of examples, starting with the simplest we can think of.The smallest prime $n$ is $3$, in which case $m=2^2=4$, and $a=4-3=1$, which is a perfect square!
Ah well, maybe $a=1$ is a special case...

Let's try again, the next prime $n$ is $5$, so that $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-5=4$, which is again a perfect square!

Erm... I think it's not true, and we have 2 counter examples to prove it.Continuing with $n=6$, we get $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-6=3$, which is not a perfect square... and $n$ is not prime.
So we have a counter example for the converse as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi There,

Thanks a lot for the reply.

But, your solutions ignores the fact, that 'm' cannot be less than 'N' ...as per the QUESTION??

So, your solution...is not really addressing the Question.

CHEERS

John.
 
johnny009 said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi There,

Thanks a lot for the reply.

But, your solutions ignores the fact, that 'm' cannot be less than 'N' ........as per the QUESTION??

So, your solution...is not really addressing the Question.

CHEERS

John.

I'm assuming you mean 'n' instead of 'N', since there is no reference to 'N'?
Erm... in each of the examples $m\ge n$ as per the question... am I missing something? (Wondering)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top