Is the following result trivial?

  • Thread starter JoanBraidy
  • Start date
  • #1
I proved theres infinitely many n such that S_n has an element of order n^2
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Trivialish.

[itex]3^2+4^2+5^2<3.4.5[/itex].

Suppose [itex]3^{2i}+4^{2i}+5^{2i}<3^i.4^i.5^i[/itex] for [itex]i<n[/itex], then
[itex]3^{2(i+1)}+4^{2(i+1)}+5^{2(i+1)}<25(3^i.4^i.5^i)<3^{i+1}4^{i+1}5^{i+1}[/itex], hence [itex]3^{2n}+4^{2n}+5^{2n}<3^n4^n5^n[/itex] by induction.

It follows that [itex]S_{3^n4^n5^n}[/itex] has an element of order [itex](3^n4^n5^n)^2[/itex] for all [itex]n\in \mathbb{N}[/itex].

Similarly [itex]5^{3n}+7^{3n}+9^{3n}+11^{3n}<5^n7^n9^n11^n[/itex], so there are an infinite number of [itex]k[/itex] such that [itex]S_k[/itex] contains an element of order [itex]k^3[/itex].

I think its probably true that there are an infinite number of [itex]n[/itex] such that [itex]S_n[/itex] contains an element of order [itex]n^k[/itex] for any [itex]k\in \mathbb{N}[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Trivialish.

[itex]3^2+4^2+5^2<3.4.5[/itex].

Suppose [itex]3^{2i}+4^{2i}+5^{2i}<3^i.4^i.5^i[/itex] for [itex]i<n[/itex], then
[itex]3^{2(i+1)}+4^{2(i+1)}+5^{2(i+1)}<25(3^i.4^i.5^i)<3^{i+1}4^{i+1}5^{i+1}[/itex], hence [itex]3^{2n}+4^{2n}+5^{2n}<3^n4^n5^n[/itex] by induction.

It follows that [itex]S_{3^n4^n5^n}[/itex] has an element of order [itex](3^n4^n5^n)^2[/itex] for all [itex]n\in \mathbb{N}[/itex].

Similarly [itex]5^{3n}+7^{3n}+9^{3n}+11^{3n}<5^n7^n9^n11^n[/itex], so there are an infinite number of [itex]k[/itex] such that [itex]S_k[/itex] contains an element of order [itex]k^3[/itex].

I think its probably true that there are an infinite number of [itex]n[/itex] such that [itex]S_n[/itex] contains an element of order [itex]n^k[/itex] for any [itex]k\in \mathbb{N}[/itex].
similar to what I did thanks

if I proved the general case, do you think that would be trivial?
 
  • #4
There are straightforward proofs quoting Bertrand's postulate or the prime number theorem or other theorems on prime distribution. Most people wouldn't call the quoted theorems trivial, so you'd probably want to distinguish between a trivial result and a trivial proof.

I've appended a proof (I tried to put this under a spoiler but it doesn't seem to work with latexed code - you'll just have to avoid looking if you're still doing your own proof). Whether you'd call the proof trivial is really subjective.

For [itex]k=0[/itex] it is trivial that [itex]S_n[/itex] has an element of order [itex]n^k[/itex].

For any [itex]k\in\mathbb{N},k\geq1[/itex]

[tex]p_n^k+p_{n+1}^k+\dots+p_{n+r}^k+\dots+p_{n+k}^k[/tex]
[tex]\leq p_n^k(1+2^k+2^{2k}+\dots+2^{rk}+\dots+2^{k^2})\text{ (By Bertrand's postulate)}[/tex]
[tex]=p_n^k(2^{k(k+1)}-1)/(2^k-1)[/tex]

If [itex]n_k[/itex] is chosen so that
[tex]p_{n_k+k}\geq (2^{k(k+1)}-1)/(2^k-1)[/tex]
then for any [itex]n\geq n_k[/itex]

[tex]p_n^k(2^{k(k+1)}-1)/(2^k-1)[/tex]
[tex]\leq p_n^k(p_{n+k})[/tex]
[tex]\leq p_np_{n+1}\dots p_{n+r}\dots p_{n+k-1}p_{n+k}[/tex]

Hence for any such [itex]n[/itex], [itex]S_{p_np_{n+1}\dots p_{n+r}\dots p_{n+k}}[/itex] contains an element of order [itex](p_np_{n+1}\dots p_{n+r}\dots p_{n+k})^k[/itex].
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Is the following result trivial?

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
864
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
690
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Top