Is the following result trivial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoanBraidy
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that there are infinitely many integers n such that S_n contains an element of order n^k for any natural number k. The proof utilizes induction and comparisons involving sums of powers of integers and products of primes, referencing Bertrand's postulate for support. The author suggests that while the result may seem trivial, the proof's complexity and reliance on established theorems complicate its classification. The conversation also touches on the subjective nature of labeling mathematical results as trivial. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the significance of the findings while acknowledging differing opinions on their triviality.
JoanBraidy
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I proved there's infinitely many n such that S_n has an element of order n^2
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Trivialish.

3^2+4^2+5^2<3.4.5.

Suppose 3^{2i}+4^{2i}+5^{2i}<3^i.4^i.5^i for i<n, then
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}, hence 3^{2n}+4^{2n}+5^{2n}<3^n4^n5^n by induction.

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

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

I think its probably true that there are an infinite number of n such that S_n contains an element of order n^k for any k\in \mathbb{N}.
 
Last edited:
Martin Rattigan said:
Trivialish.

3^2+4^2+5^2<3.4.5.

Suppose 3^{2i}+4^{2i}+5^{2i}<3^i.4^i.5^i for i<n, then
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}, hence 3^{2n}+4^{2n}+5^{2n}<3^n4^n5^n by induction.

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

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

I think its probably true that there are an infinite number of n such that S_n contains an element of order n^k for any k\in \mathbb{N}.

similar to what I did thanks

if I proved the general case, do you think that would be trivial?
 
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 k=0 it is trivial that S_n has an element of order n^k.

For any k\in\mathbb{N},k\geq1

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

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

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

Hence for any such n, S_{p_np_{n+1}\dots p_{n+r}\dots p_{n+k}} contains an element of order (p_np_{n+1}\dots p_{n+r}\dots p_{n+k})^k.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
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