Proving: n^2 % 3 = 0 Implies n % 3 = 0

  • Thread starter Dr-NiKoN
  • Start date
In summary, this proved that if n is not a multiple of 3, then n2 cannot be. This tells you that if n2 is a multiple of 3, then p must be equal to n^2.
  • #1
Dr-NiKoN
94
0
I'm supposed to prove that if:
n^2 % 3 = 0
Then
n % 3 = 0

I'm not sure how to proceed here?

Does it got something to do with setting n^2 to x?
x % 3 = 0
and
\frac{x}{n} % 3 = 0

Not sure how that helps..

The actual problem is to prove that if n^2 / 3 is a whole number, then n/3 is also a whole number. But, I can't figure out any other way to present it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The actual problem is to prove that if n^2 / 3 is a whole number, then n/3 is also a whole number. But, I can't figure out any other way to present it.
Seems like that was good enough...

Assuming that [itex]n[/itex] is a whole number, we can apply the fundamental theorem of algebra, so [itex]n[/itex] has a unique prime factorization:
[tex]n=p_1^{a_1}\times p_2^{a_2}...[/tex]
Where all the [itex]p_i[/itex] are primes, and all the [itex]a_i[/itex] are whole numbers. Then [itex]n^2[/itex] has the following prime factorization:
[tex]n^2=p_1^{2a_1} \times p_2^{2a_2}...[/tex]

Should be pretty easy from there...
 
  • #3
Work from the other side. If n is not a multiple of 3 (i.e. if n/3 is not a whole number), then n must be of the form n= 3m+1 or n= 3m+2 for some whole number m.

Now square them: n2= (3m+1)2= 9m2+ 6m+ 1=
3(3m2+ 2m)+ 1. In other words, it is a multiple of 3 plus 1, not a multiple of 3.

if n= 3m+2, then n2= (3m+2)2= 9m2+ 12m+ 4=
3(3m2+ 4m+ 1)+ 1. Again, it is not a multiple of 3.

Okay, if n is not a multiple of 3, then n2 cannot be. What does that tell you about the case if n2 is a multiple of 3?
 
  • #4
Or use the alternative characterizations of the primes:

p divides ab iff p divides either a or b.

Let =3, a=b=n
 
  • #5
I can't use prime factorization, since that is in a later chapter.

Work from the other side. If n is not a multiple of 3 (i.e. if n/3 is not a whole number), then n must be of the form n= 3m+1 or n= 3m+2 for some whole number m.
Doesn't this give me:
p = n^2 is even
q = n is even
(in logic, don't know the latex for it)
if NOT q then NOT p

How does this prove:
if q then p

I tried working with the implication law, but can't seem to figure out how you get there. Or is this just some common law of logic?
 
  • #6
Dr-NiKoN said:
Doesn't this give me:
p = n^2 is even
q = n is even
(in logic, don't know the latex for it)
if NOT q then NOT p
HallsOfIvy's method gives you:
p = n^2 is divisible by 3
q = n is divisible by 3
if NOT q then NOT p

Dr-NiKoN said:
How does this prove:
if q then p

It doesn't, but it proves if p then q... Which is what you originally wanted, no?
 
  • #7
You could exhaust over the possibilities for n % 3.
 
  • #8
"Doesn't this give me:
p = n^2 is even
q = n is even"

Well, no- the "negation" of "n is a multiple of 3" is not "n is even"!

It is a "law of logic" that "if p then q" is equivalent to "if not q then not p". That's called the contrapositive and is a special case of "proof by contradiction".
 
  • #9
Thanks guys,

this actually helped me to solve a couple of other problems(proving the contrapositive that is). :)
 

1. What does "Proving: n^2 % 3 = 0 Implies n % 3 = 0" mean?

This statement is a mathematical proof that states if the square of a number, n, when divided by 3 results in a remainder of 0, then the original number, n, when divided by 3 will also result in a remainder of 0.

2. Why is it important to prove this statement?

Proving this statement is important because it helps to establish a fundamental mathematical relationship between the square of a number and the original number. It also allows for the simplification of mathematical equations and can be used as a tool in solving more complex problems.

3. What is the significance of 3 in this statement?

The number 3 is significant in this statement because it is the number that is being divided by and is used to determine the remainder. This statement can also be applied to other numbers besides 3, but 3 is a commonly used number in mathematical proofs.

4. Can this statement be applied to all numbers?

No, this statement can only be applied to numbers that are divisible by 3. For example, if n = 5, then n^2 = 25 and when divided by 3 results in a remainder of 1. Therefore, this statement would not hold true for n = 5.

5. How is this statement proven?

This statement is proven using mathematical induction, which involves proving that the statement is true for a base case (usually n = 1) and then showing that if the statement is true for n, it is also true for n+1. This method of proof is commonly used in mathematical proofs.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
360
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
835
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
12
Views
966
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
20
Views
1K
Back
Top