Proofing My "Arithmetic?" Proof

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a self-assigned question regarding a proof related to arithmetic properties of arrays of nonnegative integers. The original poster seeks feedback on their reasoning and terminology, indicating that the problem is not derived from a traditional math textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions the correctness of their proof and seeks easier methods or alternative names for their approach. Some participants suggest generalizing the proof and discuss the implications of the conditions set for the prime number.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging with the original poster's ideas, with some affirming the validity of the proof while others explore broader implications and conditions. There is a productive exchange of thoughts regarding the necessity of the prime condition and its generalization.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes that their proof did not utilize any formal formulas and expresses uncertainty about the terminology used in their description of the proof.

mafagafo
Messages
188
Reaction score
12
This is a self-assigned question. Not homework.

I may have the right answer, but would like some reviewing. It came to me while reading on a CS topic, this did not come from a math textbook, otherwise it would be slightly more in context.

I did not use any formula (so 2 would be empty) and 1 and 3 are in a PDF here.

1. Is my work correct?
2. Is there an easier way to prove it?
3. What exactly is this? I called it an "'Arithmetic?' proof", but I don't think that this would be its name.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Looks right, and fairly straightforward. I doubt there's an easier way.
How about generalising it?
 
Dream case scenario I would get that
\text{Given that } S \text{ is an array of } m \text{ small nonnegative integers and } \alpha \text{ is a prime larger than the largest integer in } S
\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\left(\alpha^{m-(i+1)}\times S_{1_i} \right) \ne \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\left(\alpha^{m-(i+1)}\times S_{2_i}\right) \forall S_1 \ne S_2
Obs.: for convenience, S is zero-based (lame math).

I think that this is going to the bottom of my TODO list.
 
Well, that is clearly true.
Alpha doesn't even need to be prime for that to be the case. It just has to be larger than the largest integer in either S1 or S2.
Think about alpha = 10 and our number system where S is the index set of digits from 0 to 9. No two numbers are the same unless they have the same digits because 10 is bigger than the largest member of the index set.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K