Prove 5 is not a member of the sequence

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter guildmage
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Member Sequence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the number 5 is not a member of a specific sequence defined by the largest prime divisor of the product of its preceding terms plus one. The sequence is introduced with its initial term and a recursive definition, and participants explore various approaches to tackle the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if 5 were a member of the sequence, then the expression a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1 would equal 5q for some natural number q, leading to a contradiction when considering the parity of the product.
  • Another participant proposes using the Chinese Remainder Theorem to analyze the congruences related to the sequence, although they express uncertainty about how to proceed.
  • A different participant notes that since 2 and 3 are members of the sequence, they cannot be divisors of a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1, implying that if 5 were the largest prime factor, the expression would need to be a power of 5.
  • It is mentioned that if a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1 is a power of 5, then a_1a_2...a_{n-1} must be divisible by 4, which raises questions about the number of factors of 2 in the product.
  • One participant concludes that it may not be necessary to consider separate cases for q being even or odd, suggesting a simplification in their approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and approaches to the problem, with no clear consensus reached on the best method to prove that 5 is not a member of the sequence. Multiple competing ideas and uncertainties remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the divisibility of the product and the implications of the sequence's definition, but these aspects remain unresolved.

guildmage
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I found this problem in a book for secondary students. It says it's from the Australian Mathematical Olympiad in 1982.

The sequence [tex]a_1,a_2,...[/tex] is defined as follows:

[tex]a_1 = 2[/tex] and for [tex]n \geq 2[/tex], [tex]a_n[/tex] is the largest prime divisor of [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex].

Prove that 5 is not a member of this sequence.

I don't know if my analysis of the problem is correct, but if 5 were a member of the sequence, then [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1=5q[/tex] for some [tex]q\in{\textbf{N}}[/tex].

For [tex]q[/tex] even, then [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex] is even, which means [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}[/tex] is odd. But [tex]a_1 = 2[/tex] so that [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}[/tex] is even. A contradiction.

How do I show that for [tex]q[/tex] odd? Or do I have to resort to a different approach?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, if that were the case, then [tex]a_1...a_n+1=2^a3^b5^c=2*3*a_3...a_n+1[/tex], so a=b=0. I can't go further. But maybe the chinese remainder theorem can be used, since [tex]7*a_4...a_n\equiv 2*a_4...a_n\equiv 4 (\mod 5^k)[/tex] for all k<c+1.
 
Last edited:
guildmage said:
I found this problem in a book for secondary students. It says its from the Australian Mathematical Olympiad in 1982.

The sequence [tex]a_1,a_2,...[/tex] is defined as follows:

[tex]a_1 = 2[/tex] and for [tex]n \geq 2[/tex], [tex]a_n[/tex] is the largest prime divisor of [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex].

Prove that 5 is not a member of this sequence.

I don't know if my analysis of the problem is correct, but if 5 were a member of the sequence, then [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1=5q[/tex] for some [tex]q\in{\textbf{N}}[/tex].

For [tex]q[/tex] even, then [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex] is even, which means [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}[/tex] is odd. But [tex]a_1 = 2[/tex] so that [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}[/tex] is even. A contradiction.

How do I show that for [tex]q[/tex] odd? Or do I have to resort to a different approach?
it can be shown that both 2 and 3 are not divisors since 2 and 3 are members of the sequence and the product + 1 is not divisible by prime factors of the product. If 5 was the largest prime factor then the number is a power of 5 and ends in 25. That would seem to call for a different approach.
 
Here's where I started before I got lazy:

The first three terms of the sequence are 2, 3, and 7. It's easy to see that if p is in the sequence, then p does not divide [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex]; thus, a given prime can appear at most once. Now, if [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex] has a prime factor other than 5, this cannot be 2 or 3 since they're in the sequence, so it would have to be a prime larger than 5. Therefore, the only way for the largest prime factor to be 5 is for [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex] to be a power of 5.
 
Tibarn said:
Therefore, the only way for the largest prime factor to be 5 is for [tex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}+1[/tex] to be a power of 5.

Aren't you done? Then [itex]a_1a_2...a_{n-1}[/itex] is divisible by 4. But there is at most one power of two in that product.
 
I see. Then I suppose it is not necessary to split the problem into two cases (q even and q odd).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K