Proving N Consecutive Integers Divisible by N

  • Thread starter Thread starter decibel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the question of whether n consecutive integers can be divisible by n. It is established that no two consecutive integers can be divisible by the same integer greater than one. Counterexamples are provided, such as the case of three consecutive integers not being divisible by six. The conversation also touches on modular arithmetic and the validity of certain operations under modulo, concluding that the rules do not apply universally to all binary operations. Overall, the consensus is that the original question about n consecutive integers and divisibility by n is based on a misunderstanding.
decibel
Messages
107
Reaction score
1
is there a way to prove that n consecutive integers is always divisible by n!?

thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think you have worded this question incorrectly. Going strictly by your wording, the answer would be : No...in fact, there are no two consecutive numbers that are divisible by any given number ( >1).

I think I know what you might be intending to ask, but I'll let you pose the question correctly, first.
 
sorry, but i don't know what your saying, where did two come from?
 
If no two consecutive integers are divisible by any integer ( >1), how can you find n consecutive integers ?
 
starting equations:
n mod y = 0
(n+1) mod y = 0

work:
((n mod y) + (1 mod y)) mod y = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = n mod y
1 = (n mod y) - (n mod y)
1 = 0

conclusion:
FALSE

No two consecutive integers are divisible by the same factor.

That's what he's talking about. (THIS IS NOT YOUR ANSWER)
 
Easier: let n=3. The statement is that 3 consequtive integers is divisible by 6. Well, 1,2,3 provides a counterexample.

Wait. I'm not sure what you mean now. Do you mean the SUM of n consequtive integers is divisible by n!?

If that's what you meant, then 2, 3, 4 has sum 9 and is not divisible by 6(=3!).
 
The more common question is : Prove that you can always find n consecutive composite numbers.

Of course, these are be (n+1)!+2, (n+1)!+3, (n+1)!+4, ...(n+1)!+(n+1), and the proof is quite self-evident.
 
Just to make this complete (not to nitpick)

starting equations:
n mod y = 0
(n+1) mod y = 0

work:
((n mod y) + (1 mod y)) mod y = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = 0 {y <> +/- 1}
(n mod y) + 1 = n mod y
1 = (n mod y) - (n mod y)
1 = 0

conclusion:
FALSE

No two consecutive integers are divisible by the same factor (>1).
 
Gokul43201 said:
Just to make this complete (not to nitpick)

starting equations:
n mod y = 0
(n+1) mod y = 0

work:
((n mod y) + (1 mod y)) mod y = 0
(n mod y) + 1 = 0 {y <> +/- 1}
(n mod y) + 1 = n mod y
1 = (n mod y) - (n mod y)
1 = 0

conclusion:
FALSE

No two consecutive integers are divisible by the same factor (>1).

I was thinking about that when I wrote it. I got lost on a tangent of what the remainder of mod 0 was... undefined, bah.

Gimme a break, it's the second time I try to prove something using modulo.

I have a question though, is:
(x op y) mod z == ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z
true? (op being +, -, *, / , ^, etc) is it true for functions? (sin, f())
 
  • #10
Sorry 'bout that.

To answer your question : In general, NO.
It is true, however for +, - and *.

I'm not sure how your question applies to functions like sin(x), when you are asking about binary operators.
 
  • #11
Gokul43201 said:
Sorry 'bout that.

To answer your question : In general, NO.
It is true, however for +, - and *.

I'm not sure how your question applies to functions like sin(x), when you are asking about binary operators.

So, could I say:

If x op y = y op x then (x op y) mod z = ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z

Alright, the sin() thing won't work, I was off on a tangent. What about binary operations on the numbers? (XOR, OR, AND)
 
  • #12
To clarify, when I said 'binary operator', I meant an operator defined on 2 numbers (such as addition, subtraction, exponentiation, etc), not operators defined on the binary representation of numbers.

I'm pretty sure that rule doesn't work for AND, OR, XOR, etc...but I haven't verified this.

"If x op y = y op x then (x op y) mod z = ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z"

In general, this is not necessarily true.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Gokul43201 said:
To clarify, when I said 'binary operator', I meant an operator defined on 2 numbers (such as addition, subtraction, exponentiation, etc), not operators defined on the binary representation of numbers.

I'm pretty sure that rule doesn't work for AND, OR, XOR, etc...but I haven't verified this.

"If x op y = y op x then (x op y) mod z = ((x mod z) op (y mod z)) mod z"

In general, this is not necessarily true.

I understand what you meant by binary operators. It just made me think of the logical operations. (computer programmer here...)

Do you have an example or shall I find one myself?
Got it:
5 and 7 = 5
5 mod 3 = 2
(5 and 7) mod 3 = 2
((5 mod 3) and (7 mod 3)) mod 3 = (2 and 1) mod 3 = 0 mod 3 = 0
0 <> 2
 
Last edited:
  • #14
i know there's a theorem similar to what decibel asked about in lozansky's "winning solutions". i can't remember exactly how it went though, but it definitely had something about n consecutive integers & n!
 
Back
Top