Proving that 3^(6n)-2^(6n) is divisible by 8 using induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter rg2004
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that \(3^{6n} - 2^{6n}\) is divisible by 35 for all natural numbers \(n\) using mathematical induction. Participants explore the structure of the expression and its properties under modular arithmetic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the base case of the induction and the inductive step, with one participant questioning how to proceed after establishing the assumption. Others introduce modular arithmetic concepts and explore the implications of expressing numbers in terms of linear combinations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into modular arithmetic and its application to the problem. There is a recognition of the need for careful handling of remainders in modular contexts, and some participants are considering alternative approaches to the proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that they have not yet covered modular arithmetic in their studies, which may limit their ability to apply certain concepts discussed. There is also an exploration of the assumptions made regarding remainders in the context of the problem.

rg2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am to prove that [tex]3^{6n}-2^{6n}[/tex] is divisible by 35 for all n[tex]n\in\aleph[/tex] using induction.

Homework Equations



[tex]3^{6n}-2^{6n}=35x[/tex] where [tex]x\in\aleph[/tex] for all [tex]n\in\aleph[/tex] and

The Attempt at a Solution


Base:
[tex]3^{6(1)}-2^{6(1)}=35*x[/tex]
[tex]665=35x[/tex]
x=19
thus since 19 is an element of natural numbers the base case is true

Then I make this assumption
Assume:
[tex]3^{6k}-2^{6k}=35x[/tex]

Inductive step:
[tex]3^{6(k+1)}-2^{6(k+1)}=35x[/tex]
[tex]3^{6}3^{6k}-2^{6}2^{6k}=35x[/tex]

and i don't know where to go from here, I've tried lots of things, but i can't reduce it down to the assumption
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know this fact: a (mod n) × b (mod n) = ab (mod n)?
 
No i didn't know about that, and we haven't looked at modulus yet, so I'm not sure how to use it in this proof
 
Ok. Then, suppose 36k = 35a+y. Then, 26k = 35b+y. (Why?) Substitute.
 
im assuming it looks like this:

[tex]3^{6}3^{6k}-2^{6}2^{6k}=35x[/tex]

[tex](3^{6} mod 35) (3^{6k} mod 35) - (2^{6} mod 35) (2^{6k} mod 35)=0[/tex]

[tex]((29\cdot3^{6k}) mod 35) - ((29\cdot2^{6k}) mod 35)=0[/tex]

[tex]29(3^{6k} mod 35 - 2^{6k} mod 35)=0[/tex]

[tex](3^{6k} mod 35 - 2^{6k} mod 35)=0[/tex]
 
That's right. You have to be careful when dividing both sides by the same thing in modular arithmetic, but it works out correctly this time. If you want to pursue this problem without explicitly using modular arithmetic, see my second post.
 
Regarding post #4:

i see that
36k = 35a+y
26k = 35b+y
since any number can be expressed as a linear combination like you showed, but what allows us to assume that the remainder , y, are equivalent? Is it because we assume
36k - 26k =35x that we must conclude from this that the remainders are the same in order for them to subtract to zero?
 
Exactly so. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction.
 
Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K