Questions of geometric progression.

  • Thread starter Thread starter sankalpmittal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around two main problems related to geometric progression (GP) and prime number proof. The first problem involves proving that a specific number formed by repeating the digit '1' 65 times is not a prime number. The second problem asks for the expression of the product of sums of squares in terms of the terms of a GP.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the representation of the number as a geometric series and discuss its factorization. There are attempts to apply known formulas of GP to simplify the expressions. Questions arise regarding the application of certain identities and the validity of assumptions made about the terms in GP.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into factorization techniques and the properties of GP. There is a recognition of the complexity involved in the second problem, with suggestions to use brute force methods to derive expressions. Multiple interpretations of the problems are being explored, and productive dialogue continues without a clear consensus on the methods to be employed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the constraints of homework rules and the need for proofs rather than direct answers. There is an acknowledgment of the challenges posed by time constraints in exam settings, which influences the approach to problem-solving.

sankalpmittal
Messages
785
Reaction score
27

Homework Statement



1. Prove that 1111111...65 times is not a prime number.

2. If a,b,c,d are in GP , then (a2+b2+c2)(b2+c2+d2) is :

(a) (ab+ac+bc)2
(b) (ac+cd+ad)2
(c) (ab+bc+cd)2
(d) None of the above

Homework Equations



Formulas of GP :

1.Sn = a(1-rn)/(1-r)
2.a,b,c in GP , then b2=ac
3.a,b,c,d,e,...,z in GP , then
az=by=cx=dw =...

4.Tn = arn-1

The Attempt at a Solution



1. The number can be written as

N = 1+10 + 102 + 103 +... + 1064
N= (1065-1)/9

Now how to proceed ?

2. Well I tried using b2=ac but to no avail.

Please help !

Thanks in advance. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primality_test :)
Though I notice that 1/9 = 0.11111111...

b2=ac only applies if the GP has three terms {a,b,c}

if it has an odd number of terms then one of the products will be with itself.

the general rule is:
if $$a_1, a_2,\cdots,a_{n-1},a_n$$ is a GP, then $$ a_1 a_n = a_2 a_{n-1} = a_3 a_{n-2} = \cdots$$

So for just the four ... what does this become?
 
sankalpmittal said:

Homework Statement



1. Prove that 1111111...65 times is not a prime number.



The Attempt at a Solution



1. The number can be written as

N = 1+10 + 102 + 103 +... + 1064
N= (1065-1)/9

Now how to proceed ?

65=5˙13, so the number can be also written as N= ((105)13-1)/9. Can you factor it?

ehild
 
Simon Bridge said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primality_test :)
Though I notice that 1/9 = 0.11111111...

b2=ac only applies if the GP has three terms {a,b,c}

if it has an odd number of terms then one of the products will be with itself.

the general rule is:
if $$a_1, a_2,\cdots,a_{n-1},a_n$$ is a GP, then $$ a_1 a_n = a_2 a_{n-1} = a_3 a_{n-2} = \cdots$$

So for just the four ... what does this become?

Ok , first stick to first question. And I've got to use GP to prove that 11111...65 times isn't a prime number.

ehild said:
65=5˙13, so the number can be also written as N= ((105)13-1)/9. Can you factor it?

ehild

Ah ! Do you mean using an-bn formula ? Or you mean doing plain factorization ?

I apologize for such a delay. Things were slightly downhill for me.
 
sankalpmittal said:
Ah ! Do you mean using an-bn formula ? Or you mean doing plain factorization ?

Yes, you always can factor out (a-b) from an-bn,
1065-1=((105))13-1,
a=105 b=1.

ehild
 
ehild said:
Yes, you always can factor out (a-b) from an-bn,
1065-1=((105))13-1,
a=105 b=1.

ehild

Woops ! :redface:

I forgot the formula for an-bn. Ok , so I'm doing simple factorization..

N= ((1013)5-1)/(10-1)

Now factorizing 1065-1 by 1013-1 , I get : 1052 + 1039 + 1026 + 1013 + 1

So ,N= (1052 + 1039 + 1026 + 1013 + 1)(1013-1)/(10-1)

On further simplifying , I get :

N=(1012 +1011 + 1010 + 109 + 108 + 107 + ... + 1)(1052 + 1039 + 1026 + 1013 + 1)

Thus N or given number is a multiplication of two non zero numbers. So it has to be composite number. Proved!

Thanks ehild and Simon ! :smile:

(Wait , Am I methodically correct in question 1 ?)

All right now to second problem :

"If a,b,c,d are in GP , then (a^2+b^2+c^2)(b^2+c^2+d^2) is :

(a) (ab+ac+bc)^2
(b) (ac+cd+ad)^2
(c) (ab+bc+cd)^2
(d) None of the above"

So we have

ad=bc...

Now how to proceed further ?
 
Last edited:
sankalpmittal said:
Woops ! :redface:

I forgot the formula for an-bn. Ok , so I'm doing simple factorization..

N= ((1013)5-1)/(10-1)


Thus N or given number is a multiplication of two non zero numbers. So it has to be composite number. Proved!

It is OK, but I suggested the easier way:
[tex]N=\frac{10^{65}-1}{9}=\frac{(10^{5})^{13}-1}{9}=\frac{99999(10^{60}+10^{55}+...+1)}{9}=11111(10^{60}+10^{55}+...+1)[/tex]

sankalpmittal said:
All right now to second problem :

"If a,b,c,d are in GP , then (a^2+b^2+c^2)(b^2+c^2+d^2) is :

(a) (ab+ac+bc)^2
(b) (ac+cd+ad)^2
(c) (ab+bc+cd)^2
(d) None of the above"

So we have

ad=bc...

Now how to proceed further ?

I would do it with "brute force" using that b=ar, c=ar2, d=ar3, and write up the expressions in terms of a and r.

ehild
 
ehild said:
I would do it with "brute force" using that b=ar, c=ar2, d=ar3, and write up the expressions in terms of a and r.

ehild

That is going to take a lot of time , right ? Does it not ? And that is making use of objective problem. What if it were not an objective problem. (Oops I just now understood that such problem can only be given as objective problem ! Sorry !)

Ok , but by so called "brute force" , I've to first find (a^2+b^2+c^2)(b^2+c^2+d^2) in terms of a and r. Then I've to solve for all the options also , in terms of a and r. Any other method ?

By brute force , I have :

(a2+b2+c2)(b2+c2+d2) = a2(1+r2+r4) a2r2(1+r2+r4) = a4r2(1+r2+r4)2

All right , now I'll have to do all this for all the options... :frown:

Well , I'm on it...

(a) (ab+ac+bc)2 =( a2r + a2r2 + a2r3)2 = a4r2(1+r+r2)2

So option a is out...

(b)(ac+cd+ad)2
I can simplify it to ,

(a2r2+a2r5+ar3)2

a2r4(1+r3+r)2

b is out.

(c)(ab+bc+cd)2

(a2r+a2r3+a2r5)2

a4r2(1+r2+r4)2

So (c) is correct option. Yes ! Thanks ehild !

But do you know any other method ? :smile:
 
sankalpmittal said:
So (c) is correct option. Yes ! Thanks ehild !

But do you know any other method ? :smile:

You are unsatiable:smile: Was not it an easy and short solution?

ehild
 
  • #10
ehild said:
You are unsatiable:smile: Was not it an easy and short solution?

ehild

Yes , it was a short solution though. I've heard that (a2+b2+c2)(b2+c2+d2) = (ab+bc+cd)2 is an identity also. Lagrange's identity you call it ? Or is it Cauchy Schwarz inequality - as I can see here :
http://www.mathdb.org/notes_download/elementary/algebra/ae_A5b.pdf

Thanks ! Once again for help !:smile:
 
  • #11
sankalpmittal said:
Yes , it was a short solution though. I've heard that (a2+b2+c2)(b2+c2+d2) = (ab+bc+cd)2 is an identity also. Lagrange's identity you call it ? Or is it Cauchy Schwarz inequality - as I can see here :
http://www.mathdb.org/notes_download/elementary/algebra/ae_A5b.pdf

Thanks ! Once again for help !:smile:

It is an inequality in general,

(a2+b2+c2)(b2+c2+d2) ≥ (ab+bc+cd)2.

I used to be a bad student, I did not like to memorize theorems, and if I did , I could not remember the name. I preferred to prove a theorem myself. It was fun, memorizing was difficult and boring :-p

Anyway, thank you for the file, I saved it and try to remember it...

ehild
 
  • #12
ehild said:
It is an inequality in general,

(a2+b2+c2)(b2+c2+d2) ≥ (ab+bc+cd)2.

I used to be a bad student, I did not like to memorize theorems, and if I did , I could not remember the name. I preferred to prove a theorem myself. It was fun, memorizing was difficult and boring :-p

Anyway, thank you for the file, I saved it and try to remember it...

ehild

I know proving is more fun , but I am preparing for engineering entrance exams. There , I have to do each question in 1 minute. So , my guess is that its better to use analytical skills to derive shortcut formulas by yourself and then memorize them. But I never get satisfied by a formula , if I do not know its proof.

That's Ok... But what I have doubt still is regarding :

ehild said:
It is OK, but I suggested the easier way:
[tex]N=\frac{10^{65}-1}{9}=\frac{(10^{5})^{13}-1}{9}=\frac{99999(10^{60}+10^{55}+...+1)}{9}=11111(10^{60}+10^{55}+...+1)[/tex]

What did you take factor out of what ?

I would do it with "brute force" using that b=ar, c=ar2, d=ar3, and write up the expressions in terms of a and r.

ehild

If I take 105=x , say and then

((105)13-1)/(10-1)

N = (x13-1)/9
N= (x-1)(x12+x11+x10...+1)/9
N= (1+10+102+103+104)(1060+1055 +...1)

Oh ! This is what you've got ! How did you do this in just one line !? :eek:

Thanks again for your endeavors , ehild !:smile:
 
  • #13
sankalpmittal said:
I know proving is more fun , but I am preparing for engineering entrance exams. There , I have to do each question in 1 minute. So , my guess is that its better to use analytical skills to derive shortcut formulas by yourself and then memorize them. But I never get satisfied by a formula , if I do not know its proof.
It is very good. Never believe anything without understanding the proof or proving it yourself.
sankalpmittal said:
If I take 105=x , say and then

((105)13-1)/(10-1)
N = (x13-1)/9

Do not forget that 105=100000 (5 zeros), and 100000-1=99999. :biggrin:
N= (x-1)(x12+x11+x10...+1)/9=99999(...)/9=11111(...) (as 99999 divided by 9 is 11111...) Never forget what you learned in the first or second class :-p.

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K