Why is the common difference of an arithmetic sequence relatively prime to 3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
AI Thread Summary
The common difference of the arithmetic sequence 106, 116, 126, ..., 996 is relatively prime to 3, which means it does not share any factors with 3. In any set of three consecutive terms, one term will be divisible by 3 due to the properties of remainders when divided by 3. If none of the three terms is divisible by 3, then a remainder must repeat, leading to a contradiction since the common difference is not divisible by 3. Thus, it can be concluded that exactly one of the three consecutive terms will have a remainder of 0 when divided by 3. This reasoning is generalizable to any arithmetic sequence with a common difference that is not divisible by 3.
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
I'm solving a problem, and the solution makes the following statement: "The common difference of the arithmetic sequence 106, 116, 126, ..., 996 is relatively prime to 3. Therefore, given any three consecutive terms, exactly one of them is divisible by 3."

Why is this statement true? Where does it come from? Is it generalizable to other numbers?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There are exactly three possible remainders. If none of three consecutive numbers is divisible by three, then there is a remainder ##r## that appears twice in the division by three. Say ##a = 3p + r## and ##a + b = 3q + r##. Then ##b = 3(q-p)## is divisible by three. The same holds if ##a## and ##a+2b## have the same remainder. Since three doesn't divide the common difference ##b##, there have to be all three possible remainders, i.e. exactly one of three consecutive numbers has remainder ##0##.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top