Smallest N Value for 4-Digit Consecutive Integers Divisible by 2010^2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hockeystar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integer
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the smallest N value for which the product of N consecutive 4-digit integers is divisible by 2010^2. Participants analyze the prime factors of 2010^2, which are 2, 3, 5, and 67, and their squares. It is noted that while starting with the integer 1005, the sequence must include enough multiples of these factors, particularly the prime factor 67, which complicates the search for a valid N. The conversation highlights the need to consider the distribution of these factors within a sequence of consecutive integers. Ultimately, the challenge lies in ensuring that the product meets the divisibility requirement with the smallest possible N.
Hockeystar
Messages
61
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The product of N 4-digit consecutive integers is divisible by 2010^2. What is the smallest N value? Multiple choice answers range from 4 to 12.


Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried multiplying the smallest combo possible 1000x1001x1002x1003 and quickly realize my calculator can't handle it. Looking for a head start on this question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Hockeystar! :smile:

(try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)

ok … head start … what are the prime factors of 20102 ? :wink:
 
2,3,5,67. Square these number and you get 4,9,25,4489. I'm still stuck. Would the answer be 4 because there are 4 prime factors?
 
No, because they have to be consecutive (they also have to be less than 10,000).

Hint: the tricky one is 67. :wink:
 
1005 is the first integer with 67 as factor. Could 1005,1004,1003,1002,1001,1000 be the answer? 1005 is divisible by 67, 1004 by 4, 1002 by 3 and 1000 by 5?
 
If you have a sequence of less than 68 consecutive integers, how many could be divisible by 67? Now how many times does 67 appear in the prime factorization of 20102?
 
Hi Hockeystar! :wink:

Yes, Tedjn :smile: is right …

if you start with 1005, all you've proved is that N ≤ 68, because you need two 67s in that sequence.

So how should you start a sequence with N less than 68 ?​
 
Back
Top