MHB What Is the Smallest Good Number for a Subset of Squares?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lfdahl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements Prime
AI Thread Summary
The smallest good number for a subset of squares from the first 20 natural numbers is determined to be 11. A good number is defined as one where any subset of that size contains at least two elements whose sum is prime. The analysis shows that a subset of 10 even squares can be formed without yielding a prime sum, indicating that the smallest good number must be greater than 10. The proof concludes that no subset of 11 elements can be entirely composite, confirming that 11 is indeed the smallest good number. This conclusion is supported by examining the sums of squares and their parities.
lfdahl
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
747
Reaction score
0
$M$ is the set of squares of the fi rst $20$ natural numbers:\[M = \left\{1^2,2^2,3^2,...,19^2,20^2\right\}\]We say that $n$ is a good number, if in any subset of $M$ of size $n$ there are two
elements $a$ and $b$ such that $a + b$ is a prime number. Find the smallest good number.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
lfdahl said:
$M$ is the set of squares of the first $20$ natural numbers:\[M = \left\{1^2,2^2,3^2,...,19^2,20^2\right\}\]We say that $n$ is a good number, if in any subset of $M$ of size $n$ there are two
elements $a$ and $b$ such that $a + b$ is a prime number. Find the smallest good number.
I'm not quite sure about this :confused:
[sp]

We observe first that, if we have a subset $S\subset M$ of $k$ elements such that all the sums of pairs of elements of $S$ are composite (we will call that a bad subset), then $n > k$, where $n$ is the smallest good number. Taking $S$ as the set of $10$ even squares, we see that $n\ge11$.

To prove that $n=11$, we must show that there is no bad subset of $11$ elements. As the sum of any two distinct elements of the same parity is composite, we need only consider the sums of an odd and an even number.

The following table contains all the possible such sums of squares.
$$
\begin{array}{r|rrrrrrrrrr|r}
& 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 9 & 11 & 13 & 15 & 17 & 19 & t_r\\
\hline
2 & 5 & 13 & 29 & 53 & \bf 85 & \bf 125 & 173 & 229 & 293 & \bf 365 & 3 \\
4 & 17 & \bf 25 & 41 & \bf 65 & 97 & 137 & \bf 185 & 241 & \bf 305 & \bf 377 & 5 \\
6 & 37 & \bf 45 & 61 & \bf 85 & \bf 117 & 157 & \bf 205 & \bf 261 & \bf 325 & 397 & 6 \\
8 & \bf 65 & 73 & 89 & 113 & \bf 145 & \bf 185 & 233 & \bf 289 & 353 & \bf 425 & 5 \\
10 & 101 & 109 & \bf 125 & 149 & 181 & \bf 221 & 269 & \bf 325 & 389 & 461 & 3 \\
12 & \bf 145 & \bf 153 & \bf 169 & 193 & \bf 225 & \bf 265 & 313 & \bf 369 & 433 & \bf 505 & 7 \\
14 & 197 & \bf 205 & \bf 221 & \bf 245 & 277 & 317 & \bf 365 & 421 & \bf 485 & 557 & 5 \\
16 & 257 & \bf 265 & 281 & \bf 305 & 337 & \bf 377 & \bf 425 & \bf 481 & \bf 545 & 617 & 6 \\
20 & 401 & 409 & \bf 425 & 449 & \bf 481 & 521 & 569 & \bf 625 & \bf 689 & 761 & 4 \\
\hline
t_c & 2 & 5 & 4 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 6 & 5 & 4
\end{array}
$$
The composite numbers are in bold; the last row ($t_c$) and the last column ($t_r$) contain the numbers of composite numbers in the corresponding columns and rows, respectively.

Assume that there exists a bad subset of $11$ elements; let $n_c$ and $n_r$ be the numbers of rows (even numbers) and columns (odd numbers) in that subset; $n_c + n_r = 11$. We must select $n_r$ rows and $n_c$ columns in such a way that all the remaining entries are composite.

As the row with the largest $t_r$ contains $7$ composite numbers, we must have $n_c \le 7$; this implies that we must have at least $4$ rows.

As the fourth larges value of $t_r$ is $5$, we must have $n_c\le5$, and therefore $n_r\ge6$. As the sixth largest $t_r$ is $5$ again, this gives nothing new.

As the largest column total $t_c$ is $6$, we must have $n_r\le6$; this means that we must have $n_r=6$ and $n_c=5$. Now, as the fifth largest $t_c$ is $5$, we must have $n_r\le5$, and this is a contradiction.

We conclude that there can be no bad subset of $11$ elements, and $n=11$.

[/sp]
 
Last edited:
castor28 said:
I'm not quite sure about this :confused:
[sp]

We observe first that, if we have a subset $S\subset M$ of $k$ elements such that all the sums of pairs of elements of $S$ are composite (we will call that a bad subset), then $n > k$, where $n$ is the smallest good number. Taking $S$ as the set of $10$ even squares, we see that $n\ge11$.

To prove that $n=11$, we must show that there is no bad subset of $11$ elements. As the sum of any two distinct elements of the same parity is composite, we need only consider the sums of an odd and an even number.

The following table contains all the possible such sums of squares.
$$
\begin{array}{r|rrrrrrrrrr|r}
& 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 9 & 11 & 13 & 15 & 17 & 19 & t_r\\
\hline
2 & 5 & 13 & 29 & 53 & \bf 85 & \bf 125 & 173 & 229 & 293 & \bf 365 & 3 \\
4 & 17 & \bf 25 & 41 & \bf 65 & 97 & 137 & \bf 185 & 241 & \bf 305 & \bf 377 & 5 \\
6 & 37 & \bf 45 & 61 & \bf 85 & \bf 117 & 157 & \bf 205 & \bf 261 & \bf 325 & 397 & 6 \\
8 & \bf 65 & 73 & 89 & 113 & \bf 145 & \bf 185 & 233 & \bf 289 & 353 & \bf 425 & 5 \\
10 & 101 & 109 & \bf 125 & 149 & 181 & \bf 221 & 269 & \bf 325 & 389 & 461 & 3 \\
12 & \bf 145 & \bf 153 & \bf 169 & 193 & \bf 225 & \bf 265 & 313 & \bf 369 & 433 & \bf 505 & 7 \\
14 & 197 & \bf 205 & \bf 221 & \bf 245 & 277 & 317 & \bf 365 & 421 & \bf 485 & 557 & 5 \\
16 & 257 & \bf 265 & 281 & \bf 305 & 337 & \bf 377 & \bf 425 & \bf 481 & \bf 545 & 617 & 6 \\
20 & 401 & 409 & \bf 425 & 449 & \bf 481 & 521 & 569 & \bf 625 & \bf 689 & 761 & 4 \\
\hline
t_c & 2 & 5 & 4 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 6 & 5 & 4
\end{array}
$$
The composite numbers are in bold; the last row ($t_c$) and the last column ($t_r$) contain the numbers of composite numbers in the corresponding columns and rows, respectively.

Assume that there exists a bad subset of $11$ elements; let $n_c$ and $n_r$ be the numbers of rows (even numbers) and columns (odd numbers) in that subset; $n_c + n_r = 11$. We must select $n_r$ rows and $n_c$ columns in such a way that all the remaining entries are composite.

As the row with the largest $t_r$ contains $7$ composite numbers, we must have $n_c \le 7$; this implies that we must have at least $4$ rows.

As the fourth larges value of $t_r$ is $5$, we must have $n_c\le5$, and therefore $n_r\ge6$. As the sixth largest $t_r$ is $5$ again, this gives nothing new.

As the largest column total $t_c$ is $6$, we must have $n_r\le6$; this means that we must have $n_r=6$ and $n_c=5$. Now, as the fifth largest $t_c$ is $5$, we must have $n_r\le5$, and this is a contradiction.

We conclude that there can be no bad subset of $11$ elements, and $n=11$.

[/sp]

Thankyou, castor28, for your careful analysis and correct solution. Your approach works in my view. I´m glad, that you participated in this challenge. (Yes)

The suggested solution demonstrates a shortcut:

The answer is $n = 11$.
Let $K = \left \{ 1^2,3^2,5^2,...,19^2 \right \}$. Since the sum of any two elements of is not prime, $n \geq 11$.
Now let us show, that $n \leq 11$. We partition $M$ into $10$ subsets of order $2$ such that the sum of two elements in any subset is prime:

\[M = \left \{ 1^2,4^2 \right \}\cup \left \{2^2,3^2 \right \}\cup \left \{5^2,8^2 \right \}\cup \left \{ 6^2,11^2\right \}\cup \left \{7^2,10^2 \right \}\cup \left \{9^2,16^2 \right \}\cup \left \{12^2,13^2 \right \}\cup \left \{14^2,15^2 \right \}\cup \left \{17^2,18^2 \right \}\cup \left \{19^2,20^2 \right \}.\]

Any subset of $M$ having $11$ elements contains both elements of at least one of these $10$ subsets. Done.
 
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 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Back
Top