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
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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top