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
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##.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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