Steven G
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 14,583
I never said what method you used as I have no idea how or even if you solved this problem. The OP mentioned induction so I wanted them to try it again.Actually, I did not use induction.
I never said what method you used as I have no idea how or even if you solved this problem. The OP mentioned induction so I wanted them to try it again.Actually, I did not use induction.
It seems to me that the contradiction approach does seem a bit more straightforward. Did you go in a similar direction as I have or did you use a completely different approach?Actually, I did not use induction.
Your post #13 has a good start.It seems to me that the contradiction approach does seem a bit more straightforward. Did you go in a similar direction as I have or did you use a completely different approach?
The exponent of 10 in OP was (2n - 1) ....... that might throw a monkey-wrench in the scheme.It would be a good idea to post your solution to close the thread. But since you haven't, and since it's been a week since the original post I'll post mine.
Here is my proof by contradiction: if the fraction is a square then:
[math]\frac{4\cdot 10^{2n}-31}{9} = k^2 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; {4\cdot 10^{2n}-31} = (3k)^2 \;\Longleftrightarrow\;[/math][math]\;\Longleftrightarrow\; 4\cdot 10^{2n}-(3k)^2 = 31 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; \left(2\cdot 10^{n}-3k\right) \left(2\cdot 10^{n}+3k\right) = 31[/math]In the latest equality 31, which is prime, is represented as a product of two numbers, which means that one of the terms is 1 and another 31. Since both numbers must be positive we know that [imath]n\leq 1[/imath]. A quick check shows that neither [imath]n=0[/imath] nor [imath]n=1[/imath] work.
It would if OP haven't corrected it in post #6.The exponent of 10 in OP was (2n - 1) ....... that might throw a monkey-wrench in the scheme.
You are absolutely right about the correction. By the time response#26 rolled around, that correction was buried deep.It would if OP haven't corrected it in post #6.
Hey, I know it's been a while but I'd be interested in as to how n must be less or equal than 1, in order for the factors to be positive. I don't seem to understand that. ThanksIt would be a good idea to post your solution to close the thread. But since you haven't, and since it's been a week since the original post I'll post mine.
Here is my proof by contradiction: if the fraction is a square then:
[math]\frac{4\cdot 10^{2n}-31}{9} = k^2 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; {4\cdot 10^{2n}-31} = (3k)^2 \;\Longleftrightarrow\;[/math][math]\;\Longleftrightarrow\; 4\cdot 10^{2n}-(3k)^2 = 31 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; \left(2\cdot 10^{n}-3k\right) \left(2\cdot 10^{n}+3k\right) = 31[/math]In the latest equality 31, which is prime, is represented as a product of two numbers, which means that one of the terms is 1 and another 31. Since both numbers must be positive we know that [imath]n\leq 1[/imath]. A quick check shows that neither [imath]n=0[/imath] nor [imath]n=1[/imath] work.
I'm just wondering what the graph of [imath]f(n)[/imath] will look like. There should be, sensu amplissimo, holes at [imath]y \in \{0, 1, 4, 9, ... \}[/imath] i.e. these points - [imath](0, 0), (1, 1), (2, 4), (3, 9), (n, n^2), ... [/imath] - are off the curve.Can any number of the form [math]\frac{4\cdot 10^{2n-1}-31}{9}[/math] ever be a perfect square? This statements needs to be mathematically proven (in detail!).