mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-07-20, 14:49   #1
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

32208 Posts
Default Integers = sums of 2s and 3s.

I stumbled upon this one a while ago, as I posted elsewhere:

Initially, I thought it was only the primes that could be decomposed into 2s and 3s. Then, I realized I could generalize this to all integers greater than 3.

Here are some examples:
47 = 2(19) + 3(3)
79 = 3(17) + 2(14)
106 = 3(20) + 2(23)
189 = 2(60) + 3(23)

Etc.

Proving it might be an easy task. Tips?

Also: Congrats to me on a Fermat prime post. (257) --> 2^(2^3)+1.

Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-07-20 at 14:49
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 14:54   #2
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
I stumbled upon this one a while ago, as I posted elsewhere:

Initially, I thought it was only the primes that could be decomposed into 2s and 3s. Then, I realized I could generalize this to all integers greater than 3.

Here are some examples:
47 = 2(19) + 3(3)
79 = 3(17) + 2(14)
106 = 3(20) + 2(23)
189 = 2(60) + 3(23)

Etc.

Proving it might be an easy task. Tips?

Also: Congrats to me on a Fermat prime post. (257) --> 2^(2^3)+1.
Generalize:

Let m and n be elements of Z+ such that (m,n) = 1.

Ask yourself: What is the smallest integer M that is not
representable as mx + ny???

This is a very well known problem. Google is your friend.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:06   #3
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

22×1,493 Posts
Default

Searchbait: Sylvester, Frobenius, "happy meal"
CRGreathouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:17   #4
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Ask yourself: What is the smallest integer M that is not
representable as mx + ny???
For x = 2; y = 3; I doubt that there are any counterexamples.

The only counterexample I've found is 1.

A probable counterexample is 4: 2+2, since there are no 3s in that decomposition.

It's looking like the counterexamples are powers of 2:
Let's test a few:
8 = 3(2) + 2
16 = 3(4) + 2(2).

Powers of 3:
9: 2(3) + 3
27: 3(5) + 2(6).

The only counterexamples I've found are {1, 4}.

However, when using larger integer pairs, it fails horrendously:
Let's use 6 and 7:
8 can't be represented as 6a + 7b
4 and 5:
10: 5+5
11: Cannot be expressed as 4a + 5b.

The only pair for which it works so well is 2 and 3 (Also 1 and 2, the best pair of all.)
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:21   #5
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

22·1,493 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
However, when using larger integer pairs, it fails horrendously:
Let's use 6 and 7:
8 can't be represented as 6a + 7b
29 can't be represented, either. What about larger numbers?
CRGreathouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:22   #6
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

2·3,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
I stumbled upon this one a while ago, as I posted elsewhere:

Initially, I thought it was only the primes that could be decomposed into 2s and 3s. Then, I realized I could generalize this to all integers greater than 3.
If it's even, it's a multiple of two; if you feel you need to have some threes in the mix, n-6 is a multiple of two plus 2*3

If it's greater than three and odd, then n-3 is a multiple of two.

This is not hard problem.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:25   #7
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24·3·5·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
If it's even, it's a multiple of two; if you feel you need to have some threes in the mix, n-6 is a multiple of two plus 2*3

If it's greater than three and odd, then n-3 is a multiple of two.

This is not hard problem.
I wasn't stating that it was difficult. I was curious to know whether or not it was proven. It seemed interesting, is all.
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:26   #8
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24·3·5·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
29 can't be represented, either. What about larger numbers?
108: 7(12) + 6(4)
109: 7(7) + 6(10)
110: 6(2) + 7(14)
111: 6(15) + 7(3)
112: 6(14) + 7(4)
113: 7(5) + 6(13)

Etc. What's the final counterexample here?

Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-07-20 at 15:34
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:45   #9
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

22·1,493 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
What's the final counterexample here?
29.

Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2010-07-20 at 15:45
CRGreathouse is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 16:18   #10
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
I wasn't stating that it was difficult. I was curious to know whether or not it was proven. .

But clearly not sufficiently curious to have done some work yourself
by using Google. You were given hints.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 16:27   #11
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
But clearly not sufficiently curious to have done some work yourself
by using Google. You were given hints.
I actually did find it. Stop making false assumptions:
Here it is.

A better source.

Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-07-20 at 16:36
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sums of all Squares davar55 Puzzles 183 2019-12-12 22:31
Sums of consecutive integers TheMawn Other Mathematical Topics 4 2014-12-19 12:42
Sequences and sums Microraptor Homework Help 10 2011-02-25 08:12
Sums of three squares CRGreathouse Math 6 2009-11-06 19:20
Fibonacci sums? TTn Math 2 2002-10-25 21:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:52.

Wed Mar 3 06:52:35 UTC 2021 up 90 days, 3:03, 0 users, load averages: 1.13, 1.57, 1.45

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.