prove that there exists no integer in $pmfrac1k pm frac1k+1pmfrac1k+2â¦pmfrac1k+n $
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Prove that there exists no integer among the $2^n+1$ numbers
$$pmfrac1k pm frac1k+1pmfrac1k+2...pmfrac1k+n $$
That is,
$$mathbbZ cap leftlbrace fracdelta_0k + fracdelta_1k + 1 + ldots + fracdelta_nk+n : delta_0, ldots, delta_n in lbrace -1, 1 rbrace rightrbrace = emptyset$$
This is a discrete maths homework question with another part preceding it which wants us to prove that "in any block of consecutive positive integers there is a unique integer divisible by
a higher power of $2$ than any of the others". This I could prove (by negation) so you can use this statement to answer the question.
Any suggestions of approaches to the problem are welcome.
number-theory elementary-number-theory discrete-mathematics
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Prove that there exists no integer among the $2^n+1$ numbers
$$pmfrac1k pm frac1k+1pmfrac1k+2...pmfrac1k+n $$
That is,
$$mathbbZ cap leftlbrace fracdelta_0k + fracdelta_1k + 1 + ldots + fracdelta_nk+n : delta_0, ldots, delta_n in lbrace -1, 1 rbrace rightrbrace = emptyset$$
This is a discrete maths homework question with another part preceding it which wants us to prove that "in any block of consecutive positive integers there is a unique integer divisible by
a higher power of $2$ than any of the others". This I could prove (by negation) so you can use this statement to answer the question.
Any suggestions of approaches to the problem are welcome.
number-theory elementary-number-theory discrete-mathematics
1
Hi krishna, I've edited your question with an explanation that I think is clearer. Please feel free to roll it back if you disagree, or my interpretation is incorrect.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:12
@Suzet The numbers aren't listed; you're supposed to perform every possible combination of addition and subtraction between these $n + 1$ fractions, to obtain (at most) $2^n+1$ possibilities (see the set equality below).
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:24
I think there are $2^n+1$ elements as we can choose each $delta_i$ to be either $-1$ or $1$ and there are $n+1$ choices for $i$. If there are only $2(n+1)$ "distinct" ones can you explain why?
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 6:24
Also, beware of the trivial solution: $k = 1$ and $n = 0$.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:26
@TheoBendit Aaah, I understand now ! I read it wrong. Sorry for my useless comment, I shall delete it.
â Suzet
Aug 29 at 6:28
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Prove that there exists no integer among the $2^n+1$ numbers
$$pmfrac1k pm frac1k+1pmfrac1k+2...pmfrac1k+n $$
That is,
$$mathbbZ cap leftlbrace fracdelta_0k + fracdelta_1k + 1 + ldots + fracdelta_nk+n : delta_0, ldots, delta_n in lbrace -1, 1 rbrace rightrbrace = emptyset$$
This is a discrete maths homework question with another part preceding it which wants us to prove that "in any block of consecutive positive integers there is a unique integer divisible by
a higher power of $2$ than any of the others". This I could prove (by negation) so you can use this statement to answer the question.
Any suggestions of approaches to the problem are welcome.
number-theory elementary-number-theory discrete-mathematics
Prove that there exists no integer among the $2^n+1$ numbers
$$pmfrac1k pm frac1k+1pmfrac1k+2...pmfrac1k+n $$
That is,
$$mathbbZ cap leftlbrace fracdelta_0k + fracdelta_1k + 1 + ldots + fracdelta_nk+n : delta_0, ldots, delta_n in lbrace -1, 1 rbrace rightrbrace = emptyset$$
This is a discrete maths homework question with another part preceding it which wants us to prove that "in any block of consecutive positive integers there is a unique integer divisible by
a higher power of $2$ than any of the others". This I could prove (by negation) so you can use this statement to answer the question.
Any suggestions of approaches to the problem are welcome.
number-theory elementary-number-theory discrete-mathematics
edited Aug 29 at 8:27
asked Aug 29 at 6:05
Sri Krishna Sahoo
571117
571117
1
Hi krishna, I've edited your question with an explanation that I think is clearer. Please feel free to roll it back if you disagree, or my interpretation is incorrect.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:12
@Suzet The numbers aren't listed; you're supposed to perform every possible combination of addition and subtraction between these $n + 1$ fractions, to obtain (at most) $2^n+1$ possibilities (see the set equality below).
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:24
I think there are $2^n+1$ elements as we can choose each $delta_i$ to be either $-1$ or $1$ and there are $n+1$ choices for $i$. If there are only $2(n+1)$ "distinct" ones can you explain why?
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 6:24
Also, beware of the trivial solution: $k = 1$ and $n = 0$.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:26
@TheoBendit Aaah, I understand now ! I read it wrong. Sorry for my useless comment, I shall delete it.
â Suzet
Aug 29 at 6:28
add a comment |Â
1
Hi krishna, I've edited your question with an explanation that I think is clearer. Please feel free to roll it back if you disagree, or my interpretation is incorrect.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:12
@Suzet The numbers aren't listed; you're supposed to perform every possible combination of addition and subtraction between these $n + 1$ fractions, to obtain (at most) $2^n+1$ possibilities (see the set equality below).
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:24
I think there are $2^n+1$ elements as we can choose each $delta_i$ to be either $-1$ or $1$ and there are $n+1$ choices for $i$. If there are only $2(n+1)$ "distinct" ones can you explain why?
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 6:24
Also, beware of the trivial solution: $k = 1$ and $n = 0$.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:26
@TheoBendit Aaah, I understand now ! I read it wrong. Sorry for my useless comment, I shall delete it.
â Suzet
Aug 29 at 6:28
1
1
Hi krishna, I've edited your question with an explanation that I think is clearer. Please feel free to roll it back if you disagree, or my interpretation is incorrect.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:12
Hi krishna, I've edited your question with an explanation that I think is clearer. Please feel free to roll it back if you disagree, or my interpretation is incorrect.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:12
@Suzet The numbers aren't listed; you're supposed to perform every possible combination of addition and subtraction between these $n + 1$ fractions, to obtain (at most) $2^n+1$ possibilities (see the set equality below).
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:24
@Suzet The numbers aren't listed; you're supposed to perform every possible combination of addition and subtraction between these $n + 1$ fractions, to obtain (at most) $2^n+1$ possibilities (see the set equality below).
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:24
I think there are $2^n+1$ elements as we can choose each $delta_i$ to be either $-1$ or $1$ and there are $n+1$ choices for $i$. If there are only $2(n+1)$ "distinct" ones can you explain why?
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 6:24
I think there are $2^n+1$ elements as we can choose each $delta_i$ to be either $-1$ or $1$ and there are $n+1$ choices for $i$. If there are only $2(n+1)$ "distinct" ones can you explain why?
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 6:24
Also, beware of the trivial solution: $k = 1$ and $n = 0$.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:26
Also, beware of the trivial solution: $k = 1$ and $n = 0$.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:26
@TheoBendit Aaah, I understand now ! I read it wrong. Sorry for my useless comment, I shall delete it.
â Suzet
Aug 29 at 6:28
@TheoBendit Aaah, I understand now ! I read it wrong. Sorry for my useless comment, I shall delete it.
â Suzet
Aug 29 at 6:28
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Let $m$ be the exponent of this
maximum power of 2,
so $2^m$ divides exactly one denominator.
Consider the lcm of the denominators $d$.
$2^m|d$.
When all the fractions are written in the form
$c/d$, the one whose denominator
is divisible by $2^m$ will have
an odd numerator
and all the others will have
an even numerator.
Therefore their sum will be odd,
so the resulting fraction
will have an odd numerator
and even denominator
and so can not
be an integer.
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
1
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
Factor all the $n+1$ integers $k,k+1,cdots,k+n$ and extract the factor $2$ all together. We have $$i=2^lambda_ip_i,$$ where $i=k,k+1,cdots,k+n.$
Apparently, $lambda_i geq 0$ and $2 nmid p_i.$ Denote $lambda=maxlambda_i.$ Then $lambda>0$ when $ngeq 1.$ Morover, we may prove there exists only one $i$ such that $i=2^lambda p_i$. Otherwise, if $i=2^lambda p_i$ and $j=2^lambda p_j$ but $i neq j$, then there exists another even integer between $p_i $ and $p_j$(since $p_i$ and $p_i$ are two different odd integers), which implies there exists a $l$ between $i$ and $j$ such that $l=2^lambda+1p_l.$ This contradicts the assumption that $lambda$ is the largest.
Now, assume $m=2^lambda p_m.$ Multiply $$pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+n$$
by $X=2^lambda-1p_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n$. Apparently, $M$ could be divided by almost every denominator except for $m$. Thus, we may write $$left(pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+nright)X=Ypmfracp_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n2 p_m,tag1$$
where $Y$ is an integer. Notice that $p_k,p_k+1,cdots,p_k+n$ are all odd integers. Hence, the product of them except for $p_m$ could not be divided by $2$. Therefore, the right-hand side of $(1)$ is not an integer, from which we may complete the proof.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Let $m$ be the exponent of this
maximum power of 2,
so $2^m$ divides exactly one denominator.
Consider the lcm of the denominators $d$.
$2^m|d$.
When all the fractions are written in the form
$c/d$, the one whose denominator
is divisible by $2^m$ will have
an odd numerator
and all the others will have
an even numerator.
Therefore their sum will be odd,
so the resulting fraction
will have an odd numerator
and even denominator
and so can not
be an integer.
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
1
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Let $m$ be the exponent of this
maximum power of 2,
so $2^m$ divides exactly one denominator.
Consider the lcm of the denominators $d$.
$2^m|d$.
When all the fractions are written in the form
$c/d$, the one whose denominator
is divisible by $2^m$ will have
an odd numerator
and all the others will have
an even numerator.
Therefore their sum will be odd,
so the resulting fraction
will have an odd numerator
and even denominator
and so can not
be an integer.
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
1
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Let $m$ be the exponent of this
maximum power of 2,
so $2^m$ divides exactly one denominator.
Consider the lcm of the denominators $d$.
$2^m|d$.
When all the fractions are written in the form
$c/d$, the one whose denominator
is divisible by $2^m$ will have
an odd numerator
and all the others will have
an even numerator.
Therefore their sum will be odd,
so the resulting fraction
will have an odd numerator
and even denominator
and so can not
be an integer.
Let $m$ be the exponent of this
maximum power of 2,
so $2^m$ divides exactly one denominator.
Consider the lcm of the denominators $d$.
$2^m|d$.
When all the fractions are written in the form
$c/d$, the one whose denominator
is divisible by $2^m$ will have
an odd numerator
and all the others will have
an even numerator.
Therefore their sum will be odd,
so the resulting fraction
will have an odd numerator
and even denominator
and so can not
be an integer.
answered Aug 29 at 6:23
marty cohen
69.9k446122
69.9k446122
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
1
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
 |Â
show 1 more comment
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
1
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
You need to first prove that the term with the maximum power is unique, this is the hard part of the question.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:02
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
I have mentioned in the question that you can assume first part done as I proved it already.
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 7:08
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
@krishna: I missed that.
â Yves Daoust
Aug 29 at 7:15
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
It's actually pretty easy. If 2 terms are divisible by $2^m$, between them must be a term divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 8:36
1
1
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
If there are two terms exactly divisible by $2^m$, they must be $a2^m$ and $b2^m$ with $a$ and $b$ odd and $a<b$. Between them is $(a+1)2^m$. Since $a$ is odd, $a+1$ is even, so $(a+1)2^m$ is divisible by$2^m+1$ which contradicts $m$ being the maximum exponent.
â marty cohen
Aug 29 at 15:30
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
Factor all the $n+1$ integers $k,k+1,cdots,k+n$ and extract the factor $2$ all together. We have $$i=2^lambda_ip_i,$$ where $i=k,k+1,cdots,k+n.$
Apparently, $lambda_i geq 0$ and $2 nmid p_i.$ Denote $lambda=maxlambda_i.$ Then $lambda>0$ when $ngeq 1.$ Morover, we may prove there exists only one $i$ such that $i=2^lambda p_i$. Otherwise, if $i=2^lambda p_i$ and $j=2^lambda p_j$ but $i neq j$, then there exists another even integer between $p_i $ and $p_j$(since $p_i$ and $p_i$ are two different odd integers), which implies there exists a $l$ between $i$ and $j$ such that $l=2^lambda+1p_l.$ This contradicts the assumption that $lambda$ is the largest.
Now, assume $m=2^lambda p_m.$ Multiply $$pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+n$$
by $X=2^lambda-1p_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n$. Apparently, $M$ could be divided by almost every denominator except for $m$. Thus, we may write $$left(pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+nright)X=Ypmfracp_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n2 p_m,tag1$$
where $Y$ is an integer. Notice that $p_k,p_k+1,cdots,p_k+n$ are all odd integers. Hence, the product of them except for $p_m$ could not be divided by $2$. Therefore, the right-hand side of $(1)$ is not an integer, from which we may complete the proof.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Factor all the $n+1$ integers $k,k+1,cdots,k+n$ and extract the factor $2$ all together. We have $$i=2^lambda_ip_i,$$ where $i=k,k+1,cdots,k+n.$
Apparently, $lambda_i geq 0$ and $2 nmid p_i.$ Denote $lambda=maxlambda_i.$ Then $lambda>0$ when $ngeq 1.$ Morover, we may prove there exists only one $i$ such that $i=2^lambda p_i$. Otherwise, if $i=2^lambda p_i$ and $j=2^lambda p_j$ but $i neq j$, then there exists another even integer between $p_i $ and $p_j$(since $p_i$ and $p_i$ are two different odd integers), which implies there exists a $l$ between $i$ and $j$ such that $l=2^lambda+1p_l.$ This contradicts the assumption that $lambda$ is the largest.
Now, assume $m=2^lambda p_m.$ Multiply $$pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+n$$
by $X=2^lambda-1p_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n$. Apparently, $M$ could be divided by almost every denominator except for $m$. Thus, we may write $$left(pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+nright)X=Ypmfracp_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n2 p_m,tag1$$
where $Y$ is an integer. Notice that $p_k,p_k+1,cdots,p_k+n$ are all odd integers. Hence, the product of them except for $p_m$ could not be divided by $2$. Therefore, the right-hand side of $(1)$ is not an integer, from which we may complete the proof.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Factor all the $n+1$ integers $k,k+1,cdots,k+n$ and extract the factor $2$ all together. We have $$i=2^lambda_ip_i,$$ where $i=k,k+1,cdots,k+n.$
Apparently, $lambda_i geq 0$ and $2 nmid p_i.$ Denote $lambda=maxlambda_i.$ Then $lambda>0$ when $ngeq 1.$ Morover, we may prove there exists only one $i$ such that $i=2^lambda p_i$. Otherwise, if $i=2^lambda p_i$ and $j=2^lambda p_j$ but $i neq j$, then there exists another even integer between $p_i $ and $p_j$(since $p_i$ and $p_i$ are two different odd integers), which implies there exists a $l$ between $i$ and $j$ such that $l=2^lambda+1p_l.$ This contradicts the assumption that $lambda$ is the largest.
Now, assume $m=2^lambda p_m.$ Multiply $$pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+n$$
by $X=2^lambda-1p_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n$. Apparently, $M$ could be divided by almost every denominator except for $m$. Thus, we may write $$left(pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+nright)X=Ypmfracp_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n2 p_m,tag1$$
where $Y$ is an integer. Notice that $p_k,p_k+1,cdots,p_k+n$ are all odd integers. Hence, the product of them except for $p_m$ could not be divided by $2$. Therefore, the right-hand side of $(1)$ is not an integer, from which we may complete the proof.
Factor all the $n+1$ integers $k,k+1,cdots,k+n$ and extract the factor $2$ all together. We have $$i=2^lambda_ip_i,$$ where $i=k,k+1,cdots,k+n.$
Apparently, $lambda_i geq 0$ and $2 nmid p_i.$ Denote $lambda=maxlambda_i.$ Then $lambda>0$ when $ngeq 1.$ Morover, we may prove there exists only one $i$ such that $i=2^lambda p_i$. Otherwise, if $i=2^lambda p_i$ and $j=2^lambda p_j$ but $i neq j$, then there exists another even integer between $p_i $ and $p_j$(since $p_i$ and $p_i$ are two different odd integers), which implies there exists a $l$ between $i$ and $j$ such that $l=2^lambda+1p_l.$ This contradicts the assumption that $lambda$ is the largest.
Now, assume $m=2^lambda p_m.$ Multiply $$pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+n$$
by $X=2^lambda-1p_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n$. Apparently, $M$ could be divided by almost every denominator except for $m$. Thus, we may write $$left(pmfrac1kpm frac1k+1pm cdots pm frac1k+nright)X=Ypmfracp_kp_k+1cdots p_k+n2 p_m,tag1$$
where $Y$ is an integer. Notice that $p_k,p_k+1,cdots,p_k+n$ are all odd integers. Hence, the product of them except for $p_m$ could not be divided by $2$. Therefore, the right-hand side of $(1)$ is not an integer, from which we may complete the proof.
edited Aug 29 at 16:31
answered Aug 29 at 7:54
mengdie1982
3,633216
3,633216
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2897993%2fprove-that-there-exists-no-integer-in-pm-frac1k-pm-frac1k1-pm-frac1k2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Hi krishna, I've edited your question with an explanation that I think is clearer. Please feel free to roll it back if you disagree, or my interpretation is incorrect.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:12
@Suzet The numbers aren't listed; you're supposed to perform every possible combination of addition and subtraction between these $n + 1$ fractions, to obtain (at most) $2^n+1$ possibilities (see the set equality below).
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:24
I think there are $2^n+1$ elements as we can choose each $delta_i$ to be either $-1$ or $1$ and there are $n+1$ choices for $i$. If there are only $2(n+1)$ "distinct" ones can you explain why?
â Sri Krishna Sahoo
Aug 29 at 6:24
Also, beware of the trivial solution: $k = 1$ and $n = 0$.
â Theo Bendit
Aug 29 at 6:26
@TheoBendit Aaah, I understand now ! I read it wrong. Sorry for my useless comment, I shall delete it.
â Suzet
Aug 29 at 6:28