Browse · MathNet
PrintIranian Mathematical Olympiad
Iran number theory
Problem
Do there exist natural numbers , and such that is divisible by ?
Solution
Lemma 1. Let be a positive integer. Then there exists a prime number such that and where is an odd integer.
Proof of lemma. Assume to the contrary that there is not such a prime number . Therefore, if is the prime factorization of , we have two cases for 's, , to consider:
Case 1. .
Case 2. and .
As a result, we must have which is a contradiction.
Lemma 2. Let be a prime number. Show that is a complete residue system modulo .
Proof of lemma. Obviously iff . Suppose that . Our goal is to show that iff . One part of the proof is obvious. To prove the other part, suppose that . Then by Fermat's Little Theorem, we have . Hence, we have Since , we get .
Now we are ready to solve the main problem. We claim that there is no such triple. Assume to the contrary that for some positive integer .
First, without loss of generality we can suppose that , and have no common factor, because if , we can divide them by to get a new triple with no common factor. We have . , so by lemma 1 there is some prime number such that (). As a result, and . Hence By a similar argument, , so by lemma 2 we deduce and since and , we find that divides , and , which contradicts our assumption that .
Proof of lemma. Assume to the contrary that there is not such a prime number . Therefore, if is the prime factorization of , we have two cases for 's, , to consider:
Case 1. .
Case 2. and .
As a result, we must have which is a contradiction.
Lemma 2. Let be a prime number. Show that is a complete residue system modulo .
Proof of lemma. Obviously iff . Suppose that . Our goal is to show that iff . One part of the proof is obvious. To prove the other part, suppose that . Then by Fermat's Little Theorem, we have . Hence, we have Since , we get .
Now we are ready to solve the main problem. We claim that there is no such triple. Assume to the contrary that for some positive integer .
First, without loss of generality we can suppose that , and have no common factor, because if , we can divide them by to get a new triple with no common factor. We have . , so by lemma 1 there is some prime number such that (). As a result, and . Hence By a similar argument, , so by lemma 2 we deduce and since and , we find that divides , and , which contradicts our assumption that .
Final answer
No, such natural numbers do not exist.
Techniques
Fermat / Euler / Wilson theoremsPolynomials mod pPrime numbersGreatest common divisors (gcd)