What are the possible values of these letters?
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51
add a comment |
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
up vote
18
down vote
favorite
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
algebra-precalculus
edited Nov 14 at 14:22
Especially Lime
20.9k22655
20.9k22655
asked Nov 14 at 14:13
Heroic24
1327
1327
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51
add a comment |
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51
13
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22
3
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28
4
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39
3
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13
1
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
up vote
22
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
edited Nov 15 at 12:06
New contributor
answered Nov 14 at 18:34
AllirionX
3213
3213
New contributor
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
add a comment |
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
7
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 21:51
1
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
Nov 14 at 22:01
1
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:34
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
Nov 15 at 12:11
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
answered Nov 14 at 14:43
marty cohen
71.3k546123
71.3k546123
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
edited Nov 15 at 15:19
costrom
4061518
4061518
answered Nov 14 at 15:26
gandalf61
7,177523
7,177523
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
add a comment |
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
2
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
Nov 15 at 1:14
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
answered Nov 14 at 14:57
Robert Israel
313k23206452
313k23206452
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
add a comment |
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
2
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
Nov 15 at 2:49
1
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
Nov 15 at 13:58
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
edited Nov 15 at 7:04
answered Nov 14 at 14:45
ab123
1,589421
1,589421
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
add a comment |
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
3
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
Nov 15 at 7:03
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
answered Nov 15 at 5:03
Dan
4,12511416
4,12511416
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998315%2fwhat-are-the-possible-values-of-these-letters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
Nov 14 at 14:22
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
Nov 14 at 14:28
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
Nov 14 at 14:39
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
Nov 15 at 0:13
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
Nov 15 at 10:51