How to Generate Cubes without Cubing: A Proof Method

  • I
  • Thread starter Charles H
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Primes
In summary, "How to Generate Cubes without Cubing: A Proof Method" presents a novel approach to generate cube numbers through algebraic manipulation rather than direct multiplication. The method involves using formulas and mathematical identities to derive cubes from simpler calculations. By illustrating the underlying principles and providing detailed proofs, the author demonstrates that it is possible to achieve the same results as traditional cubing techniques while enhancing understanding of the relationships between numbers. This approach not only simplifies the process but also offers insights into the properties of cubic numbers.
  • #1
Charles H
2
4
TL;DR Summary
The difference between the cubes or any 2 consecutive integers is always a prime number.
I have tested the above proposition thru the integer 90, and have found that the proposition holds true. I'm not sure of the method to prove that this would always be true. Any help, criticism, or proof is welcome.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hello and :welcome: !

Do you mean the difference between ##6^3-5^3=216-125=91=7\cdot 13?##

What you can prove is, that it is always an odd number. Do you know how to do this?
 
  • Like
Likes e_jane, Vanadium 50, FactChecker and 1 other person
  • #3
Sorry. There are a great many exceptions below 90. I assume that you tested it to 90 using a computer program of some sort. If you are interested, we might help you to find the bug in the program.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, berkeman and jedishrfu
  • #4
Charles H said:
TL;DR Summary: The difference between the cubes or any 2 consecutive integers is always a prime number.
Specifically:
$$(n+1)^3 - n^3 = 3n^2 + 3n + 1$$So the sequence is:
$$1, 7, 19,37,61, 91(*), 127, 169(*), 217(*), 271, 331, 397, 469(*) \dots $$Those with an (*) are not prime.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #5
fresh_42 said:
t is always an odd number
All odd numbers greater than one are prime. 3, 5, 7, 9 (experimental error), 11, 13...

[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 3h^2 + 3n + 1[/tex]
[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 3n(n+1)+ 1[/tex]

Now that does not factor, so it will be the case that it is sometimers prime, It's also, as pointed out, never divisible by 2 and by inspection never divisible by 3.

But suppose [itex]n = 7m + 1[/itex]

[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 3(7m+1)(7m + 2)+ 1[/tex]
[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 147m^2 + 63m + 7[/tex]
[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 7(21m^2 +9m + 1)[/tex]

which is by inspection always divisible by 7.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and PeroK
  • #6
PS if we let ##d(n) = 3n^2 + 3n + 1##, then the difference in this sequence is:
$$d(n+1) - d(n) = 6(n+1)$$So, you can generate the sequence of consecutive integer cubes by starting at ##1## and adding the next integer multiple of ##6## each time.
 
  • #7
It appears this proposition is not ready for prime time...
 
  • Haha
Likes Mark44
  • #8
Vanadium 50 said:
But suppose [itex]n = 7m + 1[/itex]

[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 3(7m+1)(7m + 2)+ 1[/tex]
[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 147m^2 + 63m + 7[/tex]
[tex](n+1)^3 - n^3 = 7(21m^2 +9m + 1)[/tex]

which is by inspection always divisible by 7.
And, if ##n = 19m + 2##, then ##d(n)## is divisible by ##19##.

If ##n = 37m + 3##, then ##d(n)## is divisible by ##37##.

If ##n = 61m + 4##, then ##d(n)## is divisible by ##61##.

If ##n = 91m + 5##, then ##d(n)## is divisible by ##91##.

Etc.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #9
fresh_42 said:
Hello and :welcome: !

Do you mean the difference between ##6^3-5^3=216-125=91=7\cdot 13?##

What you can prove is, that it is always an odd number. Do you know how to do this?
Thanks. That makes me feel really dumb. I overlooked the result on several examples. And, yes, I know how to prove it will always be odd.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345 and berkeman
  • #10
PeroK said:
Etc.
Of course you and I both know that there are not just these examples but an infinite number of them.
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
PS if we let ##d(n) = 3n^2 + 3n + 1##, then the difference in this sequence is:
$$d(n+1) - d(n) = 6(n+1)$$So, you can generate the sequence of consecutive integer cubes by starting at ##1## and adding the next integer multiple of ##6## each time.
I don't follow that statement. If we let ##D(n)=d(n+1)-d(n)## then ##D(n+1)-D(n)=6## but does it mean anything?
 
  • #12
bob012345 said:
I don't follow that statement. If we let ##D(n)=d(n+1)-d(n)## then ##D(n+1)-D(n)=6## but does it mean anything?
It gives you a quick way to generate the cubes without multiplication. The above also follows from:

If ##f(x) = x^3##, then ##f'''(x) = 6##.
 
  • #13
PeroK said:
It gives you a quick way to generate the cubes without multiplication. The above also follows from:

If ##f(x) = x^3##, then ##f'''(x) = 6##.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how. Could you work out a few terms please?
 
  • #14
bob012345 said:
I'm sorry, I just don't see how. Could you work out a few terms please?
How to generate the cubes without cubing!

1
1 + 6 = 7; 1 + 7 = 8
7 + 12 = 19; 8 + 19 = 27
19+18 = 37; 27+37 = 64
37 + 24 = 61; 64 + 61 = 125
...
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345

FAQ: How to Generate Cubes without Cubing: A Proof Method

What does "Generating Cubes without Cubing" mean?

"Generating cubes without cubing" refers to methods of deriving the properties or characteristics of cubic numbers or geometric cubes without directly using the operation of cubing (raising to the third power). This can involve algebraic manipulations, geometric interpretations, or combinatorial methods to explore the relationships and patterns of cubes.

What are some common methods to generate cubes without cubing?

Common methods include using recursive formulas, geometric constructions, or algebraic identities. For instance, one can use the formula for the sum of the first n natural numbers, which can be related to cubic numbers through various identities, or explore the relationship between triangular numbers and cubic numbers.

How can geometric interpretations help in generating cubes?

Geometric interpretations allow for visualizing the properties of cubes. For example, one can represent cubes as stacks of unit cubes and explore how these stacks can be arranged or decomposed into smaller shapes, leading to insights about volume and dimensions without explicit cubing operations.

Are there any historical examples of generating cubes without cubing?

Yes, historical mathematicians like Archimedes and later mathematicians explored cubic numbers through geometric methods. Archimedes used geometric constructions to derive properties of spheres and cylinders, which indirectly relate to cubic volumes, showcasing the relationships between shapes without direct cubing.

What are the implications of generating cubes without cubing in modern mathematics?

The implications include a deeper understanding of number theory, combinatorics, and algebra. It encourages innovative thinking about mathematical relationships and can lead to new discoveries in fields such as algebraic geometry and discrete mathematics, where traditional operations may not be the most effective approach.

Similar threads

Back
Top