Is Only One Number in Any 100 Consecutive Natural Numbers Divisible by 100?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathsfail
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Out of any 100 consecutive natural numbers, exactly one number is divisible by 100, making the statement true. However, for 101 consecutive natural numbers, the statement is false as there can be one or two numbers divisible by 100. A misunderstanding arose regarding the divisibility by 2 instead of 100, and the count of numbers was incorrectly noted as 100 instead of 101. For the second problem, to find how many natural numbers from 200 to 500 are divisible by 3, the method involves identifying the first and last multiples of 3 within that range and calculating the total. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the range and divisibility criteria.
mathsfail
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
True or false with answer written in my book.

(c)Out of any 100 consecutive natural numbers,exactly 1 natural number is divisible by 100.(true/false).

Ans-True= 100/100= 1

(d)Out of any 101 consecutive natural numbers,exactly 1 natural number is divisible by 100.(true/false).

Ans-False.There may be one or two numbers divisible by 100.

I don't get the answer of (c).If we take numbers from 100-200.there should be 2 numbers divisible by 2.Only from 1-100,we get 1 number divisible by 2.This should be false i think and the answer should be same as d.Correct be if i am wrong.


Second problem

How many natural numbers from 200-500(including both the limits) will be divisible by 3.How to solve this.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey mathsfail and welcome to the forums.

The answer formally is to show that in your collection of numbers there exists a number n = 100*q for some number q.

All numbers can written as n = pq + r where in this case p = 100 and r is an integer from 0 to 99 inclusive. If you can show that there exists a number n in your set of numbers such that r = 0 then you have done the proof.

Using this, and the fact that you have all numbers a through to a + 99, can you now prove this?
 
There are 101 numbers, 100-200
 
mathsfail said:
True or false with answer written in my book.

(c)Out of any 100 consecutive natural numbers,exactly 1 natural number is divisible by 100.(true/false).

Ans-True= 100/100= 1

(d)Out of any 101 consecutive natural numbers,exactly 1 natural number is divisible by 100.(true/false).

Ans-False.There may be one or two numbers divisible by 100.

I don't get the answer of (c).If we take numbers from 100-200.there should be 2 numbers divisible by 2.Only from 1-100,we get 1 number divisible by 2 This should be false i think and the answer should be same as d.Correct be if i am wrong.
First, you mean "divisibe by 100" not "divisible by 2", 100 to 200 is 101 numbers, not 100

Second problem

How many natural numbers from 200-500(including both the limits) will be divisible by 3.How to solve this.
Did you give this any thought at all? 200= 66*3+ 2 and 2/3 but 201= 67*3 is divisible by 3. 500= 166*3+ 2 but 498= 166*3 is divisible by 3. There are 499- 201= 298 numbers between 201 and 498, including those numbers, and 1/3 of them are divisible by 3.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top