MHB Is the Converse of the Given Statement True for Any Positive Integer n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnny009
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Structure
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the difference between the smallest perfect square greater than or equal to a positive integer n (where n is prime) is itself a perfect square. Initial examples using prime numbers like 3 and 5 show that the difference can be a perfect square, suggesting that the original statement may not hold universally. Counterexamples, such as when n equals 6, indicate that the converse is also not true, as the difference is not a perfect square. Participants clarify the conditions of the problem, emphasizing that m must be greater than or equal to n. Overall, the inquiry reveals complexities in the relationship between prime numbers and perfect squares.
johnny009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
if n is a positive integer greater than 2 and m the smallest integer greater than or = n, that is a perfect square.
Let a = m-n.

Show that if n is prime, then a is not a perfect square.

Also, is the converse of above true, for any integer n?

any guidance, will be much appreciated?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
johnny009 said:
if n is a positive integer greater than 2 and m the smallest integer greater than or = n, that is a perfect square.
Let a = m-n.

Show that if n is prime, then a is not a perfect square.

Also, is the converse of above true, for any integer n?
any guidance, will be much appreciated?Thanks

Hey johnny009! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)Guidance: let's try a couple of examples, starting with the simplest we can think of.The smallest prime $n$ is $3$, in which case $m=2^2=4$, and $a=4-3=1$, which is a perfect square!
Ah well, maybe $a=1$ is a special case...

Let's try again, the next prime $n$ is $5$, so that $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-5=4$, which is again a perfect square!

Erm... I think it's not true, and we have 2 counter examples to prove it.Continuing with $n=6$, we get $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-6=3$, which is not a perfect square... and $n$ is not prime.
So we have a counter example for the converse as well.
 
I like Serena said:
Hey johnny009! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)Guidance: let's try a couple of examples, starting with the simplest we can think of.The smallest prime $n$ is $3$, in which case $m=2^2=4$, and $a=4-3=1$, which is a perfect square!
Ah well, maybe $a=1$ is a special case...

Let's try again, the next prime $n$ is $5$, so that $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-5=4$, which is again a perfect square!

Erm... I think it's not true, and we have 2 counter examples to prove it.Continuing with $n=6$, we get $m=3^2=9$, and $a=9-6=3$, which is not a perfect square... and $n$ is not prime.
So we have a counter example for the converse as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi There,

Thanks a lot for the reply.

But, your solutions ignores the fact, that 'm' cannot be less than 'N' ...as per the QUESTION??

So, your solution...is not really addressing the Question.

CHEERS

John.
 
johnny009 said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi There,

Thanks a lot for the reply.

But, your solutions ignores the fact, that 'm' cannot be less than 'N' ........as per the QUESTION??

So, your solution...is not really addressing the Question.

CHEERS

John.

I'm assuming you mean 'n' instead of 'N', since there is no reference to 'N'?
Erm... in each of the examples $m\ge n$ as per the question... am I missing something? (Wondering)
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Back
Top