Jump to content

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

- - - - -

More divisibility

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#11 bushindo


    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:05 AM

Indeed, this number is a bit smaller than the one I found.

Spoiler for another perspective

But where is the proof that it is the smallest number that meets  the conditions?



I can't prove that it is the smallest number. The solution that you posed made me realize that my solution is flawed. Originally, I thought I had a divisibility rule for 100 ones, which allowed me to compute the smallest integer within those rules. The number you came up with made me realize that the divisibility rule I had only worked on a subset of the possible divisors.  

So, there might be smaller solutions out there. I made a mistake in an earlier post. I should have called that number "the smallest number that I could find" instead of calling it the solution.

  • 0

#12 Prime


    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois, US

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:48 AM

Possibly, you have found the smallest number fitting the conditions in the OP. However, a simple proof/solution does not present itself. When designing new puzzles that comes with the territory.

I appreciate invention of new puzzles. It's a different process from uncovering an answer that has been found before. While playing with this problem I came up with some interesting divisibility rules, which could be used to construct riddles, or break public/private key encryption.

Perhaps, this particular puzzle could be simplified by requiring two digits in the product, rather than three.


Spoiler for divisibility rules

Edited by Prime, 12 March 2013 - 02:56 AM.

  • 0

Past prime, actually.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users