Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Largest x that divides at least one sum of a pair of N numbers?
I answered this question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201307...
Then I thought up this related question:
Consider a natural number N. Then what is the largest natural number x so that it is impossible to have N numbers without containing a pair whose sum is divisible by x?
1 Answer
- BrianLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
For x = 2 we would require at least 3 natural numbers to be guaranteed that there
is at least one pair whose sum is divisible by 2. For x > 2 then all the N elements
of the set could be 1 (mod x), which would make any sum 2 (mod x) and hence
not divisible by x. So for N >= 3 the answer would be x = 2, and for N = 2 the
answer would be just 1, since the two numbers could be 0 (mod 2) and 1 (mod 2).
(The N = 1 case wouldn't make much sense, as there are no pairs of numbers
to add. :) )
Edit: Oh darn. This is more complicated than I originally thought. If all the
N elements of the set were congruent to 1 (mod x) for some x, say 3, then
the sum of any two would not be divisible by 3, but this might guarantee
that there is some larger x that would divide one of the sums. I need to
give this some more thought...... My gut is telling me x = N - 1, so I'll see
if I can prove that to be correct.
Edit #2: For N = 2 the above analysis stands.
For N = 3, we can have two numbers congruent to 1 (mod 3) and one congruent
to 0 (mod 3) and thus have no sums be divisible by 3. But when we look at the
numbers modulo 2 then we would have to have at least two of the numbers
either 1 (mod 2) or 0 (mod 2), giving us at least one sum that is divisible by 2.
For N = 4 we can have 3 numbers congruent to 1 (mod 4) and one congruent
to 0 (mod 4) and thus have no sums divisible by 4. But when we look at the
4 numbers modulo 3 then we have the following cases:
(i) if one number is 0 (mod 3) then none of the others can be, in which case
we have 3 numbers that are either 1 or 2 (mod 3). If one of these is 1 (mod 3)
then none of the others can be 2 (mod 3), which would leave us with 3 numbers
that are congruent to 1 (mod 3). So in this case we can avoid any sum being
divisible by 3, but we have opened ourselves up to the necessity that some
sum must be divisible by 4, (or perhaps a higher value).
Maybe my original answer wasn't so far off after all. I'll have to sleep on it.
Edit #3: It looks like I was starting the 'over-think' the question in my edits.
My original answer should suffice, but I'll leave my edits intact for your
consideration and amusement. :)