What are the possible values of these letters?
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
2 days ago
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
2 days ago
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
2 days ago
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
yesterday
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
Out of all the questions I answered in a math reviewer, this one killed me (and 7 more).
Let $J, K, L, M, N$ be five distinct positive integers such that
$$
frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1.
$$
Then, what is $J + K + L + M + N$?
I have been thinking about this for nearly 6 days.
algebra-precalculus
algebra-precalculus
edited 2 days ago
Especially Lime
20.9k22655
20.9k22655
asked 2 days ago
Heroic24
1277
1277
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
2 days ago
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
2 days ago
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
2 days ago
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
yesterday
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
yesterday
add a comment |
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
2 days ago
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
2 days ago
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
2 days ago
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
yesterday
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
yesterday
13
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
2 days ago
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
2 days ago
3
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
2 days ago
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
2 days ago
4
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
2 days ago
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
2 days ago
3
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
yesterday
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
yesterday
1
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
yesterday
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
yesterday
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
up vote
21
down vote
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
Induction could lead you to the answer.
The equation is :
$$
frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n}} = 1
$$
Case $ n = 0 $: the empty set solves the equation as an empty product is 1
Case $ n = 1 $: the obvious solution is $ x_1 = 2 $.
Case $ n = 2 $: a bit more difficult, but you can find $ x_1 = 2, x_2 = 3 $.
Doing this, I noticed one thing: assuming that you solved the $ (n-1) $-th equation, you can pick $ x_n $ so that $ + frac 1 {x_{n}} $ in the first part of the equation compensates the factor $ frac 1 {x_n} $. Let’s check.
Case any $ n $: assuming that $ x_1, dots x_{n} $ solves the equation, we require $ x_{n+1} $ so that
$$
frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 {x_1} + frac 1 {x_2} + dots + frac 1 {x_n} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n}
$$
Removing identical summands:
$$
frac 1 {x_{n+1}} + frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1}} = frac 1 { x_1 x_2 dots x_n }
$$
Multiplying tops by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ :
$$
x_1 x_2 dots x_{n} + 1 = x_{n+1}
$$
Solved!
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
AllirionX
3113
3113
New contributor
New contributor
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
add a comment |
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
7
7
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
I like your approach much better than those who just programmed a brute force search without trying to understand what was happening! I have translated your equations into MathJax (see the help), which you may find interesting to check out, and added explanations of the steps. You might like to simplify your calculation by immediately multiplying by $ x_1 x_2 dots x_{n+1} $ .
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
1
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
One fairly minor point: for a more complete answer, you need the obvious observation that $ X_{n+1} $ is an integer distinct from the previous values.
– PJTraill
yesterday
1
1
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Another thought: the first solution is the empty set, since an empty product is $1$, and this is trivially the unique empty solution. That means you can start induction one step earlier. But telling us how you found the first solutions is still interesting as motivation.
– PJTraill
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
Wow, thank you for patching my broken english and making this post look nicer. I'll look into MathJax : I did not really gave much thought on formatting the answer as I was typing on my phone. I edited my answer according to your suggestions. As I was on my phone, I looked for an easy solution that I could find by head.
– AllirionX
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
A start, on my phone.
Assume $j<k<l<m<n.$
Then j=2 or 3 because 1 makes the sum too large and 4 makes it too small.
Therefore the left without 1/j is 1/2 or 2/3.
You can get a tree of possiblities by continuing in this way.
Another tack:
Clear fractions to get
$klmn+jlmn+jkmn+jkln+jklm+1=jklmn$
or
$klmn+j(...)+1=jklmn$
or
$j(klmn-...)=klmn+1$.
Therefore $j|(klmn+1)$
(and similarly for the others)
so that j is relatively prime to the others.
Therefore all the variables are
pairwise relatively prime.
I'll leave it at this since
that's all I can think of
lying in bed.
answered 2 days ago
marty cohen
71.2k546123
71.2k546123
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
${2,3,7,43,1807 }$ - the first 5 terms of Sylvester's sequence - also works. In this sequence each term is the product of the previous terms plus $1$.
So it looks like the solution is not unique.
(Just saw that Robert Israel already made this observation).
edited yesterday
costrom
4061518
4061518
answered 2 days ago
gandalf61
7,102523
7,102523
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
add a comment |
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
2
2
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
And with Sylvester's sequence you have $dfrac12+dfrac12$ $=dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac{1}{2times 3}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7}$ $= dfrac12+dfrac13+dfrac17+dfrac1{43}+dfrac{1}{2times 3times 7times 43}$ $= cdots =1$ too
– Henry
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
Unless I've made a mistake, the solutions (up to permutation) are
[2, 3, 7, 43, 1807]
[2, 3, 7, 47, 395]
[2, 3, 11, 23, 31]
Maple code:
f:= proc(S) local R;
R:= map(t -> 1/t, S);
convert(R,`+`) + convert(R,`*`)
end proc:
for jj from 2 to 3 do
for kk from jj+1 while f([jj,kk,kk+1,kk+2,kk+3]) >= 1 do
lmin:= floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/l=1));
for ll from max(kk+1,lmin) while f([jj,kk,ll,ll+1,ll+2]) >= 1 do
if 1/jj+1/kk+1/ll >= 1 then next fi;
for mm from max(ll+1,floor(solve(1/jj+1/kk+1/ll+1/m=1))) while f([jj,kk,ll,mm,mm+1]) >= 1 do
nn:= solve(f([jj,kk,ll,mm,n])=1);
if nn::integer and nn > mm then
printf("Found [%d, %d, %d, %d, %d]n",jj,kk,ll,mm,nn)
fi
od od od od:
answered 2 days ago
Robert Israel
313k23206452
313k23206452
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
add a comment |
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
2
2
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
As noted by the other answers, the first of those is part of a systematic solution. I wonder if the other two are also part of systematic solutions or if they are sporadic ones.
– eyeballfrog
yesterday
1
1
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
For any $p> 1$, $$ frac{1}{p} = frac{1}{p+1} + frac{1}{p(p+1)}$$ Thus you can always extend a solution: $$2,3,7,47,395,779731,607979652631,369639258012703445569531,136633181064181948388890660386076024089509990431,ldots$$ and $$ 2,3,11,23,31,47059,2214502423,4904020979258368507,24049421765006207593444550012151040543,ldots$$
– Robert Israel
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
Searching through brute force gives a solution ${2, 3, 11, 23, 31 }$
Assume $J < K < L < M < N$ and
also note that the least number $J$ can only be $2$ or $3$
In Python $3.x$, you can check by running this code
for j in range(2, 4):
for k in range(j+1, 100):
for l in range(k+1, 100):
for m in range(l+1, 100):
for n in range(m+1, 100):
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
print(j, k , l , m , n)
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
ab123
1,589421
1,589421
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
add a comment |
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation asif k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.
– Dan
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
3
3
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.– Dan
yesterday
You can avoid floating-point by rewriting the equation as
if k*l*m*n + j*l*m*n + j*k*m*n + j*k*l*n + j*k*l*m + 1 == j*k*l*m*n:
.– Dan
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
@Dan good idea, thanks. Fixed it.
– ab123
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
Let's approach the problem one variable at a time. Without loss of generality, assume that $J < K < L < M < N$.
What is J?
If $J = 1$, then we would have $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{KLMN} = 0$, which is clearly impossible. So $J ne 1$.
If $J ≥ 4$, then the greatest the LHS could possibly be is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{4⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{1189}{1344} < 1$. And increasing any variable simply makes a smaller fraction. It will always be less than 1. So, any solution with $J ≥ 4$ is ruled out.
OTOH, $J = 3$ produces an upper bound of $frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{551}{504} > 1$, which is OK.
So, $J in lbrace 2, 3 rbrace$.
What is K?
Since there are only two possibilities for $J$, let's plug in each of them.
- If $J = 2$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{2KLMN} = frac{1}{2}$. As before, the LHS is maximized by taking all the variables to be consecutive integers.
- If $K = 6$, then we have $frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{2⋅6⋅7⋅8⋅9} = frac{3301}{6048} > frac{1}{2}$, which is fine.
- But if $K = 7$, we have $frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{9} + frac{1}{10} + frac{1}{2⋅7⋅8⋅9⋅10} = frac{4829}{10080} < frac{1}{2}$, which is too low. So $K ≤ 6$.
- Recalling that $K > J$, this means $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
- If $J = 3$, then $frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{3KLMN} = frac{2}{3}$.
- If $K = 4$, then the upper bound on the LHS is $frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{3⋅4⋅5⋅6⋅7} = frac{383}{504} > frac{2}{3}$, which is OK.
- But if $K = 5$, then we have $frac{1}{5} + frac{1}{6} + frac{1}{7} + frac{1}{8} + frac{1}{3⋅5⋅6⋅7⋅8} = frac{457}{720} < frac{2}{3}$, which is too low.
- So $K = 4$ is the only possibility.
Taking the union of the cases, we have $K in lbrace 3, 4, 5, 6 rbrace$.
What is L?
From the previous section, we have 5 possibilities for $(J, K)$:
$J = 2$, $K = 3$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{6LMN} = frac{1}{6}$, and $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
$J = 2$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{8LMN} = frac{1}{4}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 11$.
$J = 2$, $K = 5$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{10LMN} = frac{3}{10}$, and $6 ≤ L ≤ 9$.
$J = 2$, $K = 6$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{1}{3}$, and $7 ≤ L ≤ 8$.
$J = 3$, $K = 4$. Then $frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{12LMN} = frac{5}{12}$, and $5 ≤ L ≤ 6$.
Taking the union of these gives $4 ≤ L ≤ 17$.
What is M?
If we take the minimum values for the other variables: $J = 2$, $K = 3$, and $L = 4$, then $frac{1}{2} + frac{1}{3} + frac{1}{4} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = 1$, or $frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{24MN} = frac{-1}{12}$. That negative number on the right means that the approach used to find an upper bound for J, K, and L won't work for M. So, let's just skip it and come back to it later.
What is N?
If we have values for the other 4 variables, then we can solve for N directly.
$$frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M} + frac{1}{N} + frac{1}{JKLMN} = 1$$
$$frac{1}{N}(1 + frac{1}{JKLM}) = 1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})$$
$$frac{1}{N} = frac{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}$$
$$N = frac{1 + frac{1}{JKLM}}{1 - (frac{1}{J} + frac{1}{K} + frac{1}{L} + frac{1}{M})}$$
$$N = frac{JKLM + 1}{JKLM - (KLM + JLM + JKM + JKL)}$$
All we have to do is confirm that this number is an integer, and that it is greater than $M$.
Brute force
A slight modification of ab123's Python script to use my tighter bounds for J, K, and L; and formula for N.
from fractions import Fraction
MAX_M = 1000000
for J in range(2, 4):
for K in range(J + 1, 7):
for L in range(K + 1, 18):
for M in range(L + 1, MAX_M + 1):
N1 = J*K*L*M + 1
N2 = J*K*L*M - (K*L*M + J*L*M + J*K*M + J*K*L)
if N2 != 0:
N = Fraction(N1, N2)
if N.denominator == 1 and N > M:
print(J, K, L, M, N)
This gives three solutions:
- (2, 3, 7, 43, 1807)
- (2, 3, 7, 47, 395)
- (2, 3, 11, 23, 31)
Perhaps other solutions exist with $M > 10^6$. Or someone can prove that they don't.
answered yesterday
Dan
4,11511416
4,11511416
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998315%2fwhat-are-the-possible-values-of-these-letters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
13
Is $JKLMN$ a product or a number obtained by writing $J,K,L,M,N$ next to each other?
– yurnero
2 days ago
3
Regardless of whatever $JKLMN$ might mean (though you should clarify), it is easy to get some quick estimates. Assuming $J<K<L<M<N$, it is pretty easy to see that $Jin {2,3}$. I'd work along those lines.
– lulu
2 days ago
4
$2, 3, 11, 23, 31$ satisfies. I coded a simple program to find these numbers.
– ab123
2 days ago
3
For anyone who needs an explanation of lulu's bounds on J: It can't be 1 because then we'd have 1 + (positive number) = 1. And it can't be 4 or more because then the LHS could be at most 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + 1/7 + 1/8 + 1/6720 = 1189/1344 < 1.
– Dan
yesterday
1
Anyone interested in the number of solutions of the generalisation to $n$ integers may be interested in S. V. Konyagin, “Double Exponential Lower Bound for the Number of Representations of Unity by Egyptian Fractions”, Mat. Zametki, 95:2 (2014), 312–316; Math. Notes, 95:2 (2014), 280–284 at mathnet.ru/php/…, PDF (Russian!) = mathnet.ru/php/… .
– PJTraill
yesterday