Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- From: Patrick Hamlyn <path@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:28:29 +0900
Jake <sunny8tzu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:27 am, Leroy Quet <qqq...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I posted this on sci.math, but no one responded.
Consider the sequence A145265 of the On-Line Encyclopedia Of Integer
Sequences.
A positive integer n is included if there exists a positive integer m
such that sum{k>=0} floor(n/(m+k)) = n.
(Terms calculated by Stefan Steinerberger :
1, 4, 5, 8, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 51, 54,
55, 58, 59, 62, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98, 105,
108, 109, 112, 113, 116, 123, 126, 127, 130, 131, 134, 141, 144, 145,
148, 149, 152, 159, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170, 177, 180, 181, 184,...)
Does this sequence contain all of those, and only those, positive
integers that are congruent to 0, 1, 4, 5, 8, 15 (mod 18)?
It's true. It's helpful to look at the sum in the reverse order, in
which case we want to know whether there is a p such that
(*) n = sum{n>=l>=p} floor(n/l)
The number of 1's in the sequence {floor(n/l) : n>=l>=1} is ceil(n/2);
the number of 2's is ceil(2n/3) - ceil(n/2); the number of 3's is
ceil(3n/4) - ceil(2n/3); and so on. If we add up just the terms equal
to 1 or 2, we get roughly n/2 + 2(2n/3 - n/2) = 5n/6, but if we add up
all the terms equal to 1, 2 or 3, we get roughly n/2 + 2(2n/3 - n/2) +
3(3n/4 - 2n/3) = 13n/12. This means that if n is sufficiently large
and satisfies (*), then the sum will be of 1's and 2's and some number
of 3's. Therefore, to check whether it's possible for n to satisfy
(*), we need only see whether n is congruent to ceil(n/2) + 2(ceil(2n/
3) - ceil(n/2)) modulo 3. For n = 18q + r, this is true exactly when r
= 0, 1, 4, 5, 8 or 15. (The equality can be checked by hand for
"insufficiently large" n.)
Well spotted. I rate your post infinitely more useful than Insanator's.
--
Patrick Hamlyn posting from Perth, Western Australia
Windsurfing capital of the Southern Hemisphere
Moderator: polyforms group (polyforms-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- From: Mensanator
- Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- From: Leroy Quet
- Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- References:
- sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- From: Leroy Quet
- Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- From: Jake
- sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- Prev by Date: Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- Next by Date: Re: BrainBashers: October 2008 Common Answers Results
- Previous by thread: Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- Next by thread: Re: sum{k>=m} floor(n/k) = n
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|