3
$\begingroup$

How to prove these two ways give the same numbers?

Way 1:

Step 1 : 73 + 1 = 74. Get the odd part of 74, which is 37 Step 2 : 73 + 37 = 110. Get the odd part of 110, which is 55 Step 3 : 73 + 55 = 128. Get the odd part of 128, which is 1 

Continuing this operation (with 73 + 1) repeats the same steps as above, in a cycle.

Way 2:

Step 1: (2^x) * ( 1/73) > 1 (7 is the smallest number for x) (2^7) * ( 1/73) - 1 = 55/73 Step 2: (2^x) * (55/73) > 1 (1 is the smallest number for x) (2^1) * (55/73) - 1 = 37/73 Step 3: (2^x) * (37/73) > 1 (1 is the smallest number for x) (2^1) * (37/73) - 1 = 1/73 

Repeating the steps with the fraction 1/73 goes back to step 1, and repeats them in a cycle.

The two ways have the same numbers $\{1, 37, 55\}$ in the 3 steps. How can we prove that the two ways are equivalent and give the same number of steps?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Could you first explain what this is about? $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2013 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ This related the prime abc conjecture,see oeis.org/A225759 $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2013 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ You should provide more details as to what exactly this problem is about. Just posting a link and expecting other users to then understand what you are asking is insufficient and will most likely not get you any answers. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2013 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ This is about get cycle length of an odd number, cycle length is the way steps.You see the cycle length of 73 is 3.So I need to know the relation of the two way. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2013 at 14:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This seems a perfectly clear question to me, with no reason to close or downvote. Two sequences of operations are being done: in the first sequence, start with a pair of numbers $(73, n)$, and at each step replace it by the pair $(73, [\text{odd part of }73 + n])$. In the second, start with a fraction $\frac{n}{73}$, and at each step replace it by the new fraction $2^x \frac{n}{73} - 1$, where $x$ is the smallest number such that $2^x \frac{n}{73} > 1$. The question is to prove that the sequence of $n$s is the same. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2013 at 14:26

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Let $M=37$ (or any odd prime for that matter).

To formalize your first "way": You start with an odd number $a_1$ with $1\le a_1<M$ (here specifically: $a_1=1$) and then recursively let $a_{n+1}=u$, where $u$ is the unique odd number such that $M+a_n=2^lu$ with $l\in\mathbb N_0$. By induction, one finds that $a_n$ is an odd integer and $1\le a_n<M$

To formalize your second "way": You start with $b_1=\frac c{M}$ where $1\le c<M$ is odd (here specifically: $c=1$) and then recursively let $b_{n+1}=2^kb_n-1$ where $k\in\mathbb N$ is chosen minimally with $2^kb_n>1$. Clearly, this implies by induction that $0< b_n\le 1$ and $Mb_n$ is an odd integer for all $n$.

Then we have

Proposition. If $a_{m+1}=M b_n$, then $a_m=M b_{n+1}$.

Proof: Using $b_{n+1}=2^kb_n-1$, $M+a_m=2^la_{m+1}$, and $a_{m+1}=M b_n$, we find $$Mb_{n+1}=2^kMb_n-M = 2^ka_{m+1}-M=2^{k-l}(a_m+M)-M.$$ If $k>l$, we obtain that $Mb_{n+1}\ge 2a_m+M>M$, contradicting $b_{n+1}\le 1$. And if $k<l$, we obtain $Mb_{n+1}\le \frac12 a_m-\frac 12 M<0$, contradicting $b_{n+1}>0$. Therefore $k=l$ and $$ Mb_{n+1} = a_m$$ as was to be shown. $_\square$

Since there are only finitely many values available for $a_n$ (namely the odd naturals below $M$), the sequence $(a_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}$ must be eventually periodic, that is, there exists $p>0$ and $r\ge1$ such that $a_{n+p}=a_n$ for all $n\ge r$. Let $r$ be the smallest natural making this true. If we assume $r>1$, then by chosing $c=a_{r-1+p}$ in the definition of the sequenc $(b_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ we can enforce $Mb_1=a_{r-1+2p}=a_{r-1+p}$ and with the proposition find $Mb_2=a_{r-1+p}=a_{r-1}$ contradicting minimality of $r$. We conclude that $r=1$, that is the sequence $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is immediately periodic.

Now the proposition implies that the sequence $(b_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is also immediately periodic: Let $a_1=Mb_1$. Then by periodicity of $(a_n)$, we have $Mb_1=a_{1+p}$, by induction $Mb_k=a_{2+p-k}$ for $1\le k\le p+1$. Especially, $b_{p+1}=b_1$ and hence by induction $b_{n+p}=b_n$ for all $n$.

Finally, we use the fact that $M$ is prime. Therefore the $Mb_n$ are precisely the numerators of the $b_n$. Our results above then show that these numerators are (if we start with $b_1=\frac{a_1}M$) precisely the same periodic sequence as $(a_n)$, but walking backwards. This is precisely what you observed.

EDIT: As remarked by miket, $M$ need only be odd but not necessarily prime. To see that, one must observe that the $a_n$ are always relatively prime to $M$ if one starts with $a_1$ relatively prime to $M$. Consequently, the $Mb_n$ are still the numerators of the $b_n$ (i.e. their denominators are $M$ in shortest terms).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ That thanks for your great proof! $M$ maybe can be any positive odd number.e.g. $21 (11, 1)$ $\endgroup$ Commented May 18, 2013 at 11:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.