Appearance
❓Prove or disprove that if (a = x^{3} y, b = x^{2} y^{2}), (c = x y^{3}), then for any (x) and (y), the following relations hold:1) (a c + b^{2} - 2 x^{4} y^{4} = 0)2) (a y^{2} + c x^{2} = 2 x y b)3) (a b c + b^{3} > 0)
💡Okay, so I have this problem where I'm given three expressions for a, b, and c in terms of x and y. Specifically, a is x cubed times y, b is x squared times y squared, and c is x times y cubed. I need to check if three different relations hold true for any x and y.First, let me write down what I have:a = x³yb = x²y²c = xy³Now, the first relation I need to check is:1) ac + b² - 2x⁴y⁴ = 0Alright, so I need to compute ac and b², then see if their sum minus 2x⁴y⁴ equals zero.Let me compute ac first. That would be a times c:ac = (x³y)(xy³)Multiplying these together, I add the exponents for like bases. So for x, it's 3 + 1 = 4, and for y, it's 1 + 3 = 4. So ac = x⁴y⁴.Next, compute b²:b² = (x²y²)²When I square this, I square both the coefficients and the exponents. So (x²)² = x⁴ and (y²)² = y⁴. Therefore, b² = x⁴y⁴.Now, plug these into the first relation:ac + b² - 2x⁴y⁴ = x⁴y⁴ + x⁴y⁴ - 2x⁴y⁴Simplifying this:x⁴y⁴ + x⁴y⁴ = 2x⁴y⁴So, 2x⁴y⁴ - 2x⁴y⁴ = 0Therefore, the first relation holds true for any x and y. That seems straightforward.Moving on to the second relation:2) ay² + cx² = 2xybAgain, I'll compute each term step by step.First, compute ay²:ay² = (x³y)(y²)Multiplying these together, x³ remains, and y is 1 + 2 = 3. So ay² = x³y³.Next, compute cx²:cx² = (xy³)(x²)Multiplying these, x is 1 + 2 = 3, and y³ remains. So cx² = x³y³.Now, compute the left side of the equation:ay² + cx² = x³y³ + x³y³ = 2x³y³Now, compute the right side, 2xyb:2xyb = 2xy(x²y²)Multiplying these together, x is 1 + 2 = 3, and y is 1 + 2 = 3. So 2xyb = 2x³y³.Therefore, both sides equal 2x³y³, so the second relation also holds true for any x and y.Now, the third relation is:3) abc + b³ > 0Again, let's compute each term.First, compute abc:abc = (x³y)(x²y²)(xy³)Multiplying these together, for x: 3 + 2 + 1 = 6, and for y: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. So abc = x⁶y⁶.Next, compute b³:b³ = (x²y²)³Cubing each part, (x²)³ = x⁶ and (y²)³ = y⁶. So b³ = x⁶y⁶.Now, add abc and b³:abc + b³ = x⁶y⁶ + x⁶y⁶ = 2x⁶y⁶Now, we need to check if 2x⁶y⁶ > 0.Well, x⁶ and y⁶ are always non-negative because any real number raised to an even power is non-negative. So x⁶ ≥ 0 and y⁶ ≥ 0. Therefore, x⁶y⁶ ≥ 0, and multiplying by 2, which is positive, keeps it non-negative.However, 2x⁶y⁶ is greater than zero only when x and y are not both zero. If x = 0 and y = 0, then 2x⁶y⁶ = 0. So, the expression abc + b³ is greater than or equal to zero, but not strictly greater than zero for all x and y. Specifically, when x = y = 0, it equals zero.Therefore, the third relation does not hold for all x and y; it fails when both x and y are zero.So, summarizing:1) Holds true for any x and y.2) Holds true for any x and y.3) Does not hold when x = y = 0.I think that's it. I don't see any mistakes in my calculations, but let me double-check the third relation just to be sure.If x = 0 and y = 0, then a = 0, b = 0, c = 0. So abc + b³ = 0 + 0 = 0, which is not greater than zero. So yes, the third relation doesn't hold in that case.Alright, I'm confident with my conclusions.
❓100 pairwise distinct natural numbers ( a_{1}, a_{2}, ldots, a_{100} ) are written on a board. Then, under each number ( a_{i} ), the number ( b_{i} ) is written, obtained by adding to ( a_{i} ) the greatest common divisor of the remaining 99 original numbers. What is the smallest possible number of pairwise distinct numbers among ( b_{1}, b_{2}, ldots, b_{100} )?
💡Alright, so I've got this problem here about 100 distinct natural numbers written on a board. For each number ( a_i ), there's another number ( b_i ) written underneath it, which is ( a_i ) plus the greatest common divisor (GCD) of the remaining 99 numbers. The question is asking for the smallest possible number of distinct ( b_i ) values among all the ( b_1, b_2, ldots, b_{100} ).Hmm, okay. Let me try to break this down. First, I need to understand what exactly is happening here. We have 100 distinct numbers, and for each one, we're adding the GCD of all the others to get ( b_i ). So, each ( b_i ) depends on the GCD of the other 99 numbers.I think a good starting point is to consider what the GCD of 99 numbers could be. If all the numbers are even, for example, the GCD would be at least 2. If they're all multiples of 3, the GCD would be at least 3, and so on. But since the numbers are distinct, they can't all be the same, so the GCD has to be something that divides all of them.Wait, but the numbers are distinct, so if they're all multiples of some number ( d ), then ( d ) has to be a common divisor. But if they're all distinct multiples, the GCD could still be ( d ), right? For example, if all numbers are even, the GCD is 2, but they can still be distinct.So, maybe if I can make the GCD of the remaining 99 numbers the same for each ( a_i ), then each ( b_i ) would be ( a_i ) plus that GCD. If the GCD is the same for all, then ( b_i ) would just be ( a_i ) plus a constant. But since the ( a_i ) are distinct, adding a constant would preserve their distinctness, meaning all ( b_i ) would also be distinct. But the question is asking for the smallest number of distinct ( b_i ), so maybe I need to find a way where some ( b_i ) are the same.Wait, but if the GCD changes depending on which ( a_i ) is excluded, then ( b_i ) could potentially be the same for different ( a_i ). So, maybe if the GCD of the remaining numbers is different for some ( a_i ), then ( b_i ) could overlap.But how can the GCD change? If I remove a different ( a_i ), the GCD of the remaining numbers might change. For instance, if one of the numbers is 1, then the GCD of the remaining numbers would be 1, because 1 is a divisor of every number. But if all the other numbers are even, then the GCD would be 2. So, if I have a number that is 1, then ( b_i ) for that number would be ( 1 + ) GCD of the rest, which is 2, so ( b_i = 3 ). For the other numbers, which are even, the GCD of the rest would be 2, so ( b_i = a_i + 2 ). Since the ( a_i ) are distinct, ( b_i ) would be distinct as well, except for the one that was 1.Wait, but in this case, the ( b_i ) for the number 1 is 3, and the others are ( a_i + 2 ). If ( a_i ) are all even and distinct, then ( a_i + 2 ) would also be distinct. So, in this case, we would have 99 distinct ( b_i ) from the even numbers plus one more ( b_i = 3 ). So, total distinct ( b_i ) would be 100, which is not helpful because we want the smallest number.Hmm, maybe I need a different approach. What if I have multiple numbers that, when removed, result in the same GCD? For example, if I have two numbers such that removing either of them results in the same GCD for the remaining 98 numbers. Then, the ( b_i ) for those two numbers would be ( a_i + ) same GCD, which might overlap if ( a_i ) are chosen appropriately.But this seems complicated. Maybe I should think about the properties of GCD. The GCD of a set of numbers is the largest number that divides all of them. So, if I can arrange the numbers such that the GCD of any 99 numbers is the same, then all ( b_i ) would be ( a_i + d ), where ( d ) is that GCD. Then, since ( a_i ) are distinct, ( b_i ) would also be distinct, leading to 100 distinct ( b_i ), which again is not helpful.Wait, but maybe if the GCD changes in a way that some ( a_i + d ) coincide. For example, if I have two numbers ( a_j ) and ( a_k ) such that ( a_j + d_j = a_k + d_k ), where ( d_j ) and ( d_k ) are the GCDs of the remaining numbers when ( a_j ) and ( a_k ) are removed, respectively. Then, ( b_j = b_k ), reducing the total number of distinct ( b_i ).So, the key is to arrange the numbers such that for some ( i ) and ( j ), ( a_i + d_i = a_j + d_j ). To do this, I need to control the GCDs ( d_i ) and ( d_j ) when ( a_i ) and ( a_j ) are removed.Let me think about how to construct such a set. Maybe if I have a number that is 1, as before, and the rest are multiples of 2. Then, removing 1 gives a GCD of 2, so ( b_{100} = 1 + 2 = 3 ). For the other numbers, which are even, removing any one of them still leaves the rest as even numbers, so the GCD is 2, so ( b_i = a_i + 2 ). Since ( a_i ) are distinct even numbers, ( b_i ) are distinct even numbers plus 2, which are still distinct. So, in this case, ( b_i ) are 99 distinct even numbers plus 3, making 100 distinct numbers. Not helpful.Wait, but if I have more numbers that are 1, but the problem states that all ( a_i ) are distinct, so I can't have multiple 1s. So, only one number can be 1.Alternatively, maybe have multiple numbers that are primes, but that might complicate things.Wait, another idea: if I have numbers such that when I remove one, the GCD increases. For example, suppose I have a number that is a multiple of a larger prime, and the rest are multiples of a smaller prime. Then, removing that number would increase the GCD.But I'm not sure. Let me try to think of an example.Suppose I have 99 numbers that are all multiples of 2, and one number that is 3. Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 3 is not a multiple of 2. But if I remove 3, the GCD of the remaining 99 numbers is 2. If I remove any of the even numbers, the GCD of the remaining 99 numbers is still 1, because 3 is still there. So, in this case, ( b_i ) for the number 3 would be ( 3 + 2 = 5 ). For the even numbers, ( b_i = a_i + 1 ), since the GCD is 1 when any even number is removed. So, ( b_i ) for the even numbers are ( a_i + 1 ), which are distinct because ( a_i ) are distinct. So, total ( b_i ) would be 99 distinct numbers plus 5, making 100 distinct numbers again.Hmm, still not helpful.Wait, maybe if I have two numbers that are 1 and 2, and the rest are multiples of 3. Then, removing 1 would leave the rest as multiples of 3, so GCD is 3, so ( b_{1} = 1 + 3 = 4 ). Removing 2 would leave the rest as multiples of 3, so GCD is 3, so ( b_{2} = 2 + 3 = 5 ). Removing any of the multiples of 3 would leave the rest as multiples of 3, so GCD is 3, so ( b_i = a_i + 3 ). Since ( a_i ) are distinct multiples of 3, ( b_i ) are distinct multiples of 3 plus 3, which are still distinct. So, total ( b_i ) would be 98 distinct numbers plus 4 and 5, making 100 distinct numbers.Still not helpful.Wait, maybe I need to have some numbers where the GCD changes in a way that ( a_i + d_i ) overlaps with another ( a_j + d_j ). For example, if I have two numbers ( a ) and ( b ) such that ( a + d_a = b + d_b ), where ( d_a ) is the GCD when ( a ) is removed, and ( d_b ) is the GCD when ( b ) is removed.So, to have ( a + d_a = b + d_b ), we need ( a - b = d_b - d_a ). So, the difference between ( a ) and ( b ) must be equal to the difference between the GCDs when each is removed.Hmm, interesting. So, if I can find two numbers ( a ) and ( b ) such that ( a - b = d_b - d_a ), then their ( b_i ) would be equal.But how can I arrange the numbers so that this happens? Maybe by having some numbers that are part of a larger GCD set and some that are not.Wait, let's think of a specific example. Suppose I have 98 numbers that are multiples of 2, one number that is 1, and one number that is 3.So, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 1 is there. If I remove 1, the GCD of the remaining 99 numbers is 2, since all are multiples of 2 except 3. Wait, no, 3 is not a multiple of 2, so the GCD would still be 1. Hmm, that's not helpful.Wait, if I have 98 numbers that are multiples of 2, one number that is 1, and one number that is 3. Then, removing 1, the remaining numbers are 98 multiples of 2 and 3. The GCD of these is 1, because 3 is not a multiple of 2. Similarly, removing 3, the remaining numbers are 98 multiples of 2 and 1. The GCD is still 1. So, in this case, ( b_i ) for 1 would be ( 1 + 1 = 2 ), and ( b_i ) for 3 would be ( 3 + 1 = 4 ). For the multiples of 2, ( b_i = a_i + 1 ), which are distinct. So, total ( b_i ) would be 98 distinct numbers plus 2 and 4, making 100 distinct numbers.Still not helpful.Wait, maybe I need to have some numbers that are part of a higher GCD when removed. For example, suppose I have 99 numbers that are multiples of 2, and one number that is 4. Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 4 is a multiple of 2, but 2 is also there. Wait, no, 4 is a multiple of 2, so the GCD would still be 2. Wait, no, because 4 is a multiple of 2, but 2 is also there, so the GCD is 2. Wait, no, if all numbers are multiples of 2, then the GCD is 2. But if I have 99 multiples of 2 and one number that is 4, which is also a multiple of 2, then the GCD is still 2.Wait, but if I remove 4, the remaining numbers are 99 multiples of 2, so the GCD is 2. If I remove any other multiple of 2, the remaining numbers are 98 multiples of 2 and 4, so the GCD is still 2. So, in this case, all ( b_i = a_i + 2 ), which are distinct because ( a_i ) are distinct. So, total ( b_i ) would be 100 distinct numbers.Hmm, not helpful.Wait, maybe I need to have some numbers that are not multiples of the same number. For example, have 99 numbers that are multiples of 2, and one number that is 3. Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 3 is not a multiple of 2. If I remove 3, the remaining numbers are all multiples of 2, so the GCD is 2. So, ( b_{100} = 3 + 2 = 5 ). For the multiples of 2, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3, so the GCD is 1. So, ( b_i = a_i + 1 ). Since ( a_i ) are distinct multiples of 2, ( b_i = a_i + 1 ) are distinct odd numbers. So, total ( b_i ) would be 99 distinct odd numbers plus 5, making 100 distinct numbers.Still not helpful.Wait, maybe I need to have some numbers where the GCD increases when they are removed. For example, suppose I have 98 numbers that are multiples of 2, one number that is 4, and one number that is 6. Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 2, because 4 and 6 are multiples of 2, and the rest are multiples of 2. If I remove 4, the remaining numbers are 98 multiples of 2 and 6, so the GCD is still 2. Similarly, removing 6, the GCD is still 2. Removing any other multiple of 2, the GCD is still 2. So, all ( b_i = a_i + 2 ), which are distinct. So, total ( b_i ) would be 100 distinct numbers.Hmm, not helpful.Wait, maybe I need to have some numbers that are part of a higher GCD when removed. For example, suppose I have 99 numbers that are multiples of 3, and one number that is 6. Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 3, because 6 is a multiple of 3. If I remove 6, the remaining numbers are all multiples of 3, so the GCD is 3. If I remove any other multiple of 3, the remaining numbers are 98 multiples of 3 and 6, so the GCD is still 3. So, all ( b_i = a_i + 3 ), which are distinct because ( a_i ) are distinct. So, total ( b_i ) would be 100 distinct numbers.Still not helpful.Wait, maybe I need to have some numbers that are not multiples of the same number, but in a way that when removed, the GCD changes. For example, suppose I have 99 numbers that are multiples of 2, and one number that is 3. Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 3 is not a multiple of 2. If I remove 3, the remaining numbers are all multiples of 2, so the GCD is 2. So, ( b_{100} = 3 + 2 = 5 ). For the multiples of 2, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3, so the GCD is 1. So, ( b_i = a_i + 1 ). Since ( a_i ) are distinct multiples of 2, ( b_i = a_i + 1 ) are distinct odd numbers. So, total ( b_i ) would be 99 distinct odd numbers plus 5, making 100 distinct numbers.Wait, but in this case, 5 is already an odd number, so it might overlap with one of the ( b_i ). For example, if one of the ( a_i ) is 4, then ( b_i = 4 + 1 = 5 ), which is the same as ( b_{100} = 5 ). So, in this case, we have 98 distinct odd numbers plus 5, making 99 distinct ( b_i ).Oh! So, in this case, we have 99 distinct ( b_i ). Because ( b_{100} = 5 ) overlaps with one of the ( b_i ) from the multiples of 2.So, this seems promising. Let me verify this.Suppose I have 99 numbers that are multiples of 2: 2, 4, 6, ..., 198, and one number that is 3.Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 3 is not a multiple of 2.Now, for each multiple of 2, say ( a_i = 2k ), when we remove ( a_i ), the remaining numbers are 98 multiples of 2 and 3. The GCD of these is 1, because 3 is not a multiple of 2. So, ( b_i = 2k + 1 ).For the number 3, when we remove it, the remaining numbers are all multiples of 2, so the GCD is 2. Thus, ( b_{100} = 3 + 2 = 5 ).Now, among the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2, we have ( 2k + 1 ) for ( k = 1 ) to 99. These are all odd numbers from 3 to 199, which are 99 distinct numbers.But wait, ( b_{100} = 5 ) is also an odd number, and if one of the ( a_i ) is 4, then ( b_i = 4 + 1 = 5 ). So, ( b_{100} = 5 ) overlaps with ( b_i ) when ( a_i = 4 ). Therefore, the total number of distinct ( b_i ) is 99, because one of the ( b_i ) overlaps with ( b_{100} ).So, in this case, we have 99 distinct ( b_i ).Is this the minimum? Can we get fewer than 99?Well, let's think. If we have more numbers that are not multiples of 2, say two numbers that are not multiples of 2, then the GCD of all numbers would still be 1, because there are numbers not divisible by 2. If we remove one of these non-multiples of 2, the GCD of the remaining numbers would still be 1, because there's still another non-multiple of 2. So, in this case, the ( b_i ) for these non-multiples would be ( a_i + 1 ), and the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2 would be ( a_i + 1 ) as well. But since the non-multiples are distinct from the multiples, their ( b_i ) would be distinct from the others. So, we might end up with more overlaps, but actually, it's not clear.Wait, let's try with two non-multiples of 2. Suppose we have 98 multiples of 2, one number that is 3, and one number that is 5.Then, the GCD of all 100 numbers is 1, because 3 and 5 are not multiples of 2.For the multiples of 2, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3, 5. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_i = a_i + 1 ).For the number 3, removing it leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 5. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_{99} = 3 + 1 = 4 ).For the number 5, removing it leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_{100} = 5 + 1 = 6 ).Now, among the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2, we have ( 2k + 1 ), which are odd numbers from 3 to 199, 98 numbers.Plus ( b_{99} = 4 ) and ( b_{100} = 6 ).So, total ( b_i ) would be 98 + 2 = 100, but wait, 4 and 6 are even numbers, and the rest are odd. So, no overlaps. So, total distinct ( b_i ) is 100.Hmm, so adding more non-multiples of 2 doesn't help reduce the number of distinct ( b_i ).Wait, but in the previous case with one non-multiple of 2, we had 99 distinct ( b_i ). So, maybe that's the minimum.But let me think again. Suppose I have 99 multiples of 2 and one number that is 1. Then, the GCD of all numbers is 1, because 1 is there.For the multiples of 2, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 1. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_i = a_i + 1 ).For the number 1, removing it leaves the rest as multiples of 2, so the GCD is 2. Thus, ( b_{100} = 1 + 2 = 3 ).Now, among the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2, we have ( 2k + 1 ), which are odd numbers from 3 to 199, 99 numbers.But ( b_{100} = 3 ) is already included in the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2 when ( a_i = 2 ), because ( b_i = 2 + 1 = 3 ).So, in this case, we have 99 distinct ( b_i ), because ( b_{100} = 3 ) overlaps with ( b_i ) when ( a_i = 2 ).So, this is another example where we have 99 distinct ( b_i ).Is it possible to have fewer than 99?Suppose I have 98 multiples of 2, one number that is 3, and one number that is 5.As before, the GCD of all numbers is 1.For the multiples of 2, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3, 5. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_i = a_i + 1 ).For the number 3, removing it leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 5. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_{99} = 3 + 1 = 4 ).For the number 5, removing it leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_{100} = 5 + 1 = 6 ).Now, among the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2, we have ( 2k + 1 ), which are odd numbers from 3 to 199, 98 numbers.Plus ( b_{99} = 4 ) and ( b_{100} = 6 ).So, total ( b_i ) would be 98 + 2 = 100, but 4 and 6 are even, and the rest are odd. So, no overlaps. So, total distinct ( b_i ) is 100.So, in this case, we can't get fewer than 99.Wait, but in the case where we have 99 multiples of 2 and one number that is 1, we get 99 distinct ( b_i ). Similarly, with 99 multiples of 2 and one number that is 3, we also get 99 distinct ( b_i ).So, it seems that 99 is achievable.Is it possible to get fewer than 99?Suppose I have 98 multiples of 2, one number that is 3, and one number that is 5. As before, we get 100 distinct ( b_i ).Alternatively, suppose I have 97 multiples of 2, two numbers that are 3 and 5, and one number that is 7. Then, the GCD of all numbers is 1.For the multiples of 2, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and 3,5,7. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_i = a_i + 1 ).For the numbers 3,5,7, removing any one of them leaves the rest as multiples of 2 and the other two. The GCD is still 1, so ( b_i = a_i + 1 ).So, ( b_i ) for 3,5,7 would be 4,6,8, respectively.Among the ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2, we have ( 2k + 1 ), which are odd numbers from 3 to 199, 97 numbers.Plus ( b_i ) for 3,5,7: 4,6,8.So, total ( b_i ) would be 97 + 3 = 100, but 4,6,8 are even, and the rest are odd. So, no overlaps. So, total distinct ( b_i ) is 100.So, again, we can't get fewer than 99.Wait, unless we have more overlaps. Suppose I have 99 multiples of 2 and one number that is 1. Then, ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2 are ( 2k + 1 ), which are odd numbers from 3 to 199, 99 numbers. Plus ( b_{100} = 3 ), which overlaps with ( b_i ) when ( a_i = 2 ). So, total distinct ( b_i ) is 99.Similarly, if I have 99 multiples of 2 and one number that is 3, then ( b_i ) for the multiples of 2 are ( 2k + 1 ), which are odd numbers from 3 to 199, 99 numbers. Plus ( b_{100} = 5 ), which might overlap with ( b_i ) when ( a_i = 4 ), because ( b_i = 4 + 1 = 5 ). So, again, total distinct ( b_i ) is 99.So, it seems that 99 is achievable, and it's the minimum.Therefore, the smallest possible number of pairwise distinct numbers among ( b_1, b_2, ldots, b_{100} ) is 99.
❓Show that there exists an infinite arithmetic progression of natural numbers such that the first term is 16 and the number of positive divisors of each term is divisible by 5 . Of all such sequences, find the one with the smallest possible common difference.
💡Alright, so I have this problem where I need to show that there's an infinite arithmetic progression starting at 16, and every term in this progression has a number of positive divisors divisible by 5. Plus, among all such sequences, I need to find the one with the smallest possible common difference. Hmm, okay, let's break this down.First off, an arithmetic progression is just a sequence where each term increases by a constant difference. So, if I start at 16, the next term would be 16 + d, then 16 + 2d, and so on, where d is the common difference I need to find.Now, the key part is that each term in this sequence must have a number of positive divisors divisible by 5. The number of divisors of a number is determined by its prime factorization. If a number n can be written as ( n = p_1^{e_1} p_2^{e_2} dots p_k^{e_k} ), then the number of divisors is ( (e_1 + 1)(e_2 + 1) dots (e_k + 1) ). So, for this product to be divisible by 5, at least one of the ( (e_i + 1) ) terms must be divisible by 5. That means that at least one of the exponents in the prime factorization must be 4 more than a multiple of 5, right? Because ( e_i + 1 ) divisible by 5 implies ( e_i equiv 4 mod 5 ).So, for each term in the arithmetic progression, when I factor it into primes, at least one of the exponents should be congruent to 4 modulo 5. That seems like a crucial point.Starting with 16, which is ( 2^4 ). The number of divisors is ( 4 + 1 = 5 ), which is already divisible by 5. Good start. Now, I need to find a common difference d such that every term ( 16 + nd ) also has a number of divisors divisible by 5.I think I need to ensure that for each term ( 16 + nd ), when factored into primes, one of the exponents is 4 modulo 5. Maybe I can choose d such that ( 16 + nd ) is always a multiple of 16 or something like that? Wait, no, because 16 is already a power of 2, and if I add a multiple of 16, it would just be another power of 2, but that's not necessarily the case.Alternatively, maybe I can make sure that each term is divisible by 16, but that might not be necessary. Let me think differently.Perhaps I can use the Chinese Remainder Theorem or some modular arithmetic to ensure that each term has a prime factor raised to the 4th power. Hmm, that might be a bit too abstract.Wait, another approach: if I can make sure that each term is of the form ( 2^4 times k ), where k is an integer, then the number of divisors would be ( (4 + 1) times ) (number of divisors of k). So, if k is square-free, then the number of divisors would be 5 times 2, which is 10, still divisible by 5. If k has other exponents, as long as one of them is 4, it's fine.But how do I ensure that each term is divisible by 16? Because 16 is ( 2^4 ), so if I can make sure that each term is divisible by 16, then the exponent of 2 in the prime factorization will be at least 4, which gives ( e_1 + 1 = 5 ), making the number of divisors divisible by 5.So, if I set d to be a multiple of 16, then each term ( 16 + nd ) will be divisible by 16, right? Because 16 is divisible by 16, and d is a multiple of 16, so ( nd ) is also a multiple of 16, hence ( 16 + nd ) is a multiple of 16.But wait, is that enough? Let me check. If d is a multiple of 16, say d = 16k, then each term is ( 16(1 + nk) ). So, the number of divisors would be ( (4 + 1) times ) (number of divisors of ( 1 + nk )). So, as long as ( 1 + nk ) is an integer, which it is, the number of divisors will be 5 times something, which is divisible by 5. So, that seems to work.But is 16 the smallest possible common difference? Because if I can find a smaller d that still ensures each term has a number of divisors divisible by 5, that would be better.Let me try with d = 8. Then the sequence would be 16, 24, 32, 40, etc. Let's check the number of divisors:- 16: 5 divisors (1, 2, 4, 8, 16)- 24: 8 divisors (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24)- 32: 6 divisors (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32)- 40: 8 divisors (1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 20, 40)Hmm, 32 has 6 divisors, which is not divisible by 5. So, d = 8 doesn't work.How about d = 12? Then the sequence is 16, 28, 40, 52, etc.- 16: 5- 28: 6- 40: 8- 52: 6Again, 28 and 52 have 6 divisors, which is not divisible by 5. So, d = 12 doesn't work.What about d = 16? Then the sequence is 16, 32, 48, 64, etc.- 16: 5- 32: 6- 48: 10- 64: 7Wait, 32 has 6 divisors, which is not divisible by 5. So, d = 16 also doesn't work.Hmm, so maybe d needs to be larger. Let's try d = 24.Sequence: 16, 40, 64, 88, etc.- 16: 5- 40: 8- 64: 7- 88: 6Still, some terms have number of divisors not divisible by 5.Wait, maybe I need a different approach. Instead of making sure each term is divisible by 16, perhaps I can ensure that each term is of the form ( p^4 ) or ( p^4 times q ), where p and q are primes. Because then, the number of divisors would be 5 or 10, both divisible by 5.But how can I ensure that each term in the arithmetic progression is of that form? That seems tricky because arithmetic progressions are linear, and prime powers are not linearly distributed.Alternatively, maybe I can use the concept of covering congruence classes. If I can make sure that each term is congruent to 0 mod 16, or 0 mod some other prime power that ensures the number of divisors is divisible by 5.Wait, another idea: if I can make sure that each term is divisible by 16, then as I thought earlier, the number of divisors will be 5 times something. But in the case of d = 16, the second term is 32, which is ( 2^5 ), so the number of divisors is 6, which is not divisible by 5. So, that approach doesn't work because the exponent of 2 becomes 5, making ( e_1 + 1 = 6 ), which isn't divisible by 5.So, maybe I need to ensure that each term is divisible by 16 but not by 32. Because if it's divisible by 32, then the exponent of 2 is 5, which gives 6 divisors. So, to prevent that, I need to make sure that each term is divisible by 16 but not by 32.How can I ensure that? Well, if I set d to be a multiple of 16, then each term is 16 + multiple of 16, which is 16*(1 + k). So, to ensure that 16*(1 + k) is not divisible by 32, I need 1 + k to be odd. That is, k must be even. So, if I set d = 16*2 = 32, then each term is 16 + 32n = 16*(1 + 2n). Since 1 + 2n is always odd, 16*(1 + 2n) is divisible by 16 but not by 32. Therefore, the exponent of 2 in the prime factorization is exactly 4, so the number of divisors is 5 times the number of divisors of (1 + 2n). Since 5 is a factor, the total number of divisors is divisible by 5.Wait, that seems promising. Let me check:- First term: 16, which is 2^4, number of divisors = 5.- Second term: 16 + 32 = 48, which is 2^4 * 3, number of divisors = (4 + 1)*(1 + 1) = 5*2 = 10.- Third term: 16 + 64 = 80, which is 2^4 * 5, number of divisors = (4 + 1)*(1 + 1) = 10.- Fourth term: 16 + 96 = 112, which is 2^4 * 7, number of divisors = 10.- And so on.Each term is 16*(1 + 2n), which is 16 times an odd number. Since 16 is 2^4, the exponent of 2 is 4, giving 5 divisors from that part. The other factor is an odd number, which could be prime or composite, but regardless, its number of divisors will be multiplied by 5, ensuring the total is divisible by 5.So, it looks like d = 32 works. But is it the smallest possible?Earlier, I tried d = 16, but that didn't work because the second term was 32, which had 6 divisors. Similarly, d = 8, 12, 24 didn't work because some terms had number of divisors not divisible by 5.Is there a smaller d than 32 that can work? Let's see.Suppose d = 16. As we saw, the second term is 32, which has 6 divisors. Not good.d = 24: 16, 40, 64, 88, etc. 40 has 8 divisors, 64 has 7, 88 has 6. Not good.d = 20: 16, 36, 56, 76, etc.- 16: 5- 36: 9- 56: 8- 76: 6Nope, 36 has 9 divisors, which is not divisible by 5.d = 12: 16, 28, 40, 52, etc.- 28: 6- 40: 8- 52: 6No good.d = 10: 16, 26, 36, 46, etc.- 26: 4- 36: 9- 46: 4Nope.d = 8: 16, 24, 32, 40, etc.- 24: 8- 32: 6- 40: 8Still no.d = 4: 16, 20, 24, 28, etc.- 20: 6- 24: 8- 28: 6Nope.d = 2: 16, 18, 20, 22, etc.- 18: 6- 20: 6- 22: 4Not working.d = 1: 16, 17, 18, 19, etc.- 17: 2- 18: 6- 19: 2Definitely not.So, it seems that d = 32 is the smallest common difference that works. Because any smaller d causes some term in the sequence to have a number of divisors not divisible by 5.Therefore, the arithmetic progression starting at 16 with a common difference of 32 satisfies the condition, and it's the smallest possible d.**Final Answer**The smallest possible common difference is boxed{32}.
❓How many positive even integers N less than 500 are there such that the equation x^{lfloor xrfloor} = N has a solution for x?
💡Okay, so I have this problem: I need to find how many positive even integers N less than 500 satisfy the equation ( x^{lfloor x rfloor} = N ) for some x. Hmm, okay. Let me try to break this down step by step.First, I know that ( lfloor x rfloor ) is the floor function, which means it's the greatest integer less than or equal to x. So, for example, if x is 2.5, then ( lfloor x rfloor = 2 ). This is important because the exponent in the equation ( x^{lfloor x rfloor} ) depends on the integer part of x.Since N has to be a positive even integer less than 500, I need to consider different cases based on the value of ( lfloor x rfloor ). Let's denote ( n = lfloor x rfloor ). Then, x is in the interval [n, n+1), which means x can be written as n + f, where f is the fractional part, 0 ≤ f < 1.So, the equation becomes ( (n + f)^n = N ). Since N has to be an integer, ( (n + f)^n ) must also be an integer. But since f is a fractional part, unless f is zero, ( (n + f)^n ) might not necessarily be an integer. However, even if it's not an integer, we can still have N as an integer if ( (n + f)^n ) is an integer for some f in [0,1).Wait, actually, for each n, we can find the range of N by considering the minimum and maximum values of ( x^n ) when x is in [n, n+1). So, the minimum value is ( n^n ) and the maximum is ( (n+1)^n ). Therefore, N must be an integer in the interval [n^n, (n+1)^n).But since N has to be even, we need to count the even integers in each of these intervals for each n, and then sum them up, making sure that N is less than 500.Alright, let's start with n = 0. If n = 0, then x is in [0,1). But ( x^0 ) is 1 for any x ≠ 0. So, N would be 1, which is not even. So, n = 0 doesn't contribute any even N.Next, n = 1. Then, x is in [1,2). So, ( x^1 = x ). Therefore, N can be any integer from 1 to 2, but since x is less than 2, N can be 1 only. Again, 1 is not even, so n = 1 doesn't contribute either.Moving on to n = 2. Then, x is in [2,3). So, ( x^2 ) ranges from ( 2^2 = 4 ) to just below ( 3^2 = 9 ). So, N can be 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. But we're only interested in even N, so that's 4, 6, 8. So, three even numbers here.Next, n = 3. Then, x is in [3,4). So, ( x^3 ) ranges from ( 3^3 = 27 ) to just below ( 4^3 = 64 ). So, N can be integers from 27 to 63. Now, we need to count the even integers in this range. The first even integer is 28, and the last is 62. The number of even integers can be calculated as follows: (62 - 28)/2 + 1 = (34)/2 + 1 = 17 + 1 = 18. So, 18 even numbers here.Now, n = 4. Then, x is in [4,5). So, ( x^4 ) ranges from ( 4^4 = 256 ) to just below ( 5^4 = 625 ). But since N has to be less than 500, we only consider up to 499. So, N can be integers from 256 to 499. Again, we need to count the even integers in this range. The first even integer is 256, and the last is 498. The number of even integers is (498 - 256)/2 + 1 = (242)/2 + 1 = 121 + 1 = 122. So, 122 even numbers here.What about n = 5? Then, ( x^5 ) would start at ( 5^5 = 3125 ), which is already way above 500. So, n = 5 and higher won't contribute any N less than 500. Therefore, we can stop here.Now, let's sum up the contributions from each n:- n = 2: 3 even N- n = 3: 18 even N- n = 4: 122 even NAdding these up: 3 + 18 + 122 = 143.Wait, but let me double-check my calculations to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.For n = 2: x is in [2,3), so ( x^2 ) is in [4,9). So, integers 4,5,6,7,8. Even ones are 4,6,8. That's 3 numbers. Correct.For n = 3: x is in [3,4), ( x^3 ) is in [27,64). So, integers from 27 to 63. Even numbers start at 28 and end at 62. The count: (62 - 28)/2 + 1 = 17 + 1 = 18. Correct.For n = 4: x is in [4,5), ( x^4 ) is in [256,625). But N must be less than 500, so up to 499. So, integers from 256 to 499. Even numbers start at 256 and end at 498. The count: (498 - 256)/2 + 1 = 242/2 + 1 = 121 + 1 = 122. Correct.Adding them up: 3 + 18 + 122 = 143. So, the total number of positive even integers N less than 500 is 143.I think that's the answer. But just to be thorough, let me check if there's any overlap or if I missed any cases.n = 0: N =1, not even.n =1: N=1, not even.n=2: 3 even N.n=3: 18 even N.n=4: 122 even N.n=5 and above: N ≥3125, which is beyond 500.So, no overlaps, and all cases are covered. Therefore, 143 is the correct count.
❓The eccentricity of the hyperbola frac{{x}^{2}}{{a}^{2}}-frac{{y}^{2}}{{b}^{2}}=1 is e_{1}, and the eccentricity of the hyperbola frac{{y}^{2}}{{b}^{2}}-frac{{x}^{2}}{{a}^{2}}=1 is e_{2}. Then the value of e_{1}+e_{2} cannot be ( ).A: 3B: 2sqrt{2}C: frac{14}{5}D: frac{5}{2}
💡Okay, so I'm trying to solve this problem about hyperbolas and their eccentricities. The question gives me two hyperbola equations:1. (frac{x^2}{a^2} - frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1) with eccentricity (e_1).2. (frac{y^2}{b^2} - frac{x^2}{a^2} = 1) with eccentricity (e_2).I need to find which value among the options A to D cannot be the sum (e_1 + e_2).First, I remember that the eccentricity of a hyperbola is given by (e = sqrt{1 + frac{b^2}{a^2}}) for the first type of hyperbola (opening horizontally), and similarly, for the second type (opening vertically), it should be (e = sqrt{1 + frac{a^2}{b^2}}). So, let me write that down:- For the first hyperbola: (e_1 = sqrt{1 + frac{b^2}{a^2}})- For the second hyperbola: (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{a^2}{b^2}})Now, I need to find (e_1 + e_2). Maybe I can express this sum in terms of a single variable to simplify things. Let me set (k = frac{b}{a}). Then, (frac{b^2}{a^2} = k^2) and (frac{a^2}{b^2} = frac{1}{k^2}).So, substituting back:- (e_1 = sqrt{1 + k^2})- (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}} = sqrt{frac{k^2 + 1}{k^2}} = frac{sqrt{k^2 + 1}}{k})Therefore, the sum (e_1 + e_2) becomes:[e_1 + e_2 = sqrt{1 + k^2} + frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k} = sqrt{1 + k^2} left(1 + frac{1}{k}right)]Hmm, this looks a bit complicated. Maybe I can square both sides to make it easier to handle. Let me compute ((e_1 + e_2)^2):[(e_1 + e_2)^2 = left(sqrt{1 + k^2} + frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k}right)^2]Expanding this, I get:[(e_1 + e_2)^2 = (1 + k^2) + 2 cdot sqrt{1 + k^2} cdot frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k} + left(frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k}right)^2]Simplifying each term:1. The first term is (1 + k^2).2. The second term is (2 cdot frac{1 + k^2}{k}).3. The third term is (frac{1 + k^2}{k^2}).So, putting it all together:[(e_1 + e_2)^2 = (1 + k^2) + 2 cdot frac{1 + k^2}{k} + frac{1 + k^2}{k^2}]Factor out (1 + k^2):[(e_1 + e_2)^2 = (1 + k^2) left(1 + frac{2}{k} + frac{1}{k^2}right)]Notice that (1 + frac{2}{k} + frac{1}{k^2}) is a perfect square:[1 + frac{2}{k} + frac{1}{k^2} = left(1 + frac{1}{k}right)^2]So, substituting back:[(e_1 + e_2)^2 = (1 + k^2) left(1 + frac{1}{k}right)^2]But wait, this seems a bit circular because earlier I had (e_1 + e_2 = sqrt{1 + k^2} left(1 + frac{1}{k}right)), which when squared gives the same expression. Maybe I need a different approach.Perhaps I can consider the expression (e_1 + e_2) and find its minimum value. If I can find the minimum possible value of (e_1 + e_2), then I can determine which of the given options is below this minimum, meaning it cannot be achieved.To find the minimum, I can use calculus. Let me define the function:[f(k) = sqrt{1 + k^2} + frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k}]I need to find the minimum of (f(k)) for (k > 0).First, let's simplify (f(k)):[f(k) = sqrt{1 + k^2} left(1 + frac{1}{k}right)]Let me denote (g(k) = sqrt{1 + k^2}), so (f(k) = g(k) left(1 + frac{1}{k}right)).To find the critical points, I'll compute the derivative (f'(k)) and set it equal to zero.First, compute (g'(k)):[g'(k) = frac{1}{2} cdot frac{2k}{2sqrt{1 + k^2}}} = frac{k}{sqrt{1 + k^2}}]Wait, that seems incorrect. Let me recast it properly.Actually, (g(k) = sqrt{1 + k^2}), so:[g'(k) = frac{1}{2sqrt{1 + k^2}} cdot 2k = frac{k}{sqrt{1 + k^2}}]Now, using the product rule for (f(k)):[f'(k) = g'(k) left(1 + frac{1}{k}right) + g(k) cdot left(-frac{1}{k^2}right)]Substituting (g(k)) and (g'(k)):[f'(k) = frac{k}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} left(1 + frac{1}{k}right) - sqrt{1 + k^2} cdot frac{1}{k^2}]Simplify the first term:[frac{k}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} left(1 + frac{1}{k}right) = frac{k}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} + frac{1}{sqrt{1 + k^2}}]So, the derivative becomes:[f'(k) = frac{k + 1}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} - frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k^2}]To find the critical points, set (f'(k) = 0):[frac{k + 1}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} = frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k^2}]Multiply both sides by (sqrt{1 + k^2}):[(k + 1) = frac{1 + k^2}{k^2}]Multiply both sides by (k^2):[k^2(k + 1) = 1 + k^2]Expand the left side:[k^3 + k^2 = 1 + k^2]Subtract (k^2) from both sides:[k^3 = 1]So, (k = 1).Therefore, the critical point is at (k = 1). To confirm if this is a minimum, I can check the second derivative or analyze the behavior around (k = 1).But intuitively, since (f(k)) approaches infinity as (k) approaches 0 or infinity, the critical point at (k = 1) is likely a minimum.So, let's compute (f(1)):[f(1) = sqrt{1 + 1^2} + frac{sqrt{1 + 1^2}}{1} = sqrt{2} + sqrt{2} = 2sqrt{2}]Therefore, the minimum value of (e_1 + e_2) is (2sqrt{2}). This means that (e_1 + e_2) cannot be less than (2sqrt{2}).Looking back at the options:A: 3B: (2sqrt{2})C: (frac{14}{5} = 2.8)D: (frac{5}{2} = 2.5)Since (2sqrt{2} approx 2.828), the minimum value is approximately 2.828. Therefore, any value less than this cannot be achieved.Looking at the options, option D is (2.5), which is less than (2.828), so (e_1 + e_2) cannot be (2.5). However, option C is (2.8), which is still less than (2.828), so technically, it's also not achievable. Wait, but (2.8) is very close to (2.828). Maybe I need to check if (2.8) is achievable.Wait, let me think again. The minimum is (2sqrt{2} approx 2.828), so any value below that is not achievable. Therefore, both options C ((2.8)) and D ((2.5)) are below (2.828), meaning (e_1 + e_2) cannot be either of them.But looking back at the problem statement, it says "the value of (e_1 + e_2) cannot be ( )". The options are A:3, B: (2sqrt{2}), C:14/5, D:5/2.So, 3 is above the minimum, (2sqrt{2}) is exactly the minimum, 14/5 is 2.8, and 5/2 is 2.5.Since the minimum is (2sqrt{2}), which is approximately 2.828, both 2.8 and 2.5 are below this minimum, so they cannot be achieved. However, the question asks for which value cannot be, and the options are single choices. Wait, maybe I made a mistake earlier.Wait, actually, when I calculated (f(k)), I found that the minimum is (2sqrt{2}), so (e_1 + e_2 geq 2sqrt{2}). Therefore, any value less than (2sqrt{2}) is impossible. So, both C and D are less than (2sqrt{2}), but the options are given as single choices. Maybe I need to check if 14/5 is actually above or below.Wait, 14/5 is 2.8, which is less than (2sqrt{2} approx 2.828). So, 2.8 is still less than 2.828, meaning it's below the minimum. Therefore, both C and D are impossible. But the options are given as single choices, so perhaps the question expects only one answer. Maybe I made a mistake in the calculation.Wait, let me double-check the minimum value. I found that at (k = 1), (e_1 + e_2 = 2sqrt{2}). Is this indeed the minimum?Yes, because as (k) approaches 0 or infinity, (e_1 + e_2) approaches infinity, so the minimum must be at (k = 1).Therefore, the sum (e_1 + e_2) cannot be less than (2sqrt{2}). So, any value below (2sqrt{2}) is impossible.Looking at the options:A: 3 (which is greater than (2sqrt{2}), so possible)B: (2sqrt{2}) (exactly the minimum, so possible)C: 14/5 = 2.8 (less than (2sqrt{2} approx 2.828), so impossible)D: 5/2 = 2.5 (less than (2sqrt{2}), so impossible)But the question asks for which value cannot be, and the options are A, B, C, D. Since both C and D are impossible, but the options are given as single choices, perhaps the question expects multiple answers, but in the original problem, it's a single choice. Maybe I need to check the problem again.Wait, the original problem says "the value of (e_1 + e_2) cannot be ( )." with options A to D. So, it's expecting one answer. But according to my calculation, both C and D are impossible. Maybe I made a mistake in the derivative.Let me re-examine the derivative calculation.I had:[f'(k) = frac{k + 1}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} - frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k^2}]Setting this equal to zero:[frac{k + 1}{sqrt{1 + k^2}} = frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k^2}]Cross-multiplying:[(k + 1)k^2 = (1 + k^2)]Which simplifies to:[k^3 + k^2 = 1 + k^2]Subtracting (k^2):[k^3 = 1 implies k = 1]So, the critical point is indeed at (k = 1), and the minimum is (2sqrt{2}). Therefore, both C and D are below this minimum, making them impossible. However, since the options are single choices, perhaps the question expects multiple answers, but in the original problem, it's a single choice. Maybe I need to check the problem again.Wait, looking back, the original problem is in Chinese, and the translation might have nuances. The user provided the problem as:"The eccentricity of the hyperbola (frac{x^2}{a^2} - frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1) is (e_1), and the eccentricity of the hyperbola (frac{y^2}{b^2} - frac{x^2}{a^2} = 1) is (e_2). Then the value of (e_1 + e_2) cannot be ( )."Options: A:3, B: (2sqrt{2}), C:14/5, D:5/2.So, it's a single choice question, expecting one answer. But according to my calculation, both C and D are impossible. Maybe I need to re-express (e_1 + e_2) differently.Alternatively, perhaps I can consider that (e_1) and (e_2) are related through their definitions. Let me denote (e_1 = sqrt{1 + frac{b^2}{a^2}}) and (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{a^2}{b^2}}). Notice that (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{frac{b^2}{a^2}}} = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}}) where (k = frac{b}{a}).So, (e_1 = sqrt{1 + k^2}) and (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}}). Therefore, (e_1 cdot e_2 = sqrt{(1 + k^2)(1 + frac{1}{k^2})} = sqrt{2 + k^2 + frac{1}{k^2}}).But I'm not sure if this helps directly. Maybe I can consider that (e_1 + e_2) has a lower bound but no upper bound, meaning it can be as large as possible, but not smaller than (2sqrt{2}).Given that, the options are:A:3 (possible, since it's greater than (2sqrt{2}))B: (2sqrt{2}) (possible, it's the minimum)C:14/5=2.8 (less than (2sqrt{2}), impossible)D:5/2=2.5 (less than (2sqrt{2}), impossible)But the question asks for which value cannot be, and the options are A, B, C, D. Since both C and D are impossible, but the question expects one answer, perhaps the intended answer is D:5/2, as it's more clearly below the minimum, while 14/5 is very close. Alternatively, maybe I made a mistake in the minimum calculation.Wait, let me compute (2sqrt{2}) numerically:[2sqrt{2} approx 2 times 1.4142 = 2.8284]So, 14/5 = 2.8, which is less than 2.8284, so it's below the minimum. Similarly, 5/2 = 2.5 is also below.Therefore, both C and D are impossible. However, since the question is structured as a single-choice question, perhaps there's a mistake in the problem or my approach.Alternatively, maybe I need to consider that (e_1) and (e_2) are related in a way that their sum has specific properties beyond just the minimum. Let me think differently.Suppose I let (k = frac{a}{b}), then (e_1 = sqrt{1 + frac{b^2}{a^2}} = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}}) and (e_2 = sqrt{1 + k^2}). So, (e_1 + e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}} + sqrt{1 + k^2}). This is symmetric in (k) and (1/k), so without loss of generality, I can assume (k geq 1), which would make (e_2 geq e_1).But regardless, the minimum occurs when (k = 1), giving (e_1 + e_2 = 2sqrt{2}).Therefore, the sum cannot be less than (2sqrt{2}). So, any value below that is impossible.Given the options, both C (2.8) and D (2.5) are below (2sqrt{2}), making them impossible. However, since the question expects one answer, perhaps the intended answer is D:5/2, as it's more clearly below the minimum, while 14/5 is very close. Alternatively, the question might have a typo or expects multiple answers, but in the original problem, it's a single choice.Wait, looking back at the original problem, it's structured as a single-choice question with options A to D. Therefore, perhaps the intended answer is D:5/2, as it's more obviously below the minimum, while 14/5 is very close to the minimum and might be achievable. But according to the calculation, 14/5 is still below the minimum, so it's impossible.Alternatively, maybe I made a mistake in the derivative calculation. Let me try a different approach without calculus.Let me consider that (e_1 = sqrt{1 + k^2}) and (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}}). Let me denote (e_1 = sqrt{1 + k^2}) and (e_2 = sqrt{1 + frac{1}{k^2}}).Notice that (e_1 cdot e_2 = sqrt{(1 + k^2)(1 + frac{1}{k^2})} = sqrt{2 + k^2 + frac{1}{k^2}}).But I'm not sure if this helps. Alternatively, I can use the AM-GM inequality on (e_1^2) and (e_2^2).We have:[e_1^2 = 1 + k^2][e_2^2 = 1 + frac{1}{k^2}]Adding them:[e_1^2 + e_2^2 = 2 + k^2 + frac{1}{k^2}]Using AM-GM on (k^2) and (frac{1}{k^2}):[frac{k^2 + frac{1}{k^2}}{2} geq sqrt{k^2 cdot frac{1}{k^2}} = 1][k^2 + frac{1}{k^2} geq 2][e_1^2 + e_2^2 geq 4]But this doesn't directly help with (e_1 + e_2). Alternatively, using Cauchy-Schwarz:[(e_1 + e_2)^2 leq 2(e_1^2 + e_2^2)][(e_1 + e_2)^2 leq 2(2 + k^2 + frac{1}{k^2}) geq 2(4) = 8]Wait, that's not helpful either.Alternatively, since (e_1 + e_2 geq 2sqrt{2}), as previously established, any value below that is impossible.Therefore, both C and D are impossible, but since the question expects one answer, perhaps the intended answer is D:5/2.Alternatively, maybe the question expects the answer to be C:14/5, as it's a fraction, but I'm not sure.Wait, let me compute (2sqrt{2}) precisely:[2sqrt{2} approx 2.8284271247]So, 14/5 = 2.8 is less than that, and 5/2 = 2.5 is also less. Therefore, both are impossible. However, since the question is structured as a single-choice, perhaps the answer is D:5/2.Alternatively, maybe the question expects multiple answers, but in the original problem, it's a single choice. Given that, perhaps the intended answer is D:5/2.But to be thorough, let me check if 14/5 is achievable. Suppose (e_1 + e_2 = 14/5 = 2.8). Is there a (k) such that:[sqrt{1 + k^2} + frac{sqrt{1 + k^2}}{k} = 2.8]Let me denote (s = sqrt{1 + k^2}), then the equation becomes:[s + frac{s}{k} = 2.8][sleft(1 + frac{1}{k}right) = 2.8]But (s = sqrt{1 + k^2}), so:[sqrt{1 + k^2}left(1 + frac{1}{k}right) = 2.8]This is a transcendental equation and might not have an analytical solution, but I can try to approximate.Let me try (k = 1): (2sqrt{2} approx 2.828), which is greater than 2.8.Try (k = 1.1):Compute (s = sqrt{1 + (1.1)^2} = sqrt{1 + 1.21} = sqrt{2.21} approx 1.4866)Compute (1 + 1/1.1 approx 1 + 0.9091 = 1.9091)Multiply: (1.4866 times 1.9091 approx 2.838), which is still greater than 2.8.Try (k = 1.2):(s = sqrt{1 + 1.44} = sqrt{2.44} approx 1.5620)(1 + 1/1.2 approx 1 + 0.8333 = 1.8333)Multiply: (1.5620 times 1.8333 approx 2.866), still above 2.8.Try (k = 1.3):(s = sqrt{1 + 1.69} = sqrt{2.69} approx 1.6401)(1 + 1/1.3 approx 1 + 0.7692 = 1.7692)Multiply: (1.6401 times 1.7692 approx 2.906), still above.Wait, as (k) increases beyond 1, (e_1 + e_2) increases beyond (2sqrt{2}). Wait, no, actually, when (k > 1), (e_1 = sqrt{1 + k^2}) increases, but (e_2 = sqrt{1 + 1/k^2}) decreases. However, the sum might still increase because the increase in (e_1) might dominate.Wait, but when (k) approaches infinity, (e_1) approaches infinity, and (e_2) approaches 1, so the sum approaches infinity. When (k) approaches 0, (e_1) approaches 1, and (e_2) approaches infinity. Therefore, the sum has a minimum at (k = 1), which is (2sqrt{2}), and increases on either side.Therefore, (e_1 + e_2) can take any value from (2sqrt{2}) to infinity. Therefore, any value below (2sqrt{2}) is impossible.Given that, both C (2.8) and D (2.5) are below (2sqrt{2}), making them impossible. However, since the question expects one answer, perhaps the intended answer is D:5/2, as it's more clearly below the minimum, while 14/5 is very close.Alternatively, maybe the question expects multiple answers, but in the original problem, it's a single choice. Given that, I think the intended answer is D:5/2.But to be precise, both C and D are impossible, but since the question is structured as a single-choice, I'll go with D:5/2.
❓If p # q denotes the least common multiple of p and q, then p = ((some number # 16) # (18 # 24)) = 144. What is the first number in the first pair of parentheses?
💡First, I need to find the least common multiple (LCM) of 18 and 24. The prime factorization of 18 is (2 times 3^2), and the prime factorization of 24 is (2^3 times 3). The LCM of two numbers is the product of the highest powers of all prime factors that appear in either number. So, the LCM of 18 and 24 is (2^3 times 3^2 = 8 times 9 = 72).Now, the equation becomes:[ p = (x # 16) # 72 = 144 ]Next, I need to find the LCM of (x) and 16, and then find the LCM of that result with 72, which should equal 144.The prime factorization of 16 is (2^4). Since 144 is the LCM of ((x # 16)) and 72, and we know that 72 is (2^3 times 3^2), the LCM of ((x # 16)) and 72 must include at least (2^3 times 3^2). However, since 144 is (2^4 times 3^2), this means that ((x # 16)) must be a multiple of (2^4) to get the (2^4) in the final LCM.Since 16 is already (2^4), the LCM of (x) and 16 would be at least (2^4). If (x) has a factor of 2 that is less than (2^4), it would not change the LCM because 16 already has (2^4). If (x) has a factor of 2 that is greater than (2^4), it would increase the LCM beyond 144, which is not possible because (p) is 144.Therefore, (x) must not have any factors of 2 greater than (2^4), and it must not have any factors of 3 because that would also increase the LCM beyond 144.The only number that fits this description is 1 because any other number would introduce a new prime factor or a higher power of 2 or 3, increasing the LCM beyond 144.So, the first number in the first pair of parentheses is (boxed{1}).