3

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?

ShreevatsaR
  • 41,374
miket
  • 1,069
  • 3
    Could you first explain what this is about? – Marc van Leeuwen May 17 '13 at 12:05
  • This related the prime abc conjecture,see http://oeis.org/A225759 – miket May 17 '13 at 12:17
  • 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. – dreamer May 17 '13 at 14:04
  • 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. – miket May 17 '13 at 14:14
  • 3
    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. – ShreevatsaR May 17 '13 at 14:26

1 Answers1

5

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).

  • That thanks for your great proof! $M$ maybe can be any positive odd number.e.g. $21 (11, 1)$ – miket May 18 '13 at 11:50