Subscribe via feed.

Maths challenge 6

Posted by Chris on June 30, 2011 – 8:04 pm

Following on from Karl’s smallest square twin problem, find a (I won’t insist on the smallest) cubic twin. i.e I want something that looks like 123123 = 50³ (that example doesn’t work).

As it has  rather a lot of digits, I won’t insist on an explicit number.

This post is under “MathsChallenge” and has 11 respond so far.

11 Responds so far- Add one»

1. 1. Karl Sharman Said：

Well, that’s ruined my follow up question…

2. 2. Chris Said：

Hi Karl. Oh dear, I keep om doing that. Post your version and I’ll delete mine if yours is at least as good. Mine was written without too much thought – I revised it a few times because I kept on making it too hard.

3. 3. Karl Sharman Said：

No Chris, my question was simply, as you put it, what’s the lowest cubic twin… It appears to be considerably harder and larger than I imagined such a simple question to be! I take it you have approached this by a modulo route?

4. 4. Chris Said：

Hi Karl. Your questiion is much harder than mine (i.e.I don’t know of a slick way to get the smallest cubic twin). I don’t know a slick non Cadbury Number Crunchie way to get the smallest result. Even that route will be quite taxing. Factoring large numbers takes a looooong time.

5. 5. Karl Sharman Said：

Don’t worry, I haven’t got an answer yet, and, my last code/programme just failed, so back to the drawing board!

6. 6. Chris Said：

Looks like no-one is game for this. As with Karl’s Smallest Square problem, letting N be the half-twin, we want N(1 + 10n) = m3. As before, we need 1+10n to have a factor which is (at least) a cube. Let that factor be p3. Then 1+10n = kp3. Then we need 1+10n = 0 (mod p3). But we know that
10φ = 1 (mod p3) where φ represents φ(p3) = p2(p-1). As before, p cannot be 2, 3 or 5. But φ(73) = 294 = 2*147, and sure enough 10147 = -1 (mod 73). So n = 147. If try p = 11 and 13, you simply get bigger numbers, but I haven’t tried further than that.
So k = (1+10147)/73 = 29154518950437317784256559766763848396
501457725947521865889212827988338192419825072886297376
09329446064139941690962099125364431486880466472303207.

I’m too lazy to finish this off. I’m satisfied to see such a ridiculously big number.

7. 7. Chris Said：

Lazy mode subsided. That last number ≈ 2.9*10144. To pad it to 147 digits, we must multiply it by a cube, q3, in the range 73/10 ≤ q3 < 73. So q = 4,5,6 will do. q = 4 => N =
18658892128279883381924198250728862973760932944606413994169
09620991253644314868804664723032069970845481049562682215743
44023323615160349854227405248 and that’s the half twin

8. 8. slavy Said：

Hi Chris,

I finally read the problem and the discussion, and I can tell you that you are wrong! The “cubic” twin problem is completely different than the “quadratic” one and my intuition tells me that in this setting we don’t have any solutions, at all. Where is the difference? In the quadratic problem it was enough to eliminate one of the prime factors of 10^n+1, while in the cubic case this is not the case – one needs to check if “sufficiently many” of the other prime factors appear in an even degree in the decomposition of 10^n+1. And this is extremely difficult to analyze! In simpler words, we need decomposition 10^n+1=A^3*B^2*C, such that B*C^2<10^n and good luck achieving it (Again, this is not enough, because the "massaging" factors like 2^3, or 3^3 may cause further problems).

9. 9. Chris Said：

Hi slavy. How embarassing, you are absolutely right, unless there is an exeptionally special case where φ(p3) is usefully divisible by a large factor, the problem can’t be solved. I should have done the full analysis as in Karl’s Smallest Square problem; I would have ended up showing that N had too many digits, and so couldn’t do the job.

NB Although I’ve focused on p prime, I know that it could be composite.

10. 10. Chris Said：