I have found that ,

\[\Large \underbrace{aaa\ldots }_{n \text{ times}} \equiv a \mod n\]

\[\forall \text{ n} \in \left \{ \text{ Primes} \right \}\] also \(a\) belongs to 1 to 9 and also 0.

and \(n\geq7\)

Disprove this for \(n <7\)

**\(Note\)**

Also see Another Interesting fact

\(\overline {aaa...}\) is a single number.

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewest\[\underbrace{aaa\ldots aa}_{n \text{ times} } \equiv a \pmod n \\ \underbrace{aa \ldots }_{n \text{ times}}-a=\underbrace{aaa\ldots a}_{n-1\text{ times}}0 \equiv 0 \pmod n\]

Now we have to prove that,

\[\underbrace{aaa\ldots aa}_{n-1 \text{ times}}\equiv 0 \pmod n , \quad \forall n \in \text{ Prime≥7} \\ a\cdot \frac{10^{n-1}-1}{9} \pmod n \]

As \(n\) is a prime number,

\[10^{\phi(n)}=10^{n-1}\equiv 1\pmod n \\ \therefore a\cdot \frac{10^{n-1}-1}{9} \equiv a\cdot \frac{1-1}{9}=0 \pmod n\]

\[\underbrace{aaa\ldots aa}_{n \text{ times} } \equiv a \pmod n \\ a\cdot \frac{10^n -1}{9}\pmod n \]

By Fermat's Little Theorem,

\[10^n \equiv 10 \pmod n \\ a\cdot \frac{10^n -1}{9}\equiv a\cdot \frac{10 -1}{9}= a \pmod n\]

• QED

Log in to reply

Can you prove the Bonus ?@Akshat Sharda

Log in to reply

Nice one @Akshat Sharda

Log in to reply

@Otto Bretscher , I am still waiting for your reply

Log in to reply

I'm afraid that this congruency does not hold in general. As a counterexample, consider \(a=10\) and \(n=11\).

Log in to reply

a should not be a 2 digit number...

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Its true for all values of a such that a is between 1 and 9

Log in to reply

I guess this is true for all primes except 3...To disprove this for 3....We see that aaa will always be divisible by 3 because for divisibility by 3 we need to check the sum of digits . The sum of the digits for the given number will be 3a which is divisible by 3..Hence the given number will always be congruent 0 mod 3...

Log in to reply

Comment deleted Mar 13, 2016

Log in to reply

Nice property!

I'll try to prove this :)

Log in to reply

I have already half proven it :)

, lets see if your method is same as mine or different

Log in to reply

How did you proved it?

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Comment deleted Mar 13, 2016

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Comment deleted Mar 13, 2016

Log in to reply

Comment deleted Mar 13, 2016

Log in to reply

BTW i proved it by one other way ! by the fremats little theorem ....

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

@Harsh Shrivastava did it ?

Your proof also reflects Fermat's little theorem if noticed clearly , nice job mate , now we have got two good proofs :)))) I wonder howLog in to reply

Log in to reply

@Harsh Shrivastava , @Akshat Sharda

ah we both did the same then !!! Lets create a wiki page for this matesLog in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Sorry guyz.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

@Akshat Sharda and @Harsh Shrivastava are you both moderators ?

Sure , well I have got more such patterns to be proved , we will prove them first and then we could categorize them into a new types of congruences ...... BTWLog in to reply

Well! Can you post other patterns as a note(s)?

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

I'll try to prove 'em when i am free :)

Log in to reply

@Harsh Shrivastava

For sure , but mate many of them are proved by me before,...... but still i will post for new and brilliant proofs by brilliant guys like youLog in to reply

Log in to reply

andbeyondLog in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply