Recently, on one of my math competitions, there was a problem that no one got, in clouding the teacher. So I was wondering if it's even answerable.

The answer is not:

N-16.

194

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestDoesn't this depend on the multiplicity of the distinct prime factors?

Are we looking at \(n = p_{1}^{a_{1}} * p_{2}^{a_{2}} * p_{3}^{a_{3}} * p_{4}^{a_{4}}\) for distinct primes \(p_{k}\) with exponents \(a_{k} \ge 1\)?

If so, then the I think the desired number is \(\prod_{k=1}^4 (a_{k} + 1)\).

Log in to reply

Sorry, but I just realized I worded the question slightly wrong. Its supposed to be "with remainder". So for this case, its just \(n-\prod_{k=1}^4(a_k+1)\)

But that's what I was thinking as well. Unfortunately, it's supposedly not the answer

Log in to reply

Weird. Is there any chance that the source of the supposed answer is incorrect? I see now how the "n - 16" and "194" answers arose; you are looking at \(2*3*5*7 = 210\). This number definitely has \(16\) divisors, and thus there would be \(210 - 16 = 194\) positive integers less than \(210\) that would divide into \(210\) with non-zero remainder.

Log in to reply

Do you know what the answer is supposed to be? That could offer a way to backtrack and figure out what they mean.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

What kind of answer is expected? Is it multiple choice, integer answer, short algebraic answer, or long proof form?

Also, what does N-16 and 194 refer to?

Log in to reply

Answers that we tried but weren't excepted

Log in to reply

If it is "with remainder" is the answer infinity?

Log in to reply

That's a thought, but the 'standard' interpretation of "positive integer \(m\) divides \(n\) with remainder" assumes that \(m \le n\). Since it is stated that \(n\) has \(4\) distinct prime factors I think that we can assume that this standard interpretation is being applied, otherwise this prime information would have been largely irrelevant.

Log in to reply

I wasn't aware that I re-shared this. If I did, I certainly didn't intend to.

Gremlins?

Log in to reply

Haha Actually, there have been some gremlins lurking on Brilliant the past few days. Strange things have been happening when posting/editing solutions, causing format changes, symbols appearing out of nowhere, etc.. So yes, your unintended re-share could have been the work of gremlins. :)

Log in to reply