This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .

Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.

Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.

Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.

Markdown

Appears as

*italics* or _italics_

italics

**bold** or __bold__

bold

- bulleted - list

bulleted

list

1. numbered 2. list

numbered

list

Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly

I believe that this is equivalent to finding an $n$ such that the fractional parts of $n \log 3$ and $n \log 7$ are both smaller than $\log 1.1$. (All logs are base 10.)

It seems like this should be no trouble, since $\log 3$ and $\log 7$ are both irrational...but I haven't yet written down anything rigorous. Just thought this would help.

Yes, it easily follows from the fact that given any irrational number $I$ and an arbitrarily small positive real $r,$ there exist integers $x,y$ such that
$1>x+Iy>1-r.$

Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

`*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:

TopNewestLol i literally wrote a python program to try to figure this out I got n = 568, 1136, 2098, 2666, 2905, 4196, 4435, ...

Log in to reply

That's awesome!

Log in to reply

Check out my new problem!

Log in to reply

thanks

Log in to reply

Very very nice problem :D

Hint: Rewrite the numbers as $(5-2)^n$ and $(5+2)^n$ and use binomial theorem :D

Log in to reply

I don't see how the Binomial Theorem helps. Can you explain your solution?

Log in to reply

Look at it again. It is no coincidence that those two numbers have a mean of $5$. :D

Log in to reply

Expand the first few cases

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

YAY! ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC! That's exactly what I was looking for @Patrick Corn @Mursalin Habib @Sreejato Bhattacharya! Please write more! I'm really happy that somebody's got it. :D

Log in to reply

I believe that this is equivalent to finding an $n$ such that the fractional parts of $n \log 3$ and $n \log 7$ are both smaller than $\log 1.1$. (All logs are base 10.)

It seems like this should be no trouble, since $\log 3$ and $\log 7$ are both irrational...but I haven't yet written down anything rigorous. Just thought this would help.

Log in to reply

Yes, it easily follows from the fact that given any irrational number $I$ and an arbitrarily small positive real $r,$ there exist integers $x,y$ such that $1>x+Iy>1-r.$

Or alternatively, one-liner:

:P

Log in to reply

Voted up for the Sonnhard reference :)

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Dr Sonnhard Graubner?

Do you knowLog in to reply

Log in to reply

These two links will give you a fairly good idea of how he posts. ;)

You need to log in to your AoPS account.Log in to reply

Log in to reply

I see what you're saying, but there's a really cool approach that doesn't use logarithms at all. :D

Log in to reply

Nice question/ thing to prove. I'll attempt it. BTW, do you know the proof?

Log in to reply

Yeah dude! This is part of a collection of proof problems I'm collecting from various olympiads. It's gonna be so boss once I've finished. :D

Log in to reply

Finn, im eagerly waiting for you cool approach! :)

Log in to reply

Log in to reply