Solve $left(frac mnright)^k=0.overline{x_1x_2…x_9}$ (no computers!)












12














I got this problem from my son and he picked it from some local math competition. It's fairly simple:



For numbers $k,m,nin N$ ($kge2)$ we know the following:




$$left(frac mnright)^k=0.overline{x_1x_2...x_9}tag{1}$$




On the right side we have an infintely repeating sequence of exactly nine digits $x_iin{0,1,2,dots9}$ ($i=1dots9)$ and these digits are not necessarily distinct. Find all possible values of expression (1).



The solution seems to be simple: we can replace the repeating sequence of digits with some number $a$:



$$a=overline{x_1x_2...x_9}$$



Relation (1) now becomes:



$$left(frac mnright)^k=frac{a}{10^9-1}$$



$$m^k(10^9-1)=an^k$$



If we assume that $m$ and $n$ are coprime then:



$$n^kmid10^9-1$$



If we are able to find prime factors of $(10^9-1)$ quickly, we are done. True, we can find a few prime factors fairly easily:



$$10^9-1=(10^3)^3-1=(10^3-1)(10^6+10^3+1)=9times111times1001001 \
=3^2times3times 37times3times333667=3^4times37times333667$$



However, the last number (333667) is a tough nut to crack. We can proceed only if we know its factors.



With some help from the computer you can easily find out that 333667 is a prime and the rest of the solution is fairly straightforward.



However, suppose that you are in a real competition - you don't have a computer or a pocket calculator. Factoring 333667 by hand is a time consuming activity and you have other problems to solve as well.



Is there a better approach?



Happy holidays :)










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Well, you need to somehow know at least that $333667$ is squarefree - otherwise, for its factor $p^2$, $1/p^2$ would have purely periodic expansion of length $9$. The problem at this point is actually equivalent to checking if $333667$ is squarefree.
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @Wojowu Yes, that's the key point. If we know that 333667 is squarefree, we are done. But I have no idea how to prove it quickly.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • Testing squarefree-ness is a known problem in computational complexity with no known polynomial-time algorithm. This doesn't exactly tell us there is no way to solve this problem easily, since $333667$ might have some magical properties which make it simpler, but I am being a little skeptical here...
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @JohnDouma A digit can be zero, I have clarified this.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • There was no need to clarify. I just misunderstood. That's why I deleted the comment.
    – John Douma
    2 days ago
















12














I got this problem from my son and he picked it from some local math competition. It's fairly simple:



For numbers $k,m,nin N$ ($kge2)$ we know the following:




$$left(frac mnright)^k=0.overline{x_1x_2...x_9}tag{1}$$




On the right side we have an infintely repeating sequence of exactly nine digits $x_iin{0,1,2,dots9}$ ($i=1dots9)$ and these digits are not necessarily distinct. Find all possible values of expression (1).



The solution seems to be simple: we can replace the repeating sequence of digits with some number $a$:



$$a=overline{x_1x_2...x_9}$$



Relation (1) now becomes:



$$left(frac mnright)^k=frac{a}{10^9-1}$$



$$m^k(10^9-1)=an^k$$



If we assume that $m$ and $n$ are coprime then:



$$n^kmid10^9-1$$



If we are able to find prime factors of $(10^9-1)$ quickly, we are done. True, we can find a few prime factors fairly easily:



$$10^9-1=(10^3)^3-1=(10^3-1)(10^6+10^3+1)=9times111times1001001 \
=3^2times3times 37times3times333667=3^4times37times333667$$



However, the last number (333667) is a tough nut to crack. We can proceed only if we know its factors.



With some help from the computer you can easily find out that 333667 is a prime and the rest of the solution is fairly straightforward.



However, suppose that you are in a real competition - you don't have a computer or a pocket calculator. Factoring 333667 by hand is a time consuming activity and you have other problems to solve as well.



Is there a better approach?



Happy holidays :)










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Well, you need to somehow know at least that $333667$ is squarefree - otherwise, for its factor $p^2$, $1/p^2$ would have purely periodic expansion of length $9$. The problem at this point is actually equivalent to checking if $333667$ is squarefree.
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @Wojowu Yes, that's the key point. If we know that 333667 is squarefree, we are done. But I have no idea how to prove it quickly.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • Testing squarefree-ness is a known problem in computational complexity with no known polynomial-time algorithm. This doesn't exactly tell us there is no way to solve this problem easily, since $333667$ might have some magical properties which make it simpler, but I am being a little skeptical here...
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @JohnDouma A digit can be zero, I have clarified this.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • There was no need to clarify. I just misunderstood. That's why I deleted the comment.
    – John Douma
    2 days ago














12












12








12


3





I got this problem from my son and he picked it from some local math competition. It's fairly simple:



For numbers $k,m,nin N$ ($kge2)$ we know the following:




$$left(frac mnright)^k=0.overline{x_1x_2...x_9}tag{1}$$




On the right side we have an infintely repeating sequence of exactly nine digits $x_iin{0,1,2,dots9}$ ($i=1dots9)$ and these digits are not necessarily distinct. Find all possible values of expression (1).



The solution seems to be simple: we can replace the repeating sequence of digits with some number $a$:



$$a=overline{x_1x_2...x_9}$$



Relation (1) now becomes:



$$left(frac mnright)^k=frac{a}{10^9-1}$$



$$m^k(10^9-1)=an^k$$



If we assume that $m$ and $n$ are coprime then:



$$n^kmid10^9-1$$



If we are able to find prime factors of $(10^9-1)$ quickly, we are done. True, we can find a few prime factors fairly easily:



$$10^9-1=(10^3)^3-1=(10^3-1)(10^6+10^3+1)=9times111times1001001 \
=3^2times3times 37times3times333667=3^4times37times333667$$



However, the last number (333667) is a tough nut to crack. We can proceed only if we know its factors.



With some help from the computer you can easily find out that 333667 is a prime and the rest of the solution is fairly straightforward.



However, suppose that you are in a real competition - you don't have a computer or a pocket calculator. Factoring 333667 by hand is a time consuming activity and you have other problems to solve as well.



Is there a better approach?



Happy holidays :)










share|cite|improve this question















I got this problem from my son and he picked it from some local math competition. It's fairly simple:



For numbers $k,m,nin N$ ($kge2)$ we know the following:




$$left(frac mnright)^k=0.overline{x_1x_2...x_9}tag{1}$$




On the right side we have an infintely repeating sequence of exactly nine digits $x_iin{0,1,2,dots9}$ ($i=1dots9)$ and these digits are not necessarily distinct. Find all possible values of expression (1).



The solution seems to be simple: we can replace the repeating sequence of digits with some number $a$:



$$a=overline{x_1x_2...x_9}$$



Relation (1) now becomes:



$$left(frac mnright)^k=frac{a}{10^9-1}$$



$$m^k(10^9-1)=an^k$$



If we assume that $m$ and $n$ are coprime then:



$$n^kmid10^9-1$$



If we are able to find prime factors of $(10^9-1)$ quickly, we are done. True, we can find a few prime factors fairly easily:



$$10^9-1=(10^3)^3-1=(10^3-1)(10^6+10^3+1)=9times111times1001001 \
=3^2times3times 37times3times333667=3^4times37times333667$$



However, the last number (333667) is a tough nut to crack. We can proceed only if we know its factors.



With some help from the computer you can easily find out that 333667 is a prime and the rest of the solution is fairly straightforward.



However, suppose that you are in a real competition - you don't have a computer or a pocket calculator. Factoring 333667 by hand is a time consuming activity and you have other problems to solve as well.



Is there a better approach?



Happy holidays :)







elementary-number-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago

























asked 2 days ago









Oldboy

7,1191832




7,1191832












  • Well, you need to somehow know at least that $333667$ is squarefree - otherwise, for its factor $p^2$, $1/p^2$ would have purely periodic expansion of length $9$. The problem at this point is actually equivalent to checking if $333667$ is squarefree.
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @Wojowu Yes, that's the key point. If we know that 333667 is squarefree, we are done. But I have no idea how to prove it quickly.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • Testing squarefree-ness is a known problem in computational complexity with no known polynomial-time algorithm. This doesn't exactly tell us there is no way to solve this problem easily, since $333667$ might have some magical properties which make it simpler, but I am being a little skeptical here...
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @JohnDouma A digit can be zero, I have clarified this.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • There was no need to clarify. I just misunderstood. That's why I deleted the comment.
    – John Douma
    2 days ago


















  • Well, you need to somehow know at least that $333667$ is squarefree - otherwise, for its factor $p^2$, $1/p^2$ would have purely periodic expansion of length $9$. The problem at this point is actually equivalent to checking if $333667$ is squarefree.
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @Wojowu Yes, that's the key point. If we know that 333667 is squarefree, we are done. But I have no idea how to prove it quickly.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • Testing squarefree-ness is a known problem in computational complexity with no known polynomial-time algorithm. This doesn't exactly tell us there is no way to solve this problem easily, since $333667$ might have some magical properties which make it simpler, but I am being a little skeptical here...
    – Wojowu
    2 days ago










  • @JohnDouma A digit can be zero, I have clarified this.
    – Oldboy
    2 days ago










  • There was no need to clarify. I just misunderstood. That's why I deleted the comment.
    – John Douma
    2 days ago
















Well, you need to somehow know at least that $333667$ is squarefree - otherwise, for its factor $p^2$, $1/p^2$ would have purely periodic expansion of length $9$. The problem at this point is actually equivalent to checking if $333667$ is squarefree.
– Wojowu
2 days ago




Well, you need to somehow know at least that $333667$ is squarefree - otherwise, for its factor $p^2$, $1/p^2$ would have purely periodic expansion of length $9$. The problem at this point is actually equivalent to checking if $333667$ is squarefree.
– Wojowu
2 days ago












@Wojowu Yes, that's the key point. If we know that 333667 is squarefree, we are done. But I have no idea how to prove it quickly.
– Oldboy
2 days ago




@Wojowu Yes, that's the key point. If we know that 333667 is squarefree, we are done. But I have no idea how to prove it quickly.
– Oldboy
2 days ago












Testing squarefree-ness is a known problem in computational complexity with no known polynomial-time algorithm. This doesn't exactly tell us there is no way to solve this problem easily, since $333667$ might have some magical properties which make it simpler, but I am being a little skeptical here...
– Wojowu
2 days ago




Testing squarefree-ness is a known problem in computational complexity with no known polynomial-time algorithm. This doesn't exactly tell us there is no way to solve this problem easily, since $333667$ might have some magical properties which make it simpler, but I am being a little skeptical here...
– Wojowu
2 days ago












@JohnDouma A digit can be zero, I have clarified this.
– Oldboy
2 days ago




@JohnDouma A digit can be zero, I have clarified this.
– Oldboy
2 days ago












There was no need to clarify. I just misunderstood. That's why I deleted the comment.
– John Douma
2 days ago




There was no need to clarify. I just misunderstood. That's why I deleted the comment.
– John Douma
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5














You want to find whether there exists a prime $p$ such that $p^2mid n$, where $n=333667$. Suppose that such $p$ exists. Then, we know that
$$pleq sqrt{n}<578.$$
It is easily seen that $p>11$, so
$$13leq pleq 577.$$
However, if $p>67$, then $$frac{n}{p^2}leq frac{n}{71^2}<66.$$
Thus, $n$ must have a prime divisor $q<66$ such that $qmid n$ (noting that $n$ is not a perfect square per TonyK's comment under Ross Millikan's answer). Therefore, $n$ must have a prime divisor that is inclusively between $13$ and $67$: $13$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $31$, $37$, $41$, $43$, $47$, $53$, $59$, $61$, and $67$. We can easily rule out $37$ as $n-1$ is divisible by $111=3cdot 37$. This leaves $13$ primes to deal with.



There will be some cumbersome computations. It is not too difficult (but a little bit tedious) to find the square root or the cubic root of $n$ by hand (the cubic root of $n$ is used to obtain $67$ when I say that if $p>67$ then there exists a prime divisor $q<66$). And then you have to divide $n$ by $13$ primes. This is doable, but not very nice.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
    – Ross Millikan
    2 days ago



















2














To prove $333667$ is squarefree, you just have to show it has no prime factor smaller than $sqrt[3]{333667} approx 69$ The small ones can be done by divisibility rules, say $2,3,5,7,11$. That leaves $14$ to try, which is not too bad. You might even know the variants on the classic test for $7$ that you double the last digit and subtract it from the rest of the number. This is based on the fact that $21$ is a multiple of $7$. For $13$ you can note that $39$ is a multiple of $13$ and multiply the last digit by $4$ and add to the rest of the number. For $17$ you can use $51$. That gets you the next few. It would be a few minutes, but if you are quick with arithmetic much less than $10$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 4




    Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
    – TonyK
    2 days ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059977%2fsolve-left-frac-mn-rightk-0-overlinex-1x-2-x-9-no-computers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














You want to find whether there exists a prime $p$ such that $p^2mid n$, where $n=333667$. Suppose that such $p$ exists. Then, we know that
$$pleq sqrt{n}<578.$$
It is easily seen that $p>11$, so
$$13leq pleq 577.$$
However, if $p>67$, then $$frac{n}{p^2}leq frac{n}{71^2}<66.$$
Thus, $n$ must have a prime divisor $q<66$ such that $qmid n$ (noting that $n$ is not a perfect square per TonyK's comment under Ross Millikan's answer). Therefore, $n$ must have a prime divisor that is inclusively between $13$ and $67$: $13$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $31$, $37$, $41$, $43$, $47$, $53$, $59$, $61$, and $67$. We can easily rule out $37$ as $n-1$ is divisible by $111=3cdot 37$. This leaves $13$ primes to deal with.



There will be some cumbersome computations. It is not too difficult (but a little bit tedious) to find the square root or the cubic root of $n$ by hand (the cubic root of $n$ is used to obtain $67$ when I say that if $p>67$ then there exists a prime divisor $q<66$). And then you have to divide $n$ by $13$ primes. This is doable, but not very nice.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
    – Ross Millikan
    2 days ago
















5














You want to find whether there exists a prime $p$ such that $p^2mid n$, where $n=333667$. Suppose that such $p$ exists. Then, we know that
$$pleq sqrt{n}<578.$$
It is easily seen that $p>11$, so
$$13leq pleq 577.$$
However, if $p>67$, then $$frac{n}{p^2}leq frac{n}{71^2}<66.$$
Thus, $n$ must have a prime divisor $q<66$ such that $qmid n$ (noting that $n$ is not a perfect square per TonyK's comment under Ross Millikan's answer). Therefore, $n$ must have a prime divisor that is inclusively between $13$ and $67$: $13$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $31$, $37$, $41$, $43$, $47$, $53$, $59$, $61$, and $67$. We can easily rule out $37$ as $n-1$ is divisible by $111=3cdot 37$. This leaves $13$ primes to deal with.



There will be some cumbersome computations. It is not too difficult (but a little bit tedious) to find the square root or the cubic root of $n$ by hand (the cubic root of $n$ is used to obtain $67$ when I say that if $p>67$ then there exists a prime divisor $q<66$). And then you have to divide $n$ by $13$ primes. This is doable, but not very nice.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
    – Ross Millikan
    2 days ago














5












5








5






You want to find whether there exists a prime $p$ such that $p^2mid n$, where $n=333667$. Suppose that such $p$ exists. Then, we know that
$$pleq sqrt{n}<578.$$
It is easily seen that $p>11$, so
$$13leq pleq 577.$$
However, if $p>67$, then $$frac{n}{p^2}leq frac{n}{71^2}<66.$$
Thus, $n$ must have a prime divisor $q<66$ such that $qmid n$ (noting that $n$ is not a perfect square per TonyK's comment under Ross Millikan's answer). Therefore, $n$ must have a prime divisor that is inclusively between $13$ and $67$: $13$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $31$, $37$, $41$, $43$, $47$, $53$, $59$, $61$, and $67$. We can easily rule out $37$ as $n-1$ is divisible by $111=3cdot 37$. This leaves $13$ primes to deal with.



There will be some cumbersome computations. It is not too difficult (but a little bit tedious) to find the square root or the cubic root of $n$ by hand (the cubic root of $n$ is used to obtain $67$ when I say that if $p>67$ then there exists a prime divisor $q<66$). And then you have to divide $n$ by $13$ primes. This is doable, but not very nice.






share|cite|improve this answer














You want to find whether there exists a prime $p$ such that $p^2mid n$, where $n=333667$. Suppose that such $p$ exists. Then, we know that
$$pleq sqrt{n}<578.$$
It is easily seen that $p>11$, so
$$13leq pleq 577.$$
However, if $p>67$, then $$frac{n}{p^2}leq frac{n}{71^2}<66.$$
Thus, $n$ must have a prime divisor $q<66$ such that $qmid n$ (noting that $n$ is not a perfect square per TonyK's comment under Ross Millikan's answer). Therefore, $n$ must have a prime divisor that is inclusively between $13$ and $67$: $13$, $17$, $19$, $23$, $29$, $31$, $37$, $41$, $43$, $47$, $53$, $59$, $61$, and $67$. We can easily rule out $37$ as $n-1$ is divisible by $111=3cdot 37$. This leaves $13$ primes to deal with.



There will be some cumbersome computations. It is not too difficult (but a little bit tedious) to find the square root or the cubic root of $n$ by hand (the cubic root of $n$ is used to obtain $67$ when I say that if $p>67$ then there exists a prime divisor $q<66$). And then you have to divide $n$ by $13$ primes. This is doable, but not very nice.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Zvi

4,960430




4,960430












  • A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
    – Ross Millikan
    2 days ago


















  • A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
    – Ross Millikan
    2 days ago
















A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
– Ross Millikan
2 days ago




A cube root is not good enough because we could have $333667=p^2q$ for $p,q$ prime. But if we show there is no prime factor smaller than the cube root we are done.
– Ross Millikan
2 days ago











2














To prove $333667$ is squarefree, you just have to show it has no prime factor smaller than $sqrt[3]{333667} approx 69$ The small ones can be done by divisibility rules, say $2,3,5,7,11$. That leaves $14$ to try, which is not too bad. You might even know the variants on the classic test for $7$ that you double the last digit and subtract it from the rest of the number. This is based on the fact that $21$ is a multiple of $7$. For $13$ you can note that $39$ is a multiple of $13$ and multiply the last digit by $4$ and add to the rest of the number. For $17$ you can use $51$. That gets you the next few. It would be a few minutes, but if you are quick with arithmetic much less than $10$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 4




    Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
    – TonyK
    2 days ago
















2














To prove $333667$ is squarefree, you just have to show it has no prime factor smaller than $sqrt[3]{333667} approx 69$ The small ones can be done by divisibility rules, say $2,3,5,7,11$. That leaves $14$ to try, which is not too bad. You might even know the variants on the classic test for $7$ that you double the last digit and subtract it from the rest of the number. This is based on the fact that $21$ is a multiple of $7$. For $13$ you can note that $39$ is a multiple of $13$ and multiply the last digit by $4$ and add to the rest of the number. For $17$ you can use $51$. That gets you the next few. It would be a few minutes, but if you are quick with arithmetic much less than $10$.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 4




    Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
    – TonyK
    2 days ago














2












2








2






To prove $333667$ is squarefree, you just have to show it has no prime factor smaller than $sqrt[3]{333667} approx 69$ The small ones can be done by divisibility rules, say $2,3,5,7,11$. That leaves $14$ to try, which is not too bad. You might even know the variants on the classic test for $7$ that you double the last digit and subtract it from the rest of the number. This is based on the fact that $21$ is a multiple of $7$. For $13$ you can note that $39$ is a multiple of $13$ and multiply the last digit by $4$ and add to the rest of the number. For $17$ you can use $51$. That gets you the next few. It would be a few minutes, but if you are quick with arithmetic much less than $10$.






share|cite|improve this answer












To prove $333667$ is squarefree, you just have to show it has no prime factor smaller than $sqrt[3]{333667} approx 69$ The small ones can be done by divisibility rules, say $2,3,5,7,11$. That leaves $14$ to try, which is not too bad. You might even know the variants on the classic test for $7$ that you double the last digit and subtract it from the rest of the number. This is based on the fact that $21$ is a multiple of $7$. For $13$ you can note that $39$ is a multiple of $13$ and multiply the last digit by $4$ and add to the rest of the number. For $17$ you can use $51$. That gets you the next few. It would be a few minutes, but if you are quick with arithmetic much less than $10$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Ross Millikan

292k23197371




292k23197371








  • 4




    Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
    – TonyK
    2 days ago














  • 4




    Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
    – TonyK
    2 days ago








4




4




Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
– TonyK
2 days ago




Well, you also have to show that $333667$ is not a perfect square. (But that's easy, because a perfect square can't end in $7$.)
– TonyK
2 days ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059977%2fsolve-left-frac-mn-rightk-0-overlinex-1x-2-x-9-no-computers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

An IMO inspired problem

Management

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?