Understanding Graham's proof of theorem on Unit Fractions.
In this paper by Ronald Graham, the theorem that every integer greater than 77 has a partition with the property that the sum of the reciprocals of the various "piles" in the partition is 1 (lovely!).
He gives a proof of this which is remarkably short but I find difficult to follow. He demonstrates that all the integers from 78 to 333 inclusive have such a representation and then demonstrates 2 transforms on a sum of reciprocals that add to 1 that retain this property, but which increase the sum of denominators from $U$ to $2U+2$ and $2U+179$.
He then essentially claims that by having a certain property (the above one) hold for all the integers from 78 to 333 and by knowing that the above transforms retain the property, it holds for all integers greater than 77. However, his method of explaining this is quite incomprehensible to me and appears to contain numerous arithmetic errors on top of this!
Can someone either give an alternative proof of the fact using what I've mentioned or simply explain Graham's argument, as it is a wonderful theorem?
number-theory proof-explanation integer-partitions
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
add a comment |
In this paper by Ronald Graham, the theorem that every integer greater than 77 has a partition with the property that the sum of the reciprocals of the various "piles" in the partition is 1 (lovely!).
He gives a proof of this which is remarkably short but I find difficult to follow. He demonstrates that all the integers from 78 to 333 inclusive have such a representation and then demonstrates 2 transforms on a sum of reciprocals that add to 1 that retain this property, but which increase the sum of denominators from $U$ to $2U+2$ and $2U+179$.
He then essentially claims that by having a certain property (the above one) hold for all the integers from 78 to 333 and by knowing that the above transforms retain the property, it holds for all integers greater than 77. However, his method of explaining this is quite incomprehensible to me and appears to contain numerous arithmetic errors on top of this!
Can someone either give an alternative proof of the fact using what I've mentioned or simply explain Graham's argument, as it is a wonderful theorem?
number-theory proof-explanation integer-partitions
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
add a comment |
In this paper by Ronald Graham, the theorem that every integer greater than 77 has a partition with the property that the sum of the reciprocals of the various "piles" in the partition is 1 (lovely!).
He gives a proof of this which is remarkably short but I find difficult to follow. He demonstrates that all the integers from 78 to 333 inclusive have such a representation and then demonstrates 2 transforms on a sum of reciprocals that add to 1 that retain this property, but which increase the sum of denominators from $U$ to $2U+2$ and $2U+179$.
He then essentially claims that by having a certain property (the above one) hold for all the integers from 78 to 333 and by knowing that the above transforms retain the property, it holds for all integers greater than 77. However, his method of explaining this is quite incomprehensible to me and appears to contain numerous arithmetic errors on top of this!
Can someone either give an alternative proof of the fact using what I've mentioned or simply explain Graham's argument, as it is a wonderful theorem?
number-theory proof-explanation integer-partitions
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
In this paper by Ronald Graham, the theorem that every integer greater than 77 has a partition with the property that the sum of the reciprocals of the various "piles" in the partition is 1 (lovely!).
He gives a proof of this which is remarkably short but I find difficult to follow. He demonstrates that all the integers from 78 to 333 inclusive have such a representation and then demonstrates 2 transforms on a sum of reciprocals that add to 1 that retain this property, but which increase the sum of denominators from $U$ to $2U+2$ and $2U+179$.
He then essentially claims that by having a certain property (the above one) hold for all the integers from 78 to 333 and by knowing that the above transforms retain the property, it holds for all integers greater than 77. However, his method of explaining this is quite incomprehensible to me and appears to contain numerous arithmetic errors on top of this!
Can someone either give an alternative proof of the fact using what I've mentioned or simply explain Graham's argument, as it is a wonderful theorem?
number-theory proof-explanation integer-partitions
number-theory proof-explanation integer-partitions
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
asked Jan 3 at 21:44
Isky Mathews
878214
878214
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
What a wonderful theorem indeed :)
You can prove this easily by strong induction. The base case of $78leq nleq333$ has been handled. Assume the theorem holds for all $78leq nleq m$, $mgeq333$. Then $m+1=2k$ or $m+1=2k+1$ for some natural number $k$.
Case $m+1=2k$: Let $U=k-1$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-1)/2geq(333-1)/2geq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+2$.
Case $m+1=2k+1$: Let $U=k-89$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-178)/2geq(333-178)/2=77frac12$. Because $U$ is an integer, $Ugeq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+179$.
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061040%2funderstanding-grahams-proof-of-theorem-on-unit-fractions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What a wonderful theorem indeed :)
You can prove this easily by strong induction. The base case of $78leq nleq333$ has been handled. Assume the theorem holds for all $78leq nleq m$, $mgeq333$. Then $m+1=2k$ or $m+1=2k+1$ for some natural number $k$.
Case $m+1=2k$: Let $U=k-1$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-1)/2geq(333-1)/2geq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+2$.
Case $m+1=2k+1$: Let $U=k-89$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-178)/2geq(333-178)/2=77frac12$. Because $U$ is an integer, $Ugeq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+179$.
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
add a comment |
What a wonderful theorem indeed :)
You can prove this easily by strong induction. The base case of $78leq nleq333$ has been handled. Assume the theorem holds for all $78leq nleq m$, $mgeq333$. Then $m+1=2k$ or $m+1=2k+1$ for some natural number $k$.
Case $m+1=2k$: Let $U=k-1$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-1)/2geq(333-1)/2geq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+2$.
Case $m+1=2k+1$: Let $U=k-89$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-178)/2geq(333-178)/2=77frac12$. Because $U$ is an integer, $Ugeq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+179$.
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
add a comment |
What a wonderful theorem indeed :)
You can prove this easily by strong induction. The base case of $78leq nleq333$ has been handled. Assume the theorem holds for all $78leq nleq m$, $mgeq333$. Then $m+1=2k$ or $m+1=2k+1$ for some natural number $k$.
Case $m+1=2k$: Let $U=k-1$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-1)/2geq(333-1)/2geq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+2$.
Case $m+1=2k+1$: Let $U=k-89$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-178)/2geq(333-178)/2=77frac12$. Because $U$ is an integer, $Ugeq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+179$.
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
What a wonderful theorem indeed :)
You can prove this easily by strong induction. The base case of $78leq nleq333$ has been handled. Assume the theorem holds for all $78leq nleq m$, $mgeq333$. Then $m+1=2k$ or $m+1=2k+1$ for some natural number $k$.
Case $m+1=2k$: Let $U=k-1$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-1)/2geq(333-1)/2geq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+2$.
Case $m+1=2k+1$: Let $U=k-89$. Then $Uleq m$ and $U=(m-178)/2geq(333-178)/2=77frac12$. Because $U$ is an integer, $Ugeq78$, so the theorem holds for $U$. Hence, the theorem holds for $m+1=2U+179$.
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
answered Jan 3 at 22:10
SmileyCraft
3,201416
3,201416
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
Thank you very much! You must agree that Graham's explanation leaves something to be desired...
– Isky Mathews
2 days ago
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061040%2funderstanding-grahams-proof-of-theorem-on-unit-fractions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
