Replies
Welcome, guest
Join CrazyEngineers to reply, ask questions, and participate in conversations.
CrazyEngineers powered by Jatra Community Platform
-
@zaveri-5TD6Sk • May 17, 2012
I think 3 is the only number that can be written as the sum of two consecutive positive integers . that is 1 and 2 . -
@prashanth-p-at-cchi-rg0z63 • May 23, 2012
zaveriI think 3 is the only number that can be written as the sum of two consecutive positive integers . that is 1 and 2 .
There are many..... In fact all, other than the powers of 2.
Ex:5 can be 2+3, 6 can be 3+2+1.
whereas 4,8,16 cannot be that way. -
@prashanth-p-at-cchi-rg0z63 • May 24, 2012
How do you want this to be proved???? Examples???Banashree PatraProve that the positive integers that cannot be written as sums of two or more consecutive integers are precisely the powers of 2. -
@shashank-94ap1q • Sep 17, 2014
Banashree PatraProve that the positive integers that cannot be written as sums of two or more consecutive integers are precisely the powers of 2.
I am curious, is this a textbook example? If you observed that yourself, I need an autograph right away.
Secondly, it is a real neat one. I am trying, but I kind of know this one needs more than just my pedestrian math skills.
Thank you for sharing. Do share the source. -
@shashank-94ap1q • Jan 6, 2015
I have been seriously amazed by this mathematical statement. Never thought about this. After some procrastination, today I sat down to write a proof. Hopefully, I have done a convincing job. Please feel free to criticize this. Its handwritten, and my handwriting is very poor. Please accommodate that. -
@shashank-94ap1q • Jan 8, 2015
Shashank MogheI have been seriously amazed by this mathematical statement. Never thought about this. After some procrastination, today I sat down to write a proof. Hopefully, I have done a convincing job. Please feel free to criticize this. Its handwritten, and my handwriting is very poor. Please accommodate that.
Well, after some deliberation, I found out myself that the "proof" is wrong. It might be a good exercise (to those interested) to find the mistake in the "proof".