Banashree Patra

Branch Unspecified

08 Jan 2015

**sum of two or more nos power of 2.Prove it**

Prove that the positive integers that cannot be written as sums of two or more consecutive integers are precisely the powers of 2.

Prashanth_p@cchi

Branch Unspecified

6 years ago

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@cchi

Branch Unspecified

6 years ago

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 Moghe

Branch Unspecified

4 years ago

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 Moghe

Branch Unspecified

4 years ago

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 Moghe

Branch Unspecified

4 years ago

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".

Only logged in users can reply.