You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I think it's fairly intuitive that the answer is 11 here, but I'm wondering if there is a more concrete/elegant way of solving this?
Thanks
Offline
hi mrpace
You can eliminate the earlier prime factors like this
2? The number is not even so 2 isn't a factor.
3? If you take any number in the three times table and add its digits you get another (smaller) number that is in the three times table. eg. 48 4+8 = 12
As the digits add to 2 we can eliminate 3 as a factor.
5? Number has to end in 5 or 0, so 5 isn't a factor.
7? This is the hardest so far to test. If you divide by 7 you get
142857152857142857.....14285 remainder 6 so 7 isn't a factor.
As you say 11 does work ( add alternate sets of digits to get a difference of 0) so it's the smallest.
Bob
Children are not defined by school ...........The Fonz
You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you! …………….Bob
Offline
Pages: 1