You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Let m,n be positive integers. When m/n is expressed as a decimal, three consecutive digits after the decimal point are 1,6, 7 in order. Find the smallest possible value of n.
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
Since 0.167=167/1000 and that is in the lowest terms, the smallest value of n must be 1000...
Last edited by pi_cubed (2020-07-03 14:32:19)
pi³
Offline
hi pi_cubed
Remember this isn't my problem.
It says '3 digits are'; it's unclear if that means the first three or any three. It doesn't say the decimal is just 0.167 There may be more digits after that.
Assuming it's the first three, I have found an 'n' that is lower than 1000. I got 0.167989....
If the answer may be 0.dddd167dddd then I think I could get an even lower n.
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
401/491= 0.816700....
I am not yet claiming that is the lowest 'n'. Still working on it.
B
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
Assuming it's the first three, I have found an 'n' that is lower than 1000. I got 0.167989....Bob
Hi Bob,
For 167dddd..., I got m=22, n=131, m/n=0.1679389...
Did you omit the '3' that's in my quotient, or did you find a different n than 131?
Here's the complete list of lowest n I found:
167dddddd... : m=22, n=131, m/n=0.167938931...
d167ddddd... : m=107, n=131, m/n=0.816793893...
dd167dddd... : m=50, n=131, m/n=0.381679389...
ddd167ddd... : m=5, n=131, m/n=0.038167938...
dddd167dd... : m=66, n=131, m/n=0.503816793...
ddddd167d... : m=59, n=131, m/n=0.450381679...
dddddd167... : m=19, n=131, m/n=0.145038167...
And for all such {167dddddd,d167ddddd,...dddddd167}, I found that the next-to-lowest n is 137.
Last edited by phrontister (2020-07-06 11:18:16)
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson
Offline
hi Phro,
Great to hear from you.
Just knocked together a short prog. to crunch this. Couldn't do better than 131.
Is there a way to get this analytically I wonder?
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
Hi Bob;
Nice to have another go at something.
I see that your last post came before I finished an edit to my previous post (#5), and so you might like to have a look at that one.
I wrote a small, clunky, BASIC program to get my results, and can't think of a cleverer approach.
It's interesting that all my results for the lowest n have n=131...which looks like a pattern to me.
But it all seems rather frivolous, and so I think I'll leave it there.
Last edited by phrontister (2020-08-05 21:52:24)
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson
Offline
I am not yet claiming that is the lowest 'n'. Still working on it.
http://www.mathisfunforum.com/misc.php?action=rules
Last edited by Raveeshjji (2021-02-03 22:09:18)
Offline
Pages: 1