1

An infinite sequence of positive integers $a_1, a_2,\ldots$ has the properties that for $k\geq2$, the $k^\text{th}$ element is equal to $k$ plus the product of the first $k-1$ elements of the sequence. Suppose $a_1 =1$. what is the smallest prime number that does not divide $a_{2010}$?

I have a feeling you have to use mod? But how do you find the twenty tenth number of the sequence?

  • I think the answer will be 5, because I checked until the 18th terms and none of them are divisible by 5. Also $a_{2010}$ is a multiple of 6 so that leaves out 2 and 3. – sayantankhan May 23 '14 at 02:28

2 Answers2

1

I believe the answer is $5$. Here's why. First of all the answer can't be $2$ or $3$. It's easy enough to see why (hint: 2010 is divisible by 2 and 3). Now generate the series modulo $5$.

  • $a_1=1$
  • $a_2=3$
  • $a_3=1$
  • $a_4=2$
  • $a_5=1$
  • $a_6=2$
  • $a_7=4$
  • $a_8=1$

Notice that $a_3=a_8$. Also the fact that $$8 \equiv 3 \mod 5$$. I claim that the numbers will cycle from here onwards. Here's why:

The recurrence form of this relation is $$a(n+1)=a(n)^2-n\cdot a(n) + (n+1) \mod 5\ \ \ n \geq2 $$ Now all of these operations are preserved modulo $5$ . Hence if $a_3=a_8$,$$a_n=a_{5k+n}$$ Using this, you can predict the remainder that $a_{2010}$ leaves when divided by $5$ (it's $1$). Hence the smallest required prime number is 5.

sayantankhan
  • 2,397
1

Modular arithmetic is congruent under multiplication, so we can define sequences $a_k^{(2)}$, $a_k^{(3)}$, $a_k^{(5)}$, etc. to represent the sequences modulo 2, 3, and 5 respectively.

Thanks to congruency we still have the recurrence:

$$a_k^{(p)} \equiv \prod_{i=1}^{k-1}a_i^{(p)} + k \mod p$$

Now it remains to look at patterns in sequences $a^{(p)}_k$.

Modulo 2:

Note: $$a_3^{(2)} \equiv 6 \equiv 0 \mod 2$$

So for any $k>3$, the product term is zero mod 2. Hence we simplify for large $k$ to:

$$a_k^{(2)} \equiv k \mod 2$$

So 2 divides $a_{2010}$ since $2010 \equiv 0 \mod 2$.

Mod 3:

Same approach: $$a_3^{(3)} \equiv 6 \equiv 0 \mod 3$$

Hence, with the same reasoning,

$$a_{2010}^{(3)} \equiv 2010 \equiv 0 \mod 3$$

So 3 is not the factor we are looking for.

Mod 5:

First notice: $$a_1^{(5)} a_2^{(5)} \equiv 1 \times 3 \equiv 3 \mod 5$$

Let's list out the next few terms: $$ \begin{split} a_3^{(5)} &\equiv 3 + 3 \equiv 1 &\mod 5 \newline a_4^{(5)} &\equiv 3 \cdot 1 + 4 \equiv 2 &\mod 5 \newline a_5^{(5)} &\equiv 3 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 + 5 \equiv 1 &\mod 5 \newline a_6^{(5)} &\equiv 3 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 1 + 6 \equiv 2 &\mod 5 \newline a_7^{(5)} &\equiv 3 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 + 7 \equiv 4 &\mod 5 \end{split} $$

Now let's look at $a_8^{(5)}$.

$$a_8^{(5)} \equiv 3 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 4 + 8 \equiv 3 + 3 \mod 5$$

Note how the product term has reset itself to 3 mod 5! This means we have entered into a cycle, since the recurrence into $a_9^{(5)}$ will be like the recurrence into $a_4^{(5)}$, and so on. Indeed, $a_{k+5}^{(5)} = a_{k}^{(5)}$ for all sufficiently large $k$. Notice how the remainder never reaches 0, so 5 is our final answer.

  • What is the product? Where is product term 3 in this case? I'm not verying familiar with mod, sorry. – most venerable sir May 27 '14 at 02:35
  • Why is there a reoccurring sequence? – most venerable sir May 27 '14 at 02:36
  • 1
    If $a$ and $b$ are two integers, and their remainders when divided by $c$ is $a'$ and $b'$, then the remainder when $ab$ is divided by $c$ is the same as the remainder when $a'b'$ is divided by $c$.

    This means that as soon as the terms return to what they were previously, all future terms will act the same way, since we can work with the remainders instead of with the original numbers.

    – Fengyang Wang May 27 '14 at 19:47