▲ 1265 ▼ Panik (i.postimg.cc) submitted 2 years ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 146 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 176 points 2 years ago (12 children) Also, any number whose digits sum to a multiple of 3 is divisible by 3. For 51, 5+1=6, and 6 is a multiple of 3, so 51 can be cleanly divided by 3. permalink fedilink source hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I'd forgotten this trick. It works for large numbers too. 122,300,223÷3 = 40,766, 741 1+2+2+3+2+2+3 = 15 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chooglers@lemmy.ml 52 points 2 years ago (2 children) threw up and died while reading this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wish I could read 😞 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just squint and wing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is way too accurate. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent [–] triclops6@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Also works with 9s! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) The neat part is that if you add the numbers together and they're still too large to tell, you can do it again. In your example, you get 15. If you do it again, you get 6, which isn't the best example because 15 is pretty obvious, but it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (3 children) But how do I prove it for 6 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Get 6 apples. Duh. permalink fedilink source parent [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Prove it for 2, then un-distribute. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago There is a mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 so surely you could make a proof for 6 ÷ 3 = 2 permalink fedilink source parent [–] paddirn@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) Witchcraft! Burn them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) She turned me into a newt! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] directive2385@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago ...I got better permalink fedilink source parent [–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fuck you and take an upvote for coming here to state what I was going to when I immediately summed 5+1 to 6 and felt clever thinking "well I do know it's not prime and divisible by 3" Shakes fist I'll get you NEXT time logicbomb! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago Posted the same info. Silly me permalink fedilink source parent [–] beckerist@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Same with 9. There are rules for every number at least through 13 that I once knew... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (3 children) I only know rules for 2 (even number), 3 (digits sum to 3), 4 (last two digits are divisible by 4), 5 (ends in 5 or 0), 6 (if it satisfies the rules for both 3 and 2), 9 (digits sum to 9), and 10 (ends in 0). I don't know of one for 7, 8 or 13. 11 has a limited goofy one that involves seeing if the outer digits sum to the inner digits. 12 is divisible by both 3 and 4, so like 6, it has to satisfy both of those rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] beckerist@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) 7 is double the last number and subtract from the rest 749 (easily divisible by 7 but for example sake) 9*2=18 74-18=56 6*2=12 5-12= -7, or if you recognize 56 is 7*8... I'll do another, random 6 digit number appear! 59271 1*2=2 5927-2=5925 5*2=10 592-10=582 2*2=4 58-4=54, or not divisible I guess for this to work you should at least know the first 10 times tables... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Another way to tell if 59271 is divisible by 7 is to divide it by 7. It will take about the same amount of time as the trick you're presenting, and then you'll already have the result. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) But at least I seems like you could do that trick in your head permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm sure every digit has rules to figure it out if you get technical enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I looked up a rule for 7, and it seems like it would take about the same amount of time as actually dividing the number by 7. Meanwhile, it looks like the rule for 8 is to see if the last 3 digits are divisible by 8, which seems like a real time save for big numbers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] octoperson@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago 11 is alternating sum So, first digit minus second plus third minus fourth... And then check if that is divisible by 11. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) What does the proof for this look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/341202/how-to-prove-the-divisibility-rule-for-3-casting-out-threes permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago 90° permalink fedilink source parent [–] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (3 children) And since both 3 and 17 are prime numbers, that makes 51 a semiprime number permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Which is not really rare under 100. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago Which is why it feels kind of prime, imho. I don't know if other people get this, but I get a sense of which two-digit numbers are prime probably because of how often they show up in times tables and other maths operations. 3*17 isn't a common operation though and doesn't show up in tables like that, so people probably aren't generally familiar with it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Do do do, do do do do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does this also work the other way round, i.e. do all multiples of three have digits that sum to a multiple of 3? All the ones I've checked so far do, but is it proven? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goddard_guryon@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Indeed, an integer is divisible by 3 if and only if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3. For proof, take the polynomial representation of an integer n = a_0 * 10^k + a_1 * 10^{k-1} + ... + a_k * 1. Note that 10 mod 3 = 1, which means that 10^i mod 3 = (10 mod 3)^i = 1. This makes all powers of 10 = 1 and you're left with n = a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k. Thus, n is divisible by 3 iff a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k is. Also note that iff answers your question then; all multiples of 3 have to, by definition, have digits whose sum is a multiple of 3 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for this detailed response 🙏 permalink fedilink source parent [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Username checks out permalink fedilink source parent [–] fleabomber@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago Show off permalink fedilink source parent [–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago Til thanks permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fades@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Oh, neat trick! permalink fedilink source parent [–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Damn, logicbomb indeed! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I'd forgotten this trick. It works for large numbers too. 122,300,223÷3 = 40,766, 741 1+2+2+3+2+2+3 = 15 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chooglers@lemmy.ml 52 points 2 years ago (2 children) threw up and died while reading this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wish I could read 😞 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just squint and wing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is way too accurate. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent [–] triclops6@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Also works with 9s! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) The neat part is that if you add the numbers together and they're still too large to tell, you can do it again. In your example, you get 15. If you do it again, you get 6, which isn't the best example because 15 is pretty obvious, but it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (3 children) But how do I prove it for 6 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Get 6 apples. Duh. permalink fedilink source parent [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Prove it for 2, then un-distribute. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago There is a mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 so surely you could make a proof for 6 ÷ 3 = 2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chooglers@lemmy.ml 52 points 2 years ago (2 children) threw up and died while reading this permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wish I could read 😞 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just squint and wing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is way too accurate. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent [–] triclops6@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Also works with 9s! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wish I could read 😞 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just squint and wing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is way too accurate. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just squint and wing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is way too accurate. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is way too accurate. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago ^ This. The thing about Arsenal is they always try and walk it in. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 child) The neat part is that if you add the numbers together and they're still too large to tell, you can do it again. In your example, you get 15. If you do it again, you get 6, which isn't the best example because 15 is pretty obvious, but it works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (3 children) But how do I prove it for 6 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Get 6 apples. Duh. permalink fedilink source parent [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Prove it for 2, then un-distribute. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago There is a mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 so surely you could make a proof for 6 ÷ 3 = 2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (3 children) But how do I prove it for 6 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Get 6 apples. Duh. permalink fedilink source parent [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Prove it for 2, then un-distribute. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago There is a mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 so surely you could make a proof for 6 ÷ 3 = 2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Prove it for 2, then un-distribute. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago There is a mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 so surely you could make a proof for 6 ÷ 3 = 2 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) Witchcraft! Burn them! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) She turned me into a newt! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] directive2385@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago ...I got better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) She turned me into a newt! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] directive2385@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago ...I got better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] directive2385@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago ...I got better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fuck you and take an upvote for coming here to state what I was going to when I immediately summed 5+1 to 6 and felt clever thinking "well I do know it's not prime and divisible by 3" Shakes fist I'll get you NEXT time logicbomb! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago Posted the same info. Silly me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago Posted the same info. Silly me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beckerist@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Same with 9. There are rules for every number at least through 13 that I once knew... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (3 children) I only know rules for 2 (even number), 3 (digits sum to 3), 4 (last two digits are divisible by 4), 5 (ends in 5 or 0), 6 (if it satisfies the rules for both 3 and 2), 9 (digits sum to 9), and 10 (ends in 0). I don't know of one for 7, 8 or 13. 11 has a limited goofy one that involves seeing if the outer digits sum to the inner digits. 12 is divisible by both 3 and 4, so like 6, it has to satisfy both of those rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] beckerist@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) 7 is double the last number and subtract from the rest 749 (easily divisible by 7 but for example sake) 9*2=18 74-18=56 6*2=12 5-12= -7, or if you recognize 56 is 7*8... I'll do another, random 6 digit number appear! 59271 1*2=2 5927-2=5925 5*2=10 592-10=582 2*2=4 58-4=54, or not divisible I guess for this to work you should at least know the first 10 times tables... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Another way to tell if 59271 is divisible by 7 is to divide it by 7. It will take about the same amount of time as the trick you're presenting, and then you'll already have the result. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) But at least I seems like you could do that trick in your head permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm sure every digit has rules to figure it out if you get technical enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I looked up a rule for 7, and it seems like it would take about the same amount of time as actually dividing the number by 7. Meanwhile, it looks like the rule for 8 is to see if the last 3 digits are divisible by 8, which seems like a real time save for big numbers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] octoperson@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago 11 is alternating sum So, first digit minus second plus third minus fourth... And then check if that is divisible by 11. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (3 children) I only know rules for 2 (even number), 3 (digits sum to 3), 4 (last two digits are divisible by 4), 5 (ends in 5 or 0), 6 (if it satisfies the rules for both 3 and 2), 9 (digits sum to 9), and 10 (ends in 0). I don't know of one for 7, 8 or 13. 11 has a limited goofy one that involves seeing if the outer digits sum to the inner digits. 12 is divisible by both 3 and 4, so like 6, it has to satisfy both of those rules. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] beckerist@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) 7 is double the last number and subtract from the rest 749 (easily divisible by 7 but for example sake) 9*2=18 74-18=56 6*2=12 5-12= -7, or if you recognize 56 is 7*8... I'll do another, random 6 digit number appear! 59271 1*2=2 5927-2=5925 5*2=10 592-10=582 2*2=4 58-4=54, or not divisible I guess for this to work you should at least know the first 10 times tables... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Another way to tell if 59271 is divisible by 7 is to divide it by 7. It will take about the same amount of time as the trick you're presenting, and then you'll already have the result. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) But at least I seems like you could do that trick in your head permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm sure every digit has rules to figure it out if you get technical enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I looked up a rule for 7, and it seems like it would take about the same amount of time as actually dividing the number by 7. Meanwhile, it looks like the rule for 8 is to see if the last 3 digits are divisible by 8, which seems like a real time save for big numbers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] octoperson@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago 11 is alternating sum So, first digit minus second plus third minus fourth... And then check if that is divisible by 11. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beckerist@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) 7 is double the last number and subtract from the rest 749 (easily divisible by 7 but for example sake) 9*2=18 74-18=56 6*2=12 5-12= -7, or if you recognize 56 is 7*8... I'll do another, random 6 digit number appear! 59271 1*2=2 5927-2=5925 5*2=10 592-10=582 2*2=4 58-4=54, or not divisible I guess for this to work you should at least know the first 10 times tables... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Another way to tell if 59271 is divisible by 7 is to divide it by 7. It will take about the same amount of time as the trick you're presenting, and then you'll already have the result. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) But at least I seems like you could do that trick in your head permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) Another way to tell if 59271 is divisible by 7 is to divide it by 7. It will take about the same amount of time as the trick you're presenting, and then you'll already have the result. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) But at least I seems like you could do that trick in your head permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) But at least I seems like you could do that trick in your head permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago If you have no interest in the result of the division, then you can also do the division in your head, without retaining the result, with about the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm sure every digit has rules to figure it out if you get technical enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I looked up a rule for 7, and it seems like it would take about the same amount of time as actually dividing the number by 7. Meanwhile, it looks like the rule for 8 is to see if the last 3 digits are divisible by 8, which seems like a real time save for big numbers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I looked up a rule for 7, and it seems like it would take about the same amount of time as actually dividing the number by 7. Meanwhile, it looks like the rule for 8 is to see if the last 3 digits are divisible by 8, which seems like a real time save for big numbers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] beckerist@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] octoperson@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago 11 is alternating sum So, first digit minus second plus third minus fourth... And then check if that is divisible by 11. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) What does the proof for this look like? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/341202/how-to-prove-the-divisibility-rule-for-3-casting-out-threes permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago 90° permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/341202/how-to-prove-the-divisibility-rule-for-3-casting-out-threes permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (3 children) And since both 3 and 17 are prime numbers, that makes 51 a semiprime number permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Which is not really rare under 100. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago Which is why it feels kind of prime, imho. I don't know if other people get this, but I get a sense of which two-digit numbers are prime probably because of how often they show up in times tables and other maths operations. 3*17 isn't a common operation though and doesn't show up in tables like that, so people probably aren't generally familiar with it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Do do do, do do do do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Which is not really rare under 100. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago Which is why it feels kind of prime, imho. I don't know if other people get this, but I get a sense of which two-digit numbers are prime probably because of how often they show up in times tables and other maths operations. 3*17 isn't a common operation though and doesn't show up in tables like that, so people probably aren't generally familiar with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Do do do, do do do do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does this also work the other way round, i.e. do all multiples of three have digits that sum to a multiple of 3? All the ones I've checked so far do, but is it proven? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goddard_guryon@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Indeed, an integer is divisible by 3 if and only if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3. For proof, take the polynomial representation of an integer n = a_0 * 10^k + a_1 * 10^{k-1} + ... + a_k * 1. Note that 10 mod 3 = 1, which means that 10^i mod 3 = (10 mod 3)^i = 1. This makes all powers of 10 = 1 and you're left with n = a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k. Thus, n is divisible by 3 iff a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k is. Also note that iff answers your question then; all multiples of 3 have to, by definition, have digits whose sum is a multiple of 3 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for this detailed response 🙏 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goddard_guryon@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Indeed, an integer is divisible by 3 if and only if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3. For proof, take the polynomial representation of an integer n = a_0 * 10^k + a_1 * 10^{k-1} + ... + a_k * 1. Note that 10 mod 3 = 1, which means that 10^i mod 3 = (10 mod 3)^i = 1. This makes all powers of 10 = 1 and you're left with n = a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k. Thus, n is divisible by 3 iff a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k is. Also note that iff answers your question then; all multiples of 3 have to, by definition, have digits whose sum is a multiple of 3 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for this detailed response 🙏 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for this detailed response 🙏 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Damn, logicbomb indeed! permalink fedilink source parent