Every natural number $n$ can be written as $n=s-t$ with $omega(s)=omega(t)$












4












$begingroup$


Can we prove the following statement ?




Every natural number $n$ can be written as $n=s-t$ ($s,t$ positive integers) with $omega(s)=omega(t)$ , in other words , the difference of two positive integers with the same number of distinct prime factors.





  • If $n=1$ , we can choose $ s=3 $ and $ t=2$

  • If $n$ is even , we can choose $ s=2n $ and $ t=n$






number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-factorization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the question?
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    Jan 11 at 8:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $n$ is even, then $2n$ and $n$ have the same number of prime factors, so $n = 2n-n$ is a solution
    $endgroup$
    – Charles Madeline
    Jan 11 at 8:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline At least we can be sure that a counterexample , if there is actually one, must be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    We have other possibilities. If we find a number $m$, such that $m$ and $m+1$ are both coprime to $n$ and have the same number of prime factors, we have found a solution as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline Moreover, we only concentrated on solutions of the form $(k+1)n-kn$. This is not required in the question. But I agree that the proof is not yet finished.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:52
















4












$begingroup$


Can we prove the following statement ?




Every natural number $n$ can be written as $n=s-t$ ($s,t$ positive integers) with $omega(s)=omega(t)$ , in other words , the difference of two positive integers with the same number of distinct prime factors.





  • If $n=1$ , we can choose $ s=3 $ and $ t=2$

  • If $n$ is even , we can choose $ s=2n $ and $ t=n$






number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-factorization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the question?
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    Jan 11 at 8:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $n$ is even, then $2n$ and $n$ have the same number of prime factors, so $n = 2n-n$ is a solution
    $endgroup$
    – Charles Madeline
    Jan 11 at 8:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline At least we can be sure that a counterexample , if there is actually one, must be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    We have other possibilities. If we find a number $m$, such that $m$ and $m+1$ are both coprime to $n$ and have the same number of prime factors, we have found a solution as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline Moreover, we only concentrated on solutions of the form $(k+1)n-kn$. This is not required in the question. But I agree that the proof is not yet finished.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:52














4












4








4


1



$begingroup$


Can we prove the following statement ?




Every natural number $n$ can be written as $n=s-t$ ($s,t$ positive integers) with $omega(s)=omega(t)$ , in other words , the difference of two positive integers with the same number of distinct prime factors.





  • If $n=1$ , we can choose $ s=3 $ and $ t=2$

  • If $n$ is even , we can choose $ s=2n $ and $ t=n$






number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-factorization







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Can we prove the following statement ?




Every natural number $n$ can be written as $n=s-t$ ($s,t$ positive integers) with $omega(s)=omega(t)$ , in other words , the difference of two positive integers with the same number of distinct prime factors.





  • If $n=1$ , we can choose $ s=3 $ and $ t=2$

  • If $n$ is even , we can choose $ s=2n $ and $ t=n$






number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-factorization




number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-factorization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 11 at 9:56









Peter

47.2k1039127




47.2k1039127










asked Jan 11 at 8:26









rafarafa

598212




598212








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the question?
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    Jan 11 at 8:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $n$ is even, then $2n$ and $n$ have the same number of prime factors, so $n = 2n-n$ is a solution
    $endgroup$
    – Charles Madeline
    Jan 11 at 8:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline At least we can be sure that a counterexample , if there is actually one, must be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    We have other possibilities. If we find a number $m$, such that $m$ and $m+1$ are both coprime to $n$ and have the same number of prime factors, we have found a solution as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline Moreover, we only concentrated on solutions of the form $(k+1)n-kn$. This is not required in the question. But I agree that the proof is not yet finished.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:52














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the question?
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    Jan 11 at 8:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $n$ is even, then $2n$ and $n$ have the same number of prime factors, so $n = 2n-n$ is a solution
    $endgroup$
    – Charles Madeline
    Jan 11 at 8:39








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline At least we can be sure that a counterexample , if there is actually one, must be huge.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:19






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    We have other possibilities. If we find a number $m$, such that $m$ and $m+1$ are both coprime to $n$ and have the same number of prime factors, we have found a solution as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:21








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CharlesMadeline Moreover, we only concentrated on solutions of the form $(k+1)n-kn$. This is not required in the question. But I agree that the proof is not yet finished.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Jan 11 at 9:52








2




2




$begingroup$
What is the question?
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Jan 11 at 8:30




$begingroup$
What is the question?
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Jan 11 at 8:30




1




1




$begingroup$
If $n$ is even, then $2n$ and $n$ have the same number of prime factors, so $n = 2n-n$ is a solution
$endgroup$
– Charles Madeline
Jan 11 at 8:39






$begingroup$
If $n$ is even, then $2n$ and $n$ have the same number of prime factors, so $n = 2n-n$ is a solution
$endgroup$
– Charles Madeline
Jan 11 at 8:39






1




1




$begingroup$
@CharlesMadeline At least we can be sure that a counterexample , if there is actually one, must be huge.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 11 at 9:19




$begingroup$
@CharlesMadeline At least we can be sure that a counterexample , if there is actually one, must be huge.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 11 at 9:19




1




1




$begingroup$
We have other possibilities. If we find a number $m$, such that $m$ and $m+1$ are both coprime to $n$ and have the same number of prime factors, we have found a solution as well.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 11 at 9:21






$begingroup$
We have other possibilities. If we find a number $m$, such that $m$ and $m+1$ are both coprime to $n$ and have the same number of prime factors, we have found a solution as well.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 11 at 9:21






1




1




$begingroup$
@CharlesMadeline Moreover, we only concentrated on solutions of the form $(k+1)n-kn$. This is not required in the question. But I agree that the proof is not yet finished.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 11 at 9:52




$begingroup$
@CharlesMadeline Moreover, we only concentrated on solutions of the form $(k+1)n-kn$. This is not required in the question. But I agree that the proof is not yet finished.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 11 at 9:52










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

There is a way to prove this directly though, and it is pretty simple:



Case 1: Both 2 and 3 divide $n$, or neither 2 nor 3 divide $n$: Then let $s=3n$ and $t=2n$.



Case 2: 3 does not divide $n$ but $2$ does: Then let $s=2n$ and $t=n$.



Case 3: 3 divides $n$ but 2 does not: Then let $p$ be the smallest odd prime that does not divide $n$. Then let $s=pn$ and let $t=(p-1)n$. [Note that $p-1$ is the product of smaller odd primes, all of which divide $n$ [by def'n of $p$], and 2, which does not. So $omega(pn) = omega(n) +1$ [because $p$ doesn't divide $n$], while $omega((p-1)n) = omega(n) +1$ as well, because the one prime factor of $p-1$ that does not divide $n$ is 2.]






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Nice solution !
    $endgroup$
    – Kolja
    Jan 12 at 0:22



















1












$begingroup$

The Bunyakovsky-conjecture implies that we always find a solution.



To show this, assume that there are infinite many positive integers $p$, such that $$2p+1$$ $$2p+3$$ $$2p^2+4p+1$$ are simultaneously prime. Then, we can choose $p>n$ satisfying this property. Then, $$(2p+1)(2p+3)n-2(2p^2+4p+1)n=n$$ is a solution, whenever $n$ is odd (the even case has already been solved).



There are plenty of other possibilities to choose the expressions, so the given statement is in fact much weaker than Bunyakovsky's conjecture.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069609%2fevery-natural-number-n-can-be-written-as-n-s-t-with-omegas-omegat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    There is a way to prove this directly though, and it is pretty simple:



    Case 1: Both 2 and 3 divide $n$, or neither 2 nor 3 divide $n$: Then let $s=3n$ and $t=2n$.



    Case 2: 3 does not divide $n$ but $2$ does: Then let $s=2n$ and $t=n$.



    Case 3: 3 divides $n$ but 2 does not: Then let $p$ be the smallest odd prime that does not divide $n$. Then let $s=pn$ and let $t=(p-1)n$. [Note that $p-1$ is the product of smaller odd primes, all of which divide $n$ [by def'n of $p$], and 2, which does not. So $omega(pn) = omega(n) +1$ [because $p$ doesn't divide $n$], while $omega((p-1)n) = omega(n) +1$ as well, because the one prime factor of $p-1$ that does not divide $n$ is 2.]






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Nice solution !
      $endgroup$
      – Kolja
      Jan 12 at 0:22
















    3












    $begingroup$

    There is a way to prove this directly though, and it is pretty simple:



    Case 1: Both 2 and 3 divide $n$, or neither 2 nor 3 divide $n$: Then let $s=3n$ and $t=2n$.



    Case 2: 3 does not divide $n$ but $2$ does: Then let $s=2n$ and $t=n$.



    Case 3: 3 divides $n$ but 2 does not: Then let $p$ be the smallest odd prime that does not divide $n$. Then let $s=pn$ and let $t=(p-1)n$. [Note that $p-1$ is the product of smaller odd primes, all of which divide $n$ [by def'n of $p$], and 2, which does not. So $omega(pn) = omega(n) +1$ [because $p$ doesn't divide $n$], while $omega((p-1)n) = omega(n) +1$ as well, because the one prime factor of $p-1$ that does not divide $n$ is 2.]






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Nice solution !
      $endgroup$
      – Kolja
      Jan 12 at 0:22














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    There is a way to prove this directly though, and it is pretty simple:



    Case 1: Both 2 and 3 divide $n$, or neither 2 nor 3 divide $n$: Then let $s=3n$ and $t=2n$.



    Case 2: 3 does not divide $n$ but $2$ does: Then let $s=2n$ and $t=n$.



    Case 3: 3 divides $n$ but 2 does not: Then let $p$ be the smallest odd prime that does not divide $n$. Then let $s=pn$ and let $t=(p-1)n$. [Note that $p-1$ is the product of smaller odd primes, all of which divide $n$ [by def'n of $p$], and 2, which does not. So $omega(pn) = omega(n) +1$ [because $p$ doesn't divide $n$], while $omega((p-1)n) = omega(n) +1$ as well, because the one prime factor of $p-1$ that does not divide $n$ is 2.]






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    There is a way to prove this directly though, and it is pretty simple:



    Case 1: Both 2 and 3 divide $n$, or neither 2 nor 3 divide $n$: Then let $s=3n$ and $t=2n$.



    Case 2: 3 does not divide $n$ but $2$ does: Then let $s=2n$ and $t=n$.



    Case 3: 3 divides $n$ but 2 does not: Then let $p$ be the smallest odd prime that does not divide $n$. Then let $s=pn$ and let $t=(p-1)n$. [Note that $p-1$ is the product of smaller odd primes, all of which divide $n$ [by def'n of $p$], and 2, which does not. So $omega(pn) = omega(n) +1$ [because $p$ doesn't divide $n$], while $omega((p-1)n) = omega(n) +1$ as well, because the one prime factor of $p-1$ that does not divide $n$ is 2.]







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jan 11 at 23:56

























    answered Jan 11 at 23:06









    MikeMike

    3,542411




    3,542411








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Nice solution !
      $endgroup$
      – Kolja
      Jan 12 at 0:22














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Nice solution !
      $endgroup$
      – Kolja
      Jan 12 at 0:22








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Nice solution !
    $endgroup$
    – Kolja
    Jan 12 at 0:22




    $begingroup$
    Nice solution !
    $endgroup$
    – Kolja
    Jan 12 at 0:22











    1












    $begingroup$

    The Bunyakovsky-conjecture implies that we always find a solution.



    To show this, assume that there are infinite many positive integers $p$, such that $$2p+1$$ $$2p+3$$ $$2p^2+4p+1$$ are simultaneously prime. Then, we can choose $p>n$ satisfying this property. Then, $$(2p+1)(2p+3)n-2(2p^2+4p+1)n=n$$ is a solution, whenever $n$ is odd (the even case has already been solved).



    There are plenty of other possibilities to choose the expressions, so the given statement is in fact much weaker than Bunyakovsky's conjecture.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      The Bunyakovsky-conjecture implies that we always find a solution.



      To show this, assume that there are infinite many positive integers $p$, such that $$2p+1$$ $$2p+3$$ $$2p^2+4p+1$$ are simultaneously prime. Then, we can choose $p>n$ satisfying this property. Then, $$(2p+1)(2p+3)n-2(2p^2+4p+1)n=n$$ is a solution, whenever $n$ is odd (the even case has already been solved).



      There are plenty of other possibilities to choose the expressions, so the given statement is in fact much weaker than Bunyakovsky's conjecture.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The Bunyakovsky-conjecture implies that we always find a solution.



        To show this, assume that there are infinite many positive integers $p$, such that $$2p+1$$ $$2p+3$$ $$2p^2+4p+1$$ are simultaneously prime. Then, we can choose $p>n$ satisfying this property. Then, $$(2p+1)(2p+3)n-2(2p^2+4p+1)n=n$$ is a solution, whenever $n$ is odd (the even case has already been solved).



        There are plenty of other possibilities to choose the expressions, so the given statement is in fact much weaker than Bunyakovsky's conjecture.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The Bunyakovsky-conjecture implies that we always find a solution.



        To show this, assume that there are infinite many positive integers $p$, such that $$2p+1$$ $$2p+3$$ $$2p^2+4p+1$$ are simultaneously prime. Then, we can choose $p>n$ satisfying this property. Then, $$(2p+1)(2p+3)n-2(2p^2+4p+1)n=n$$ is a solution, whenever $n$ is odd (the even case has already been solved).



        There are plenty of other possibilities to choose the expressions, so the given statement is in fact much weaker than Bunyakovsky's conjecture.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 11 at 9:45









        PeterPeter

        47.2k1039127




        47.2k1039127






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069609%2fevery-natural-number-n-can-be-written-as-n-s-t-with-omegas-omegat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            Image
            Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
            Read more

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Image
            5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
            Read more

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

            Image
            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
            Read more