We have a integer sequence:,
,
, .... and we have
![]()
.
![]()
![]()
Does exist integer numbersuch that
is a divisor of
??
Suppose (in order to get a contradiction) thatdivides
.
Let p be a prime divisor of. Then p must divide one or other of
and
. But this means that p divides two of the three terms in the relation
and therefore it divides the third one as well. However,
, and since p divides
and
it must also divide
. Continuing in this way by "reverse induction", you see that p must divide
,
, ..., and eventually that p divides
.
That contradiction shows more than was asked for, namely that none of the prime divisors ofcan divide
or
.
Edit: That proof doesn't quite work. It's okay unless p = 3 or 5. But those two primes will require some other argument. I don't have time to think about that just now.
Second edit: No real problem with p = 3 or 5. Suppose that p = 3. The recurrence relationsays that if
is a multiple of 3 then so is
. The "reverse induction" procedure then tells us that either
or
is a multiple of 3, which is a contradiction.
In the same way, if p = 5 andis a multiple of 5 then the recurrence relation shows that
is a multiple of 5. Continuing down the sequence to
, we again get a contradiction.
Yes:
I made it also by induction, it is similar:
First I prove that every number from the sequence is not divisible by:
INDUCTION BASE: I see thatdoesn't divide
, where
.
Induction step: I will prove for arbitrary(integer)
that ifis not divisible by
therefore
is also not divisible by
.
I do similar with division by.
And then, also proving by induction I say:
Every three consecutive numbers in the sequence(
) are relatively prime [we also know now that every number from the sequence is not divisible by
and
]:.
INDUCTION BASE: Let- so
are relatively prime.
Induction step: I will prove that iftherefore
. So, we see that
are reletively prime - so
is also relatively prime with
- it is easy to deduce.
Taht's why there does not exist such(integer of course) that
is divisor of
Can anybody check my proof, please - I am not a specialist