For every natural number $a ge 2$, every natural number $m$ can be written in base $a$
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
For every natural number $a ge 2$, every natural number $m$ can be written in base $a$, i.e., as sum of powers of $a$: $$m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$$ with $b_1>cdots>b_n$ and $0<k_i<a$ for all $i=overline{1,n}$.
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We prove by induction on $m$.
For $m=1$, $m$ can be expressed as $a^0cdot 1$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Assume that, for all $k<m$, $k$ can be written in base $a$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Let $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. Then there is $k_1$ and $r<a^{b_1}$ such that $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r$. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $r<m$ and thus $k_1>0$. I claim that $k_1<a$. If not, $k_1ge a$ and thus $k_1=a+Delta$ for some $Deltage 0$. Then $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r=a^{b_1}cdot (a+Delta)+r=a^{b_1+1}+a^{b_1}cdotDelta+r$. This contradicts the maximality of $b_1$. Thus $k_1<a$. Since $r<m$, $r=a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ by inductive hypothesis. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n<a^{b_1}$ and thus $a^{b_2}cdot k_2<a^{b_1}$. It follows that $b_2<b_1$. Hence $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ as desired.
elementary-number-theory proof-verification
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
For every natural number $a ge 2$, every natural number $m$ can be written in base $a$, i.e., as sum of powers of $a$: $$m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$$ with $b_1>cdots>b_n$ and $0<k_i<a$ for all $i=overline{1,n}$.
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We prove by induction on $m$.
For $m=1$, $m$ can be expressed as $a^0cdot 1$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Assume that, for all $k<m$, $k$ can be written in base $a$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Let $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. Then there is $k_1$ and $r<a^{b_1}$ such that $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r$. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $r<m$ and thus $k_1>0$. I claim that $k_1<a$. If not, $k_1ge a$ and thus $k_1=a+Delta$ for some $Deltage 0$. Then $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r=a^{b_1}cdot (a+Delta)+r=a^{b_1+1}+a^{b_1}cdotDelta+r$. This contradicts the maximality of $b_1$. Thus $k_1<a$. Since $r<m$, $r=a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ by inductive hypothesis. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n<a^{b_1}$ and thus $a^{b_2}cdot k_2<a^{b_1}$. It follows that $b_2<b_1$. Hence $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ as desired.
elementary-number-theory proof-verification
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
1
It is correct. $ $
– Berci
Nov 20 at 11:29
Thank you so much for your confirm @Berci!
– Le Anh Dung
Nov 20 at 11:34
The proof of the inductive step, as written, only makes sense if you suppose that you have selected a particular natural number $a$ for the step $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. You can accommodate that in the proof, that is, let $a$ be any arbitrary integer with $ageq2,$ prove the statement for that particular $a,$ and since $a$ was arbitrary the statement is true for all $ageq 2.$ A charitable reader might do this part of the reasoning for you, but maybe it's better to be explicit.
– David K
Nov 20 at 14:42
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
For every natural number $a ge 2$, every natural number $m$ can be written in base $a$, i.e., as sum of powers of $a$: $$m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$$ with $b_1>cdots>b_n$ and $0<k_i<a$ for all $i=overline{1,n}$.
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We prove by induction on $m$.
For $m=1$, $m$ can be expressed as $a^0cdot 1$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Assume that, for all $k<m$, $k$ can be written in base $a$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Let $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. Then there is $k_1$ and $r<a^{b_1}$ such that $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r$. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $r<m$ and thus $k_1>0$. I claim that $k_1<a$. If not, $k_1ge a$ and thus $k_1=a+Delta$ for some $Deltage 0$. Then $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r=a^{b_1}cdot (a+Delta)+r=a^{b_1+1}+a^{b_1}cdotDelta+r$. This contradicts the maximality of $b_1$. Thus $k_1<a$. Since $r<m$, $r=a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ by inductive hypothesis. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n<a^{b_1}$ and thus $a^{b_2}cdot k_2<a^{b_1}$. It follows that $b_2<b_1$. Hence $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ as desired.
elementary-number-theory proof-verification
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
For every natural number $a ge 2$, every natural number $m$ can be written in base $a$, i.e., as sum of powers of $a$: $$m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$$ with $b_1>cdots>b_n$ and $0<k_i<a$ for all $i=overline{1,n}$.
Does my attempt look fine or contain logical flaws/gaps? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help!
My attempt:
We prove by induction on $m$.
For $m=1$, $m$ can be expressed as $a^0cdot 1$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Assume that, for all $k<m$, $k$ can be written in base $a$ for all natural number $age 2$.
Let $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. Then there is $k_1$ and $r<a^{b_1}$ such that $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r$. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $r<m$ and thus $k_1>0$. I claim that $k_1<a$. If not, $k_1ge a$ and thus $k_1=a+Delta$ for some $Deltage 0$. Then $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+r=a^{b_1}cdot (a+Delta)+r=a^{b_1+1}+a^{b_1}cdotDelta+r$. This contradicts the maximality of $b_1$. Thus $k_1<a$. Since $r<m$, $r=a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ by inductive hypothesis. Since $r<a^{b_1}$, $a^{b_2}cdot k_2+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n<a^{b_1}$ and thus $a^{b_2}cdot k_2<a^{b_1}$. It follows that $b_2<b_1$. Hence $m=a^{b_1}cdot k_1+cdots+a^{b_n}cdot k_n$ as desired.
elementary-number-theory proof-verification
elementary-number-theory proof-verification
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
asked Nov 20 at 11:14
Le Anh Dung
9801421
9801421
1
It is correct. $ $
– Berci
Nov 20 at 11:29
Thank you so much for your confirm @Berci!
– Le Anh Dung
Nov 20 at 11:34
The proof of the inductive step, as written, only makes sense if you suppose that you have selected a particular natural number $a$ for the step $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. You can accommodate that in the proof, that is, let $a$ be any arbitrary integer with $ageq2,$ prove the statement for that particular $a,$ and since $a$ was arbitrary the statement is true for all $ageq 2.$ A charitable reader might do this part of the reasoning for you, but maybe it's better to be explicit.
– David K
Nov 20 at 14:42
add a comment |
1
It is correct. $ $
– Berci
Nov 20 at 11:29
Thank you so much for your confirm @Berci!
– Le Anh Dung
Nov 20 at 11:34
The proof of the inductive step, as written, only makes sense if you suppose that you have selected a particular natural number $a$ for the step $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. You can accommodate that in the proof, that is, let $a$ be any arbitrary integer with $ageq2,$ prove the statement for that particular $a,$ and since $a$ was arbitrary the statement is true for all $ageq 2.$ A charitable reader might do this part of the reasoning for you, but maybe it's better to be explicit.
– David K
Nov 20 at 14:42
1
1
It is correct. $ $
– Berci
Nov 20 at 11:29
It is correct. $ $
– Berci
Nov 20 at 11:29
Thank you so much for your confirm @Berci!
– Le Anh Dung
Nov 20 at 11:34
Thank you so much for your confirm @Berci!
– Le Anh Dung
Nov 20 at 11:34
The proof of the inductive step, as written, only makes sense if you suppose that you have selected a particular natural number $a$ for the step $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. You can accommodate that in the proof, that is, let $a$ be any arbitrary integer with $ageq2,$ prove the statement for that particular $a,$ and since $a$ was arbitrary the statement is true for all $ageq 2.$ A charitable reader might do this part of the reasoning for you, but maybe it's better to be explicit.
– David K
Nov 20 at 14:42
The proof of the inductive step, as written, only makes sense if you suppose that you have selected a particular natural number $a$ for the step $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. You can accommodate that in the proof, that is, let $a$ be any arbitrary integer with $ageq2,$ prove the statement for that particular $a,$ and since $a$ was arbitrary the statement is true for all $ageq 2.$ A charitable reader might do this part of the reasoning for you, but maybe it's better to be explicit.
– David K
Nov 20 at 14:42
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006200%2ffor-every-natural-number-a-ge-2-every-natural-number-m-can-be-written-in-b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
It is correct. $ $
– Berci
Nov 20 at 11:29
Thank you so much for your confirm @Berci!
– Le Anh Dung
Nov 20 at 11:34
The proof of the inductive step, as written, only makes sense if you suppose that you have selected a particular natural number $a$ for the step $b_1=max{bin mathbb{N}mid a^ble m}$. You can accommodate that in the proof, that is, let $a$ be any arbitrary integer with $ageq2,$ prove the statement for that particular $a,$ and since $a$ was arbitrary the statement is true for all $ageq 2.$ A charitable reader might do this part of the reasoning for you, but maybe it's better to be explicit.
– David K
Nov 20 at 14:42