Is it true that every integer you can think of has a multiple written out only with \(0\)s and \(1\)s?

Let \(k \in \mathbb{Z}\) be an integer. Is there an integer \(n\) such that \(n\) is a multiple of \(k\) and \(n\) only has \(0\)s and \(1\)s in its decimal expansion?

As an example, if \(k = 2\) we could have \(n = 10\).

Give it some thought...

If you need any clarification whatsoever, feel free to ask in the comment section below.

The answer is *yes*, any integer \(k\) has a "binary multiple" \(n\). To show this is true, we will build \(n\) starting from \(k\).

Assume \(k\) is positive, and consider the following \(k\) integers:

\[ \big\{ 1, 11, 111, \cdots, \underbrace{1\cdots1}_{k\ 1\text{s}} \big\}\]

(which can be formally written out as taking \(\{c_i\}_{i = 1}^k\) with \(c_1 = 1\) and \(c_{i+1} = 10*c_i + 1\)).

Then only one of two things can happen. Either one of \(c_i\) is a multiple of \(k\) (in which case all is good) or not. But if no \(c_i\) is a multiple of \(k\), then we can consider the remainders of the \(c_i\) modulo \(k\):

\[ \{ c_1\ \text{mod}\ k, c_2\ \text{mod}\ k, \cdots, c_k\ \text{mod}\ k \} \subseteq \{ 1, \cdots, k - 1 \}\]

We say that the remainders of the \(c_i\) are contained in the set to the right because none of the remainders is \(0\), otherwise one of the \(c_i\) would be a multiple of \(k\).

Notice the left-hand set is built by taking the remainders of the \(k\) different \(c_i\) but the right-hand set only has \(k - 1\) elements. The [pigeonhole principle][pigeonhole-principle-wiki] then says that there are at least two different \(c_i\), \(c_j\) being mapped to the same element in the right-hand set, i.e. \(c_i \equiv c_j \ \text{mod}\ k\). Assume we have \(j > i\), meaning \(c_j > c_i\) and, in particular:

\[ \begin{cases} c_j - c_i \equiv 0\ \text{mod}\ k \\ c_j - c_i = \underbrace{1\cdots 1}_{j-i\ 1\text{s}} \underbrace{0\cdots 0}_{i\ 0\text{s}} \end{cases}\]

Thus \(n = c_j - c_i\) is a "binary multiple" of \(k\).

If \(k\) is negative, we repeat the above for \(-k\). If \(k = 0\), then \(n = 0\).

If \(k = 4\) we consider \(c_1 = 1\), \(c_2 = 11\), \(c_3 = 111\), \(c_4 = 1111\) and realize none of these numbers is a multiple of \(4\).

Now we take the remainders:

\[ \begin{cases} 1 \equiv 1\ \text{mod}\ 4 \\ 11 \equiv 3\ \text{mod}\ 4 \\ 111 \equiv 3\ \text{mod}\ 4 \\ 1111 \equiv 3\ \text{mod}\ 4 \end{cases}\]

and see that, for example, \(c_3 \equiv c_2\ \text{mod}\ 4\), implying that \(c_3 - c_2 = 100 \equiv 0\ \text{mod}\ 4\).

Don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter to get bi-weekly problems sent straight to your inbox and to add your reaction below.

Espero que tenhas aprendido algo novo! Se sim, considera seguir as pisadas dos leitores que me pagaram uma fatia de pizza 🍕. O teu pequeno contributo ajuda-me a manter este projeto grátis e livre de anúncios aborrecidos.