Perfect square

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:21 am
Location: France
GMAT Score:730

Perfect square

by Davy03 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:45 pm
Manhattan GMAT CAT 3, Q6:

Is the positive integer N a perfect square?

(1) The number of distinct factors of N is even.
(2) The sum of all distinct factors of N is even.


SOLUTION:
[spoiler](1) SUFFICIENT: The factors of any number N can be sorted into pairs that multiply to give N. (For instance, the factors of 24 can be paired as follows: 1 and 24; 2 and 12; 3 and 8; 4 and 6.) However, if N is a perfect square, one of these 'pairs' will consist of just one number: the square root of N. (For example, if N were 49, it would ahve the factor pair 7 × 7) Since all of the other factors can be paired off, it follows that if N is a perfect square, then N has an odd number of factors. (If N is not a perfect square, then all of its factors can be paired off, so it will have an even number of factors.) This statement then implies that N is not a perfect square.

(2) SUFFICIENT: Let N be a perfect square. If N is odd, then all factors of N are odd. Therefore, by the above reasoning, N has an odd number of odd factors, so their sum must be odd. If N is even, let M be the product of all the odd prime factors (as many times as they appear in N - not distinct) of N, which is also a perfect square. (For instance, if N = 100, then M =5 × 5 = 25.) Then the sum of factors of M is odd, by the above reasoning. Furthermore, all other factors of N (i.e., that don't also divide M) are even. The sum total is thus odd + even = odd.
Therefore, the sum of the factors of any perfect square is odd, so this statement implies that N is not a perfect square.
This statement can also be investigated by trying several cases of even perfect squares (4, 16, 36, 64, 100), noting that in each case the sums of the factors are odd, and generalizing.

The correct answer is D.[/spoiler]

Ok, (1) is easy to understand.

(2): I understood the first part: the sum of all factors of number N, which is a perfect square, is odd if N is odd.
But the second part is not very well explained: is N is even, then let M be the product of all the odd prime factors??? Then the sum of factors of M is odd, by the above reasoning??? To be honest, I think this part of the explanation is total crap.
When I tried several cases of even perfect squares, I can see that the sums of the factors is always odd, but I am looking for a clear explanation of why the sums of the factors of an even perfect square is odd.
Last edited by Davy03 on Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Source: — Data Sufficiency |

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1537
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
Thanked: 653 times
Followed by:252 members

by papgust » Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:59 pm
There are 2 facts basically in number theory.

1. The number of distinct factors of a perfect square is always ODD.
2. The sum of distinct factors of a perfect square is ALSO always ODD.

If you know these 2 points, then this question is a flurry.

----

Just to go deep into the facts, let's demonstrate with a perfect square example.

Let's take 36 = 2^2 * 3^2 [a^p * b^q]

1. One method is to see the concept through formula.
Number of distinct factors = (p+1) * (q+1) = (2+1) * (2+1) = 9 --> ODD.

Other method is to see through Factor Pairs method,
Small - Large
1 - 36
2 - 18
3 - 12
4 - 9
6 - 6

The number of pairs or factors is 2 * 5 = 10. But (6-6) is double counted. So, its 10 - 1 = 9.

2. Sum of distinct factors = [a^(p+1) -1 / a - 1] * [b^(q+1) -1 / b - 1] = [2^3 - 1 / 2 - 1] * [3^3 - 1 / 3 - 1] = 7 * 13 = 91. --> ODD

Through Factor Pairs method,
Just all distinct small and large factors.
Small - Large
1 - 36
2 - 18
3 - 12
4 - 9
6 - 6

Sum of distinct factors = 1+2+3+4+6+9+12+18+36 = 91

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:21 am
Location: France
GMAT Score:730

by Davy03 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:48 am
Thank you for your answer, but I am only trying to understand the following part of the Manhattan explanation (I have already understood everything else):
If N is even, let M be the product of all the odd prime factors (as many times as they appear in N - not distinct) of N, which is also a perfect square. (For instance, if N = 100, then M =5 X 5 = 25.) Then the sum of factors of M is odd, by the above reasoning. Furthermore, all other factors of N (i.e., that don't also divide M) are even.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:33 am
Davy03 wrote:Thank you for your answer, but I am only trying to understand the following part of the Manhattan explanation (I have already understood everything else):
If N is even, let M be the product of all the odd prime factors (as many times as they appear in N - not distinct) of N, which is also a perfect square. (For instance, if N = 100, then M =5 X 5 = 25.) Then the sum of factors of M is odd, by the above reasoning. Furthermore, all other factors of N (i.e., that don't also divide M) are even.
here's what this basically means.

we're trying to SEGREGATE the ODD FACTORS of 'n' from the EVEN FACTORS of 'n'.

to find all the ODD FACTORS OF 'n', separate out all the odd primes from the prime factorization of 'n'.
for instance, if 'n' is 900 (= 30^2), then that's 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 5 x 5 .
if we want the odd factors, those will ALL be factors of just 3 x 3 x 5 x 5 (just the odd primes), since adding any 2's into the mix will create even numbers.
this 3 x 3 x 5 x 5 is 'm'.
note that 'm' will itself be a perfect square, since it's the subset of odd factors (which appear in pairs) from another perfect square.
so its sum is odd.
the other factors are all even, so adding them doesn't do anything.

--

still, this theory is really obnoxious. there's a better (though less rigorous) method, shown below.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:51 am
Is the positive integer N a perfect square?

(1) The number of distinct factors of N is even.
(2) The sum of all distinct factors of N is even.
by far the easiest way to run this problem is PATTERN RECOGNITION.

in the absence of the theory, let's just analyze a bunch of perfect squares and see what happens.

Perfect square: # of distinct factors: Sum of factors:
1 ...................... 1 ............................ 1
4 ...................... 3 ............................ 7
9 ...................... 3 ............................ 13
16 .................... 5 ............................ 31
25 .................... 3 ............................ 31
36 .................... 9 ............................ 91
49 .................... 3 ............................ 57
etc.

if you run enough rows of this table, it becomes clear that all perfect squares are going to yield odd #'s of factors and odd sums of factors.
since odds and evens are fundamentally based on repeating patterns, you should be able to place your faith in the notion that this pattern will continue.

--

ONCE YOU'VE NOTICED THIS PATTERN:

(1) this means that 'n' won't be a perfect square, since there aren't any evens in the above list.

(2) this means that 'n' won't be a perfect square, since there aren't any evens in the above list.

(d).
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:53 am
by the way, yes, i know that the above solution (previous post) is very, very intellectually unsatisfying. however, if you are too stubborn about trying formal methods only, and you aren't willing to try such "plug-in" methods, you are essentially throwing away points.

there are a great many problems with EXTREMELY difficult theory that are still extremely accessible via listing / just plugging in numbers. make sure you diversify your portfolio of solution methods!
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:21 am
Location: France
GMAT Score:730

by Davy03 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:00 pm
Thank you very much Ron! you are the best!

Now I understand the explanation. Of course, noticing the pattern is a lot simpler, but I really don't like to plug in numbers, though I sometimes do it when I am really stuck. Sometimes I even test each answer choice but I really hate it too! I believe you can actually go faster if you have a deep understanding. Thank you for this piece of advice though.

I really appreciate you spent time on this question. I have read some of your other posts and they are always very clear and friendly.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:35 pm
Davy03 wrote:Thank you very much Ron! you are the best!

Now I understand the explanation. Of course, noticing the pattern is a lot simpler, but I really don't like to plug in numbers, though I sometimes do it when I am really stuck.


that's pretty much the ideal approach.

the only caveat i should add:
you should take out the "really" in "when i am really stuck".

if you are genuinely "stuck" AT ALL - for more than, say, ten or fifteen seconds - you should QUIT the method you're currently using, and switch to some other method.
the time pressure on this test is too intense to allow otherwise.
Sometimes I even test each answer choice but I really hate it too!


heh.

you should try to get rid of that bias. yeah, plugging solutions aren't as beautiful or aesthetically pleasing as theory-based solutions, but they work.
there are no style points on this test, nor is there a teacher who grades you for showing your work.
proceed accordingly.
I believe you can actually go faster if you have a deep understanding. Thank you for this piece of advice though.
this is true - of course you can go faster with a deep understanding. (there are some exceptions - there are problems on which the plug-in methods are WAY WAY WAY faster and easier than the theory solutions - but, on most problems, the theory is the fastest way.)

...but that's not the point.

the point is that, on many problems, you just won't have the deep understanding.
in those cases, it's irrelevant whether that understanding would produce a faster solution - because you don't have it!
in these cases, you have to be willing to turn to the dark god of plug-in solutions, or else you are needlessly sacrificing points.
I really appreciate you spent time on this question. I have read some of your other posts and they are always very clear and friendly.
thanks.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:21 am
Location: France
GMAT Score:730

by Davy03 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:14 pm
You are right, I will try to change that habit of mine. Usually I always get between 47 and 49 on the quant part, but I have to admit that I never finish it on time. Maybe I will able to reach 50 if I use "plug-in" methods more frequently and more quickly (after 10 or 15 seconds).

Anyway, there is a question that is almost the same in Manhattan GMAT CAT 3. This is question 30:
If the positive integer N is a perfect square, which of the following must be true?

I. The number of distinct factors of N is odd.
II. The sum of the distinct factors of N is odd.
III. The number of distinct prime factors of N is even.
[spoiler]
Statement (I) TRUE: The factors of any number N can be sorted into pairs that multiply to give N. (For instance, the factors of 24 can be paired as follows: 1 and 24; 2 and 12; 3 and 8; 4 and 6.) However, since N is a perfect square, one of these 'pairs' will consist of just one number: . Since all of the other factors can be paired off, it follows that N has an odd number of factors.

Statement (II) TRUE: When N is odd, then all factors of N are odd. Since statement I is true, N has an odd number of odd factors, so their sum must be odd. When N is even, the easiest way to approach this statement is to test numbers. If N is 4, the factors are 1, 2 and 4, which sum to 7, an odd number. If N is 16, the factors are 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16, which sum to 31, another odd number. The pattern continues, and statement II is true.

Statement (III) NOT AlWAYS TRUE: If N is 4 or 9, for example, then N has only one distinct prime factor, so this statement need not be true. (The total number of primes in the factorization of N is even, but that number is irrelevant to the question.)[/spoiler]

What is very interesting is the addendum. Its provides a very clear explanation of why the sum of the distinct factors of N is odd. It is almost the same of the explanation as in the above posts.
Addendum:

Although number testing will help us verify that statement II is true, the proof is slightly more complicated.

To begin, we need to establish that for any perfect square, each prime factor must exist an even number of times. If that weren't so, the square root would not be an integer. What that means is that every even perfect square has an even number of 2's as prime factors.

Remember that every factor of a number is a different combination of prime factors multiplied together. Because there are an even number of 2's, there will be an even number of even factors. Take 36 as an example. The prime factorization of 36 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 3. The even prime factors are:

3^0 × 2^1 / 3^1 × 2^1 / 3^2 × 2^1
3^0 × 2^2 / 3^1 × 2^2 / 3^2 × 2^2

Notice how every combination of odd prime factors (3^0, 3^1 and 3^2) is present twice on the list - once when multiplied by 2^1, and once when multiplied by 2^2. Because there will always be an even number of 2's, there will always be an even number of even factors. The sum will always be even, because even + even = even.

Recall also that any perfect square has an odd number of factors. If there is an even number of even factors, that means there must be an odd number of odd factors. An odd number of odds added together will be odd. So the sum of the factors of the number will be even + odd = odd.
This explanation is perfectly clear. But I doubt anyone could be able to find this explanation within two minutes. It made me realize that the "plug-in" method is the only one that should be used to solve this question on the exam day.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:23 am
Davy03 wrote:This explanation is perfectly clear. But I doubt anyone could be able to find this explanation within two minutes. It made me realize that the "plug-in" method is the only one that should be used to solve this question on the exam day
yep
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron