-
nervesofsteel
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
I don't think that's correct... (2) can be solved all by itself. We see that n = 3 works. Now, if you go to n = -1, -2, -3, ... the lhs gets smaller, and for n = 4, 5, 6, the lhs gets a lot bigger. So the only solution to (2) is n = 3.
So (2) is sufficient but (1) alone isn't... particularly (1)'s solution can either be -5 or 3.












