Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I know that $2 + 2 = 2 \cdot 2$ and $1 + 2 + 3 = 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 3.$

My question: Are there other positive integers with sum equal to the product? (The number 1 can not appear more than once among them.)

I am therefore excluding the infinity of solutions obtained by repeating 1, such as:

$$1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 4$$

$$1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 5$$

share|cite|improve this question
Check out this MathOverflow post. – Zvi Rosen May 24 '13 at 0:30

First we shall look at 2 numbers.

Consider $a,b \in \mathbb{N}$. We have $ab=a+b$ $$\implies ab-a=b$$ $$\implies a(b-1)=b$$ $$\therefore b-1|b$$ $$\implies b=2$$ $$\implies a=2$$ And this is the only solution for two numbers.

Now let us look at $n$ numbers, $a_1,a_2,a_3, \dots a_n \in \mathbb{N}$. WlOG $a_1 \leq a_2 \leq \cdots \leq a_n$

We have $a_1a_2a_3 \cdots a_{n-1}a_n=a_1+a_2+a_3+ \cdots + a_n$. Clearly the way to optimize the situation (i.e minimizing the L.H.S while maximizing the R.H.S) is to put $a_1=1$ and $a_2,a_3, \cdots a_n=2$

Then $2^{n-1}=2n-1$ $$\implies2^{n-2}<n-1$$ $$\implies n\leq3$$

So now we look at $n=3$ (we have already done $n=2$).

If none of the terms is equal to one the most likely case is 2,2,2 which doesn't work so none can work. So $a_1=1$ then we have $$a_2a_3=1+a_2+a_3$$ $$\implies a_2a_3-a_2=a_3+1$$ $$\implies a_2(a_3-1)=a_3+1$$ $$\implies a_3-1 | a_3+1$$ $$\implies a_3=2,3$$ Which you can sub in and you find the only solution to be $a_1=1,a_2=2,a_3=3$.

share|cite|improve this answer
When you talk about "optimising", I think you meant to say $2^{n-1}=2n-1$, not $2(n-1)$. – Glen O May 24 '13 at 1:16
Yes that's true edit made. Thanks for that. – John Marty May 24 '13 at 3:07
It is not clear to me why $a_1 = 1$ and $a_2, \cdots ,a_n = 2$ "optimizes the situation". The LHS is minimized in this case surely, but the RHS is maximized by setting $a_i$ arbitrarily high. So perhaps you mean the difference between the two sides is optimized? – 6005 May 24 '13 at 21:00
Is there a slight mistake here or have I missed my Monday morning coffee? $2^{n-1}=2n-1 \implies n-1 < 2^{n-2} = n - \frac12 < n$- dividing both sides by $2$. Obviously the argument will still go through, but I think we should actually have $n-1 < n$. – Colm Bhandal Jun 27 at 8:29

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.