1
$\begingroup$

Ramesh is given a $2013\times2013$ array of integers between $1$ and $2013$ both inclusive. He is allowed only $2$ operation.

1)Choose a row,subtract $1$ from each entry.

2)Choose a column ,add $1$ to each entry.

He would like to get and array where all integers are divisible by $2013$. Then how many arrays are possible?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ What does "choosing a column 7" mean? $\endgroup$ Aug 12, 2013 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ see the latest edits $\endgroup$ Aug 12, 2013 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ Does he have to keep the numbers within the range of 1 to 2013 inclusive? If so, the only possible option is all entries being 2013 as that is the only number in that range divisible by 2013. $\endgroup$
    – kaine
    Aug 12, 2013 at 13:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This question doesn't make sense. The initial condition is vague and the number of operations applied is not stated. At face value there are infinitely many "possible" states where the entries are (in the last instance) divisible by 2013. Perhaps the OP means that the operations stop when this condition is reached? $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Aug 12, 2013 at 13:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To compound the remark by @hardmath, it is not even clear what "how many arrays" refers to. How many final arrays can be reached? That would be $0$ or infinitely many (since in the final condition no bound is placed on the entries), depending on the initial condition. So maybe instead was meant: how many initial conditions would allow a valid final position to be reached? At least that number is definitely finite. Or maybe something else yet? $\endgroup$ Aug 12, 2013 at 14:47

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Actually, this is not possible in general. This because the two operations decreases or increases, respectively, the total sum by exactly $2013$ upon application.

Thus if the sum of all elements in the array is, let's say, $2,025,079 = 2013\times 1006 + 1$, then you can never make all the elements divisible by $2013$, since the total sum always will be $1$ off from being divisible by $2013$.

Now, whether or not you can make all but one of the elements divisible by $2013$, or what happens if we assume the sum is divisible by $2013$ are questions too interesting for me to handle at the moment.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ changing enteries to integers ...does it make any difference?I didnt wrote the exact question..!! $\endgroup$ Aug 12, 2013 at 13:47
2
$\begingroup$

I'll assume that the question is how many $n\times n$ matrices with entries in $R=\Bbb Z/n\Bbb Z$ there exist that can be written as a sum of matrices with either single row of entries$~1$ and zeros elsewhere or a single column of entries$~1$ and zeros elsewhere, for $n=2013$. (By subtracting off that sum, the matrix can then be reduced to the zero matrix over $R$, and "addition is just repeated subtraction".)

If $n$ were a prime number, the answer would be $n^{2n-1}$ by simple linear algebra: the $n$ generating "row-matrices" and the $n$ generating "column matrices" each obviously span a vector space of dimension $n$ over the field$~R$, the two vector spaces of matrices being characterised by equality of all entries along rows respectively along columns. The intersection of these vector subspaces contains all matrices with all entries equal, and has dimension$~1$, so that the sum of the two subspaces is a subspace of dimension $n+n-1=2n-1$, which has $n^{2n-1}$ elements.

Now $n=2013=3\times11\times61$ is not prime, but the answer is still $n^{2n-1}$ in this case. To see this one basically reasons that the sum can be made direct by removing one generating element from one of the generating sets. So let us forbid using the matrix will entries$~1$ in the final row and zeros elsewhere, after all that matrix can be written as the sum of all "column matrices" minus the sum of all other row matrices. I claim that the remaining generators form an $R$-linearly independent set. Consider an $R$-linear combination giving the zero matrix. Since each entry in the final row occurs only in one generating element (a column matrix), the fact that the combination gives the zero matrix implies that that generating element has zero coefficient in the linear combination; this takes care of the column matrices. But a nontrivial $R$-linear combination of row matrices is clearly never zero, so we must have had the trivial linear combination of generators. As a consequence of the independence, all $n^{2n-1}$ possible $R$-linear combinations give distinct results, and by definition those are all the matrices that need to be counted.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .