Random Post
Recent Posts
- Tantalizer 50: Bocardo pairs
- Enigma 768: Inverted mirror?
- BrainTwister #20: Factor-finding mission
- Enigma 769: Magic square
- BrainTwister #19: Angular arrangements
- Enigma 767: Safety in numbers
- BrainTwister #18: The arithmetical two-step
- Enigma 774: Sting in the tail
- BrainTwister #17: Semi-one numbers
- Enigma 773: Duodecimal
Recent Comments
Frits on Enigma 1363: Hat stand | |
Frits on Enigma 1705: Not deducibl… | |
Frits on Tantalizer 50: Bocardo pa… | |
Jim Randell on Tantalizer 50: Bocardo pa… | |
Frits on Enigma 1743: Order, order… | |
GeoffR on Puzzle #180: Neat as a PI… | |
GeoffR on Puzzle #180: Neat as a PI… | |
Frits on Enigma 768: Inverted mirr… |
Archives
Categories
- article (11)
- braintwister (20)
- enigma (1,719)
- enigma-book-1982 (70)
- headscratchers-book-2023 (70)
- microteasers-book-1986 (11)
- misc (7)
- project euler (2)
- puzzle (90)
- puzzle# (249)
- site news (83)
- sphinx (4)
- tantalizer (255)
- tantalizer-book-1970 (41)
- teaser (7)
- today (1)
Site Stats
- 347,957 hits
If the prime number is AB, then we also require |A² − B²| to be prime.
Note that:
And in order for this to be prime one of the terms in the product will have to be 1. And as the digits are non-zero, we see that:
So the solutions are those 2-digit primes where the digits differ by 1.
Run: [ @repl.it ]
Solution: The digits of the prime must differ by 1.
So the number is one of: 23, 43, 67, 89.
Very neat. I got this one by code, but your analytical solution is much more elegant.
Thanks. If you are a fan of the “difference of two squares” method, keep an eye out for tomorrow’s puzzle.