Well, 2 is prime, and so is 57, so it makes sense those would be math focused schools. ;) [0]
—-
[0]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6358/story-of-grothe...
—-
[0]: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6358/story-of-grothe...
It tricked me, until I read the link.
The converse claim (every multiple of 3 has a digit sum that is a multiple of 3) is a more natural one for induction, though that's not the most standard proof there either.
n = Sum(d_k 10^k)
Let S = sum of digits = Sum(d_k)
n - S = Sum(d_k (10^k - 1))
But (10^k - 1) = ((9 + 1)^k - 1) = ((1 + k*9 + (2 choose k)*9^2 + ... + 9^k) - 1)
by binomial expansion so is divisible by 9.
Therefore n - S is divisible by 9, so n is divisible by 9 iff S is.
The same is true when you replace divisibility by 9 with divisibility by 3.
I remember being asked this in an interview for a place at university and I solved it by induction (which was all I had) and was then shown this direct proof.I don't remember precisely what it was we were asked to prove. It may have been the converse.
100x + 10y + z modulo 3
Removing 9y and 99x gives equivalence: x + y + z modulo 3
Now what’s left is induction with proper base (1-digit).