Optimal Algorithm for checking if a number is a multiple of three I'm just starting a course on Computational Number Theory and have very little Computer Science background but definitely know enough about the big-O notation.

I currently have an assignment to work on:


  An algorithm reads in the binary digits of a positive integer $N$ and determines whether $N$ is a multiple of 3. Show that the algorithm takes time at least of order $n$, where $n$ is the number of binary digits of $N$.


Basically, I have thought up of an algorithm which I'm pretty sure is correct:
(I don't know what's the best/correct way to write an algorithm but here's my attempt)


Start with a binary number $x=a_na_{n-1}\dots a_1a_0$.
Then compute $x'=\sum^{i=n}_{i=0} (\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(-1)^{i+1})a_i$.
Then $x'=0 \mod3 \iff 3|x$


This works because $2^{2k}=1\mod3$ and $2^{2k+1}=2\mod3$

I can guess that my algorithm takes time at least of order $n$ because I need order $n$ steps to compute $x'$.

However, I have my doubts:


How do I know my algorithm is the optimal algorithm? 
Am I 'cheating' by saying $x'=0 \mod3 \iff 3|x$?
Am I even answering the question correctly by providing such an algorithm or is there some other sort of analysis to show lower bounds for algorithm time?
If an algorithm that takes less than $O(n)$ time, this means that the algorithm won't be able to look at all the digits of the number. Thus you can prove a lower bound of $O(n)$ by showing that you have to look at all (or almost all) digits of the number in order to decide divisibility.

To show the latter property, assume you had an algorithm that decides divisibility by 3 by looking at $n-2$ or fewer of the digits. This gives you 2 digits that you can set freely, since the algorithm has to give the same answer for any choice of these digits (it doesn't look at them) and it has to be always correct. However you can show that no matter where these digits are and what the value of the remaining digits is, you always have a choice for the digits that gives a number divisible by 3 and another choice that doesn't. Thus, the assumed algorithm can not exist. (I'll leave it to you to show the existance of such choices.)