Factorial Divisibility (E)

For how many natural numbers n < 1000 n < 1000 does n ∤ ( n 1 ) ! n \not | (n-1)! ?

Details and Assumptions

  • n ! n! is the factorial function where n ! = n ( n 1 ) ! n! = n*(n-1)! and 0 ! = 1 0! = 1 .

  • a ∤ b a \not | b means that a a does not perfectly divide b b , i.e. a a is not a divisor of b b .For example, 20 ∤ 75 20 \not | 75 .

  • You may use the List of Primes as a reference.


The answer is 169.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

The numbers are categorised into three groups. (1) Composite numbers which are not squares of prime numbers (2) Squares of prime numbers (3) Prime numbers

For any composite number in (1), n = p q n=pq where 1 < p < q < n 1<p<q<n , and ( n 1 ) ! = 1 × 2 × × p × × q × × ( n 1 ) (n-1)!=1\times 2\times \cdots \times p \times \cdots \times q \times \cdots \times (n-1) Hence, n ( n 1 ) ! n | (n-1)!

For squares of prime numbers we have n = p 2 n=p^2 and ( n 1 ) ! = 1 × 2 × × p × × 2 p × × ( n 1 ) (n-1)!=1\times 2\times \cdots \times p \times \cdots \times 2p \times \cdots \times (n-1) . Hence, n ( n 1 ) ! n | (n-1)! UNLESS n 1 = p 2 1 < 2 p n-1 = p^2-1 < 2p . The only prime number satisfying this is p = 2 p=2 . Thus, 4 ∤ 3 ! \boxed{4 \not | 3!}

If n n is prime then, then there would not be any common factor between n n and ( n 1 ) ! (n-1)! . There are 168 prime numbers less than 1000.

So, there are 168 + 1 = 169 168+1=\boxed{169} solutons.

https://brilliant.org/problems/factorial-funda/

Satvik Golechha - 6 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Wow. -.- The one time I post a problem and its already on Brilliant. @Satvik Golechha You want me to remove it?

Siddhartha Srivastava - 6 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Is this your first problem ? @Siddhartha Srivastava ,If yes:- You need not remove it. The answers of both the problems are different , and thus its perfectly alright .

Krishna Ar - 6 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Krishna Ar Second. I think I posted one a few months back.

Siddhartha Srivastava - 6 years, 4 months ago

Not at all! I just wanted everyone to see a similar problem. No Problem at all!

Satvik Golechha - 6 years, 4 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...