Determine the number of natural numbers n strictly between 1 and 1 0 0 0 (both inclusive), for which n divides ( n − 1 ) ! .
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.
did the exact same way, but @Satvik Golechha, I am not accusing you or Brilliant of anything but do you think that this problem should get a level 4??
Log in to reply
Yup! This problem has a high rating b'coz most get it wrong in their first try.....
or is it because the only number changing the game was 4 !!!
And yeah I have another one that because 4 in the keyboard has a dollar sign associated with it and so 4 means $$$$$$!! MONEY!!!!! I hope you could understand this joke, $ boy!!!! *JOKE
How do you find prime numbers in 1 to 1000
Log in to reply
@Satvik Golechha How will we find the primes between 1 and 1000?Is there any specific formula?
Totally! Everything is easy except the n = 4 , which is a special reservation to this type of problems.
I did the same way
Should the answer not be 830 since for n=1 , 1 does not go into 0.
Log in to reply
Nops. 0 ! = 1 → 1 ∣ 0 ! ,
Sorry didnt think about it yes the answer should be 831
From 1 to 1000 there are 168 primes(this assumption put because only 1 and primes it self who can divide) and only 4 which is not primes who can't be divided by 3!, so there are 1000-168-1=831 natural numbers
Subtract all the prime no from 1000 including 4 so the answer will be 1000 -169=831
Will you please elaborate? @shubhendra singh
Log in to reply
Prime no.s will not satisfy the condition given in the question. Since there are 168 primes between 1 and 1000 . So 1000-168=832 no will satisfy the given condition excluding 4. So the final answer that will come out will be 831. I hope ths is sufficient to explian
Log in to reply
Can you prove why primes dont actually satisfy this? Or can you @Satvik Golechha if not @shubhendra singh . Are you and Part Lohomi classmates, Satvik?
Log in to reply
@Krishna Ar – @Krishna Ar Actually, Primes do not satisfy this because they are primes! Primes are primes because they are coprimes with all numbers before them, or in other words, do not divide any of them, and henceforth, do not divide their product. Parth is in another batch.
Log in to reply
@Satvik Golechha – Thanks, you'd replied fast, but I failed to notice it :). I actually did it in a different way though @Satvik Golechha
Log in to reply
@Krishna Ar – What way did you do it? I cant think of any other way, I did it the same way as every other posted solution so I am curious to see your solution.
Log in to reply
@Trevor Arashiro – AS @Alamuru Ganesh mentioned I just directly relied on WT though the logic is quite the same :P. @Trevor Arashiro
@Krishna Ar – its because of wilson's theorem
Log in to reply
@Alamuru Ganesh – No! To be precise, Wilson's theorem is because of this :D
nice explanation!!!!!!
I'm sorry for this solution as I was in a hurry. Proper solution is given in reply to SATVIK GOLECHA
1 0 ! = 1 1 [satisfies the given condition]
2 1 ! = 2 1 [doesn't satisfies the given condition]
3 2 ! = 3 2 [doesn't satisfies the given condition]
4 3 ! = 4 6 [doesn't satisfies the given condition]
5 4 ! = 5 2 4 [doesn't satisfies the given condition]
6 5 ! = 6 1 2 0 [satisfies the given condition]
.
.
.
You will notice that when n = all primes including 4 don't satisfies the given condition...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001737.html
Go to the above link. You will get to know that there are 168 primes between 1 to 100.
Then add 1 to 168.
Since 4 3 ! does not satisfy this condition.
Thus the answer is 1000-169 = 8 3 1
Note-It is very difficult if you go on trying trial and error method for finding primes!!
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We can see that for all primes n , ( n − 1 ) ! is not divisible by n .As there are 168 primes less than 1000,there are at most 832 possibilities for n .However, n = 4 does not satisfy the conditions.It is easy to verify that for all n ≥ 5 where n is not a prime, n satisfies the conditions.