How many numbers in this infinite sequence are perfect squares?
0 ! , 1 ! , 2 ! , 3 ! , …
Bonus: Try to prove your answer!
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.
What does that prove?
Log in to reply
For any n > 1 , n ! will always contain a single power of some prime number(s), which precludes perfect squares.
Log in to reply
Yes that makes sense...thanks
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – This is what's known as "proof by hand-waving". Hardly a full proof, but it suggests how it can be done.
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – Your formulation of Bertrand's Postulate (or Chebyshev's Theorem) is a bit unusual.. they usually say that for every INTEGER n there exists a prime between n and 2 n . But it's equivalent, of course...
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – See? Hand waving...
Good one, I ended up answering 1 by ignoring 0! as a perfect square. Stupid me :)
Log in to reply
Yeah we got the same answer. But I ignored 1! as 1.
same here bro :(
I like your one liner solutions , Quite precise and elegant they are!
Log in to reply
I like my one liner solutions too, if I'm ever lucky to find such.
Specific ones- 0, and 1
Let 'n' be any natural number , so
n ! = n . ( n − 1 ) . ( n − 2 ) . . . It is clearly observed that we will get n 2 somewhere in the product but at the same time we need to subtract or add the constants. So final result won't be a perfect square. Except 0!=1 and 1!=1 So we have only 2 perfect squares in above infinite sequence.
Log in to reply
I don't understand. How can you be sure that adding or subtracting constants from n*n makes it an "imperfect square".
By Bertrand's Postulate, for any positive integer n ≥ 2 , there is a prime q such that 2 n < q ≤ n . Thus, q divides n ! . Now for n ≥ 5 , q 2 > n , so if n ! has unique prime factorization p 1 k 1 ⋅ p 2 k 2 ⋯ p r k r , then the exponent of q must be 1 . Since perfect squares must have even exponents in their prime factorizations, we know n ! cannot be a perfect square for n ≥ 5 . Checking n = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 , shows only n = 0 , 1 are perfect squares. So there are only 2 solutions.
you dont have to be so sophisticated to prove this ,i only used simple algebra to prove that 2is thw right answer
Log in to reply
I'd love to see that "simple algebra"... at this point I am very skeptical that Jason's proof can be simplified. (Otto's proof is similar but, as he admits, of the "handwaving" kind.) Perhaps we are all overlooking something simple, but if that's the case I'd like to know what :)
Here is a logical solution. For a number to be a perfect square, power of each of its prime factor must be even. But in n! , power of the largest prime p(<n) is always 1, thus for all n(>1) , n! is never a perfect square. So answer is 2.
How do you know that "in n! , power of the largest prime p(<n) is always 1"?
Bertrand's postulate(in actuality a theorem) states that for every prime p, there exists another prime number between p and 2p. This means that ∀n>1,n! will always have a single power of some prime number(s).
For any positive integer n≥2, there exists a prime p such that n/2<p≤n This implies that p∣n!. For n≥5,p2>n. So if n! has unique prime factorization (p1)^k1⋅(p2)^k2⋯(pr)^kr, then the exponent of p must be 1. Since perfect squares must have even exponents in their prime factorizations, we know n! cannot be a perfect square for n≥5.
So,we have 0! and 1! which are perfect squares (1)^2 and hence the solution is 2.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Given any prime number p, there's another prime number between p and 2p, per Bertrand's Postulate.