Perfect Square Factorials

How many numbers in this infinite sequence are perfect squares?

0 ! , 1 ! , 2 ! , 3 ! , 0!, \ \ 1!, \ \ 2!, \ \ 3!,\, \ldots


Bonus: Try to prove your answer!

1 2 3 A finite number greater than 3 \infty

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.

4 solutions

Michael Mendrin
Nov 9, 2015

Given any prime number p, there's another prime number between p and 2p, per Bertrand's Postulate.

What does that prove?

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

For any n > 1 n>1 , n ! n! will always contain a single power of some prime number(s), which precludes perfect squares.

Michael Mendrin - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

Yes that makes sense...thanks

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 7 months ago

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.

Michael Mendrin - 5 years, 7 months ago

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 n there exists a prime between n n and 2 n 2n . But it's equivalent, of course...

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Otto Bretscher See? Hand waving...

Michael Mendrin - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

@Michael Mendrin Nice proof by hand waving :P

Swapnil Das - 5 years, 7 months ago

Good one, I ended up answering 1 by ignoring 0! as a perfect square. Stupid me :)

Vikram Pandya - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

Yeah we got the same answer. But I ignored 1! as 1.

PowerRanger Dude - 5 years, 6 months ago

same here bro :(

Aditya Devaguptapu - 1 year, 2 months ago

I like your one liner solutions , Quite precise and elegant they are!

Nihar Mahajan - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

I like my one liner solutions too, if I'm ever lucky to find such.

Michael Mendrin - 5 years, 7 months ago

Specific ones- 0, and 1

Xiaoying Qin - 5 years, 7 months ago

that moment when u forget that 0! Is a perfect square...

Trevor Arashiro - 5 years, 7 months ago

Let 'n' be any natural number , so

n ! = n . ( n 1 ) . ( n 2 ) . . . n!=n.(n-1).(n-2)... It is clearly observed that we will get n 2 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.

A Former Brilliant Member - 5 years, 7 months ago

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".

Harish Sasikumar - 5 years, 7 months ago
Jason Martin
Nov 12, 2015

By Bertrand's Postulate, for any positive integer n 2 n\ge 2 , there is a prime q q such that n 2 < q n \frac{n}{2}<q \le n . Thus, q q divides n ! n! . Now for n 5 n \ge 5 , q 2 > n q^2 > n , so if n ! n! has unique prime factorization p 1 k 1 p 2 k 2 p r k r p_1^{k_1} \cdot p_2^{k_2} \cdots p_r^{k_r} , then the exponent of q q must be 1 1 . Since perfect squares must have even exponents in their prime factorizations, we know n ! n! cannot be a perfect square for n 5 n \ge 5 . Checking n = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , n=0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 4 , shows only n = 0 , 1 n=0, 1 are perfect squares. So there are only 2 2 solutions.

you dont have to be so sophisticated to prove this ,i only used simple algebra to prove that 2is thw right answer

Sichen Wan - 5 years, 4 months ago

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 :)

Arjen Vreugdenhil - 5 years ago
Vrund Shah
Mar 20, 2018

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"?

The Sicilian Magician - 2 years, 11 months ago

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.

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...