How many ordered pairs ( a , b , c ) of nonnegative integers exist, satisfying
a ! = b ! c !
Where a , b , and c form an arithmetic progression with a constant difference of c ?
NOTE: Unfortunately, this problem was posted with an incorrect answer. Because problems can now be edited but their answers cannot yet be edited, all I can do is write that whatever answer you get, you should add 1 to it.
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.
Wrong,there are 2 solutions.The other one is ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) And LHS can be a square number by the way.Also,don't you need to consider the case when a ! is not an integer?
Log in to reply
( 1 , 1 , 1 ) is not in an arithmetic sequence of difference 1 .
About the LHS being a square number, that only happens when c = 0 , and I had already handled that case. Please, provide a counterexample, or point out where my proof is flawed.
And about a ! , I never even mentioned that it had to be an integer...
Log in to reply
No,but it does have a constant difference of 0.Just like ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) .
Log in to reply
@Rahul Saha – According to the question, the arithmetic sequence must have a constant difference of c .
Log in to reply
@Ben Frankel – Oops,yes,I was wrong.I misread the question.Besides,why don't you,instead of asking for the number of solutions,ask for "the number of solutions+1".In that way,you don't have to change the answer.
Log in to reply
@Rahul Saha – Yes, I already have edited the question. Unfortunately editing answers is not yet possible, and there may have been people who got the answer wrong before I edited the question.
I posted this problem with the wrong answer. The answer should not be 2, it should be 1. Unfortunately I cannot edit my own problem.. I have sent two emails to Brilliant support requesting that the answer be changed to 1, but nothing has changed yet.
I apologize to whoever is reading this.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let's first consider the case where a , b , and c are all equal. This implies that c = 0 , and thus so are a and b . It is easy to see that ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) is a solution.
Now notice that if c is not the smallest in the sequence, we have that either c = a + c or c = a + 2 c , implying in either case that all of the integers are equal, which we have already dealt with, and thus c is the smallest in the sequence.
Next, notice that if a < b we can rewrite this equation as
( 2 c ) ! = ( 3 c ) ! c ! ⇒
( 2 c ) ! = c ! ( 3 c ) ! 2
The RHS (right-hand side) clearly grows far faster than the LHS, and already at c = 1 , the RHS is greater than the LHS.
Finally, consider a > b , allowing us to rewrite the equation as
( 3 c ) ! = ( 2 c ) ! c ! ⇒
c ! ( 3 c ) ! = ( 2 c ) ! 2
Now we will prove that the LHS cannot be a square number. Consider the largest prime number p such that c < p ≤ 3 c . In order for the LHS to be a square number, c < 2 p ≤ 3 c so that the LHS will have at least two factors of p , but by Bertrand's Postulate, there must exist another prime number q such that p < q < 2 p , making q > p , which is a contradiction.
Thus, we have but 1 solution, ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) .