#Interesting question
15 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
- Do not ping the Moderators, unless someone is breaking the rules.
- Do not ping the Helper Moderators, unless there is a conflict between helpers.
- Do not ping other members randomly for help.
- Ask your question and show the work you've done so far. If you've posted a screenshot of a question, specify which part you need help with.
- Wait patiently for a helper to come along.
- If the Helper has answered your question, remember to thank them with the Mathematics Ranks bot and close the thread with:
+close
Feel free to nominate the person for helper of the week in #helper-nominations
If you're happy with the help you got here, and the server overall, you can contribute financially as well:
It means which n positive integer
n! | 1^n +2^n … n^n is correct
First observation I have is that when n is prime, we can take mod n on both sides, n! mod n = 0, and by fermat's little theorem a^n = a mod n, giving is n(n+1)/2, which is 0 mod n, as long as n is not 2.
If n+1 is prime, n! = n mod n+1, and by fermat's little theorem a^n = 1 mod n+1, giving us n. So the I'd guess that it works for prime n and prime-1 n, but obviously not sure
Just tried some values, that is not right, seems like for almost all values its false, now imma switch to counting the number of powers of 2.
The exponent of 2 in the prime factorization of n! is O(n)
If n is odd, then 1^n + 2^n ... n^n mod 2 is 1+0+1...+0+1, there is exactly one more 1 than 0, so if n is odd, the sum is odd. This means that n! cannot divide 1^n + ... n^n for any odd n
Sorry, that was wrong, what matters is the total number of 1's not the amount relative to 0, the total number of 1's is ceil(n/2) so if that is odd, then n! cannot divide the sum
For every prime, there should be a similar argument
Actually no, you want to take mod 2^k for all k
This will give you a bound on the exponent of 2 in the prime factorization of 1^n + 2^n ... n^n
Then you lower bound the exponent of 2^k in the prime factorization n!, and that will be asymptomaticly larger than the first bound
This would show that it can't be true for all but finitely many n
1 and 3 are likely the only values