What is the pattern in factorials and squares?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores a potential pattern involving factorials and perfect squares, particularly from 4! to 12!, where the expression (ceiling[(n!)^0.5]^2 - n!) yields a perfect square. This pattern ceases to hold after 12! and completely stops after 16!. The author notes that adding a number to the square root can also result in a perfect square under certain conditions. They present their findings using Wolfram Alpha to illustrate the calculations and express uncertainty about the existence of a clear pattern. The inquiry centers on the conditions under which the prime factorization of n! leads to perfect squares, inviting further exploration and discussion.
karpmage
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hi there, I don't really have a question but I just thought I'd share something that I've found and see if anyone could make any sense of it, or find some sort of pattern in the results. I noticed that for some of the first few factorials (from 4! to 12!), (ceiling[(n!)0.5]2-n!)=a perfect square. This pattern doesn't apply for 12! and then stops applying altogether after 16! Adding a number to the square root after I round it sometimes also gives a perfect square as the final answer. (i.e. sometimes ((ceiling[(n!)0.5]+k)2-n!)=a perfect square.) I honestly don't see a pattern, but there may very well be one. I just thought I'd share it with you guys. Here are my results from Wolfram Alpha:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...[(x!)^0.5]+k)^2-x!)^0.5]),+{x,1,120}]+for+k=0
(If the answer is 0, then the end answer is a perfect square.)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...+k)^2-x!)^0.5])^(1/((10)^100+1)))^2)]+for+k=0
(Same as above, if y=0 then the answer is a perfect square.)

P.S. It's not as if I've actually found something. I'm just putting this here and maybe you guys might find some sort of pattern. I'm trying myself to see if there's one but this increases the chances I guess. I apologise if this was a stupid thing to post and the pattern is obvious, or if there is obviously no pattern. Just want to see what you guys think.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Here's what I observed: Let
$$n! = \left( \prod_i p_i^{2n_i} \right) \cdot \left( \prod_j q_j^{2m_j + 1} \right)$$
be the prime factorization of n! split into even and uneven powers (so pi and qi are primes). Then
$$\operatorname{ceil}(\sqrt{n!})^2 = \left( \prod_i p_i^{2n_i} \right) \cdot \left( \prod_j q_j^{2m_j} \cdot \operatorname{ceil}(\sqrt{q_j})^2 \right) = \left( \prod_i p_i^{n_i} \cdot \prod_j q_j^{m_j} \right)^2 \cdot \prod_j \operatorname{ceil}(\sqrt{q_j})^2 $$

So the question is: when is
$$\prod_j \operatorname{ceil}(\sqrt{q_j})^2$$
a perfect square? :)

Now of course, ##f(2) = f(3) = 2 = \sqrt{4}##, ##f(5) = f(7) = 3 = \sqrt{9}##, ##f(11) = f(13) = 4 = \sqrt{16}## - where f stands for the square-of-ceiling-of-root operation - so probably as long as you have odd factors of consecutive primes they will always multiply to a square (e.g. if you have one factor of 2 and one factor of 3, you get f(2) f(3) = 4).
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top