How to Factorize a Large Number for Permutations?

Nader AbdlGhani
Messages
38
Reaction score
2
Hey guys , Could anyone here tell me the easiest way to solve for n , nP7 = 604800 , the traditional way (I'm currently using) is to divide 604800 by 10 and then 9 and so on until I get 1 as a result of that division , The problem is this way isn't helpful with all permutations I have in my study , some times it gets tricky .
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Notice that 604,800 is divisible by 100, which means that 10 must be one of the numbers in the factors that multiply to give ^nP_7. This is because we only have one prime factor of 5 which can couple with a prime factor of 2 in various ways, such as from 4 or 6 or 8, and that would give a factor of 10, so the other factor of 10 must be from 10 itself, or even 15 (the factor of 5 coupled with another 2 elsewhere). However, 15*14*...*9 is composed of 7 factors that are all mostly larger than 10, so the result is going to be larger than 107 = 10,000,000 which is much too large. So we only have a few to test, starting at 10*9*...*4 and working our way upwards from there. We actually find that n=10 gives the answer, but if for argument's sake we had to solve, say,

^nP_7=3,991,680

Then we know that n=15 is again too large, but now it's also not divisible by 100 any more, which means we're missing a prime factor of 5, and how can that happen? Only with
12*11*...*6
13*12*...*7
14*13*...*8
n being one larger or smaller than these possibilities and we'd end up with the factor of 5 in 5 or 15 and the result would be divisible by 100. So given just a few values to test, the result should be quick to find.
 
  • Like
Likes Nader AbdlGhani
Mentallic said:
Notice that 604,800 is divisible by 100, which means that 10 must be one of the numbers in the factors that multiply to give ^nP_7. This is because we only have one prime factor of 5 which can couple with a prime factor of 2 in various ways, such as from 4 or 6 or 8, and that would give a factor of 10, so the other factor of 10 must be from 10 itself, or even 15 (the factor of 5 coupled with another 2 elsewhere). However, 15*14*...*9 is composed of 7 factors that are all mostly larger than 10, so the result is going to be larger than 107 = 10,000,000 which is much too large. So we only have a few to test, starting at 10*9*...*4 and working our way upwards from there. We actually find that n=10 gives the answer, but if for argument's sake we had to solve, say,

^nP_7=3,991,680

Then we know that n=15 is again too large, but now it's also not divisible by 100 any more, which means we're missing a prime factor of 5, and how can that happen? Only with
12*11*...*6
13*12*...*7
14*13*...*8
n being one larger or smaller than these possibilities and we'd end up with the factor of 5 in 5 or 15 and the result would be divisible by 100. So given just a few values to test, the result should be quick to find.
Thanks for your help :D
 
Nader AbdlGhani said:
Thanks for your help :D
You're welcome!
 
How about finding the factorization of 604800 as a product of primes? Then divide by 2!, then by 3! , etc.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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...
Back
Top