Denote by $\Sigma_d(t)$ the sum of digits in the decimal representation of the number $t$.
Prove / disprove:
$$\forall n\in \mathbb N:\ \ \Sigma_d (n!) | n!$$
Asked
Active
Viewed 2,061 times
23
-
2$\Sigma_d (n!) = O(n \ln (n))$ grows faster than $n$, so there's no clear reason to think it's asymptotically true. Have you looked for counterexamples? – G. H. Faust Jul 27 '14 at 09:57
-
Table[Mod[n!, Plus @@ IntegerDigits[n!]], {n, 1, 500}] – Start wearing purple Jul 27 '14 at 10:15
-
How about $0$ ? – gerrit Jul 27 '14 at 17:16
-
2what about sum of binary digits? (following the usual observation that there's nothing special about 10) – Mitch Jul 27 '14 at 17:41
-
@Mitch my comment above is base independent, so it's not likely to hold for any base. – G. H. Faust Jul 28 '14 at 07:04
-
1@Mitch, I wrote a program to generate the first counterexamples in arbitrary bases. For bases 2 through 30, the first counterexamples are 10, 43, 86, 87, 188, 156, 291, 364, 432, 410, 7, 510, 4, 4, 4, 813, 4, 1079, 4, 1900, 6, 10, 6, 2330, 2147, 5, 3463, 2401 and 7 respectively. – G. H. Faust Jul 28 '14 at 10:04
-
3@G.H.Faust: Add it to OEIS!! – Mitch Jul 28 '14 at 12:06
1 Answers
43
It's not true. The first counterexample is for $ n = 432 $. The sum of the digits in $ 432! $ is 3897, which you can see using Wolfram Alpha. But the prime factorisation of 3897 is $ 3^2 \times 433 $, so $ 432! $ cannot be divisible by its sum of digits.
The list of counterexamples is sequence A066419 in the OEIS.
Steven Charlton
- 2,002
-
8The fact that the first counterexample has $n + 1$ as its only large prime factor is somewhat remarkable. It's like the hole-in-one of counterexamples. – Ryan Reich Jul 27 '14 at 13:19
-
1
-
6Curious that $432, 532, 632$ are each counterexamples (though not $732$) – Henry Jul 27 '14 at 20:34
-
1@HashirOmer: I wouldn't say that. n! is divisible by 9 for n >= 6, therefore the sum of digits is divisible by 9. You would expect that the sum of digits is eventually 9 times a prime, and since the sum of digits grows faster than n, you would expect that eventually that prime is greater than n. Very predictable that it would happen. – gnasher729 Jul 28 '14 at 08:00