Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated

Erdős 699: necessary divisibility of the row at indices 4 and 5

P699 research · Erdős problem 699


With the original threshold p≥ip\ge i, every bad triple satisfies

i=4:4∣n or 9∣n,i=5:8∣n or 9∣n.\boxed{\begin{array}{ll} i=4:&4\mid n\ \text{or}\ 9\mid n,\\ i=5:&8\mid n\ \text{or}\ 9\mid n. \end{array}}

These are complete exclusions of the complementary congruence classes. They do not provide a last row for either entire index. Equivalently, for at least one of the small primes 2,32,3, the numerator factor nn has strictly higher valuation than every other numerator factor. The index-four proof is elementary. The index-five proof reduces every remaining possibility to 61 rational-slope cases and three candidate pairs, each with an explicit common prime.

A fixed-slope consequence of Lucas's theorem

Write RtR_t for the part of n−tn-t supported on primes at least 55. For a bad triple with i=4i=4, every prime-power component pep^e of RtR_t, 0≤t≤30\le t\le3, is active in (n4)\binom n4. Lucas's theorem therefore gives

j mod pe∈{0,…,t}.j\bmod p^e\in\{0,\ldots,t\}.

In particular R0∣jR_0\mid j. If j/n=a/qj/n=a/q in lowest terms, then qj=anqj=an. For any fixed tt, multiplication by qq gives

Rt∣Ft(a,q),Ft(a,q)=∏r=0t(at−qr).(1)R_t\mid F_t(a,q),\qquad F_t(a,q)=\prod_{r=0}^{t}(at-qr).\tag{1}

Indeed, for each prime-power component of RtR_t, one factor j−rj-r is zero modulo that prime power, while n≡tn\equiv t. This argument does not require qq to be invertible modulo the prime.

At index five, the factor 55 in 5!5! requires a small adjustment. Put

R~t=Rt/gcd⁡(Rt,5).\widetilde R_t=R_t/\gcd(R_t,5).

Then

R~0∣j,R~t∣Ft(a,q)(0≤t≤4).(2)\widetilde R_0\mid j,\qquad \widetilde R_t\mid F_t(a,q)\quad(0\le t\le4).\tag{2}

For primes greater than 55, the preceding proof applies unchanged. If 5e∥n−t5^e\Vert n-t with e≥2e\ge2, then 55 is active in (n5)\binom n5, and Lucas actually gives the stronger congruence modulo 5e5^e. Removing one factor of 55 is therefore safe in every case.

Index four

Suppose 4∤n4\nmid n and 9∤n9\nmid n. Then the {2,3}\{2,3\}-part of nn divides 66. Since R0∣jR_0\mid j, the reduced denominator of j/nj/n divides 66. The condition 0<j/n≤1/20<j/n\le1/2 leaves exactly

j/n∈{1/6,1/3,1/2}.j/n\in\{1/6,1/3,1/2\}.

If j/n=1/6j/n=1/6, then 6∣n6\mid n, so n−1n-1 is coprime to 66. Equation (1) at t=1t=1 gives n−1∣5n-1\mid5, hence n≤6n\le6.

If j/n=1/3j/n=1/3, then 3∣n3\mid n. Equation (1), first at t=1t=1 and then at t=2t=2, gives R1∣2R_1\mid2 and R2∣8R_2\mid8. Consequently R1=R2=1R_1=R_2=1. The consecutive positive integers n−1,n−2n-1,n-2 are both powers of 22, forcing n=3n=3.

If j/n=1/2j/n=1/2, then nn is even. Equation (1) at t=1,3t=1,3 gives R1∣1R_1\mid1 and R3∣9R_3\mid9. Thus the odd integers n−1,n−3n-1,n-3 are powers of 33. Their difference is 22, forcing n=4n=4.

All three conclusions contradict 4<j≤n/24<j\le n/2.

Index five

Suppose 8∤n8\nmid n and 9∤n9\nmid n. Then the {2,3}\{2,3\}-part of nn divides 1212. By (2), the reduced denominator qq of j/n=a/qj/n=a/q divides 6060.

For each possible reduced fraction 0<a/q≤1/20<a/q\le1/2 with q∣60q\mid60, and each residue s=n mod 6s=n\bmod6 compatible with q∣nq\mid n, choose t∈{1,2,3,4}t\in\{1,2,3,4\} such that

gcd⁡(s−t,6)=1,Ft(a,q)≠0.(3)\gcd(s-t,6)=1,\qquad F_t(a,q)\ne0.\tag{3}

The retained integer checker verifies the existence of such a tt in all 61 cases. Now n−tn-t is coprime to 66, so (2) implies the fixed integer divisibility

n−t∣5Ft(a,q).(4)\boxed{n-t\mid5F_t(a,q).}\tag{4}

Thus the possible nn arise from divisors of explicit constants, independent of nn. For reproducibility the checker chooses the valid tt minimizing (∣Ft(a,q)∣,t)(|F_t(a,q)|,t). The largest constant 5∣Ft∣5|F_t| is 782 595782\,595.

After imposing q∣nq\mid n, n≡s(mod6)n\equiv s\pmod6, 5<j≤n/25<j\le n/2, and 8∤n8\nmid n, 9∤n9\nmid n, these fixed divisor conditions leave exactly

nnjjCommon prime of (n5)\binom n5 and (nj)\binom nj
2875
210777
7802477

Each displayed prime has valuation exactly one in both binomial coefficients. Hence none is bad, completing the proof.

The checker uses only integer arithmetic and the Python standard library. Its certificate records all 61 choices and the three witnesses. It enumerates divisors of fixed algebraic constants; it does not search an interval of binomial rows.

sh
python3 wiki/research/erdos_699/computations/erdos_699_indices_4_5_row_zero.py

What remains

The difficult configurations have a large power of 22 or 33 in nn itself. For example, maxima at nn and n−1n-1 permit n=2Aun=2^A u, n−1=3Bvn-1=3^B v with both cofactors unbounded. The reduced denominator of j/nj/n is then also unbounded, and the constants in (4) grow with it. The fixed-slope argument consequently does not yet make these remaining configurations effective.

An additional prime-power criterion at index four

There is also a uniform sufficient condition using the last two numerator factors. Suppose that prime powers P=pe∣n−2P=p^e\mid n-2 and Q=qf∣n−3Q=q^f\mid n-3 have p,q≥5p,q\ge5 and

PQ>3n.(5)PQ>3n.\tag{5}

Then the entire row is good at index four. Indeed, the primes are distinct because n−2,n−3n-2,n-3 are consecutive. If a column were bad, Lucas would give residues

j≡r(modP),j≡s(modQ),0≤r≤2,0≤s≤3.j\equiv r\pmod P,\qquad j\equiv s\pmod Q, \qquad 0\le r\le2,\quad0\le s\le3.

The consecutive shifts give an especially simple Chinese remainder representative:

j≡s(n−2)−r(n−3)=(s−r)n−2s+3r(modPQ).(6)j\equiv s(n-2)-r(n-3) =(s-r)n-2s+3r\pmod{PQ}.\tag{6}

If s=rs=r, this representative is r≤2r\le2. If s>rs>r, it lies between n−2n-2 and 3n−63n-6, strictly above n/2n/2 and below PQPQ. If s<rs<r, adding PQ>3nPQ>3n puts its least nonnegative representative above n/2n/2. Thus none of the twelve residue classes meets 4<j≤n/24<j\le n/2.

This criterion uses the full powers dividing the two numerator factors, and does not depend on their other prime factors. A proof that such a pair exists in every remaining bad-row candidate has not been obtained.