2
$\begingroup$

Let $P(n)$ be an irreducible polynomial of degree $2$ over the positive integers. Do there exist infinitely many positive integers $n$ such that $P(n)$ divides $n!$?

Edit: motivation by examples: A) $p(n)=n^2+1$ (true, $21^2+1$ divides $21!$).
B) $p(n)=n^2+n+1$ (true, $74^2+74+1$ divides $74!$).

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I assume the question is "Does there always exist..."? Where does the question arise from? $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Jul 11, 2021 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is an example that might help: p(x)=x^2+4. Put x=t^2 and note that p(t^2)=f(t)g(t) with f,g quadratic. Unconditionally, one can show by a simple sieve that f(t), g(t) have a positive density of simultaneous coprime squarefree values (except, perhaps, for a fixed small factor I didn't check.) Discarding prime values of f and g, you are done with this example. $\endgroup$
    – Pasten
    Commented Jul 12, 2021 at 0:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Pasten: Is it known that the values of a quadratic polynomial cannot be prime with positive density? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2021 at 10:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YaakovBaruch Yes. You can prove this with the large sieve for instance. In general, for the hard questions about primes, the upper bound for counting can be shown using a sieve, while the lower bound is not known. $\endgroup$
    – Pasten
    Commented Jul 12, 2021 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Pasten: I managed to generalize your example into a complete answer (barring typos). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2021 at 13:18

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

Here is a completely elementary proof, inspired by Pasten's comments.

Let $P(n)=an^2+bn+c$.

Take $n=a^5x^4+2a^3(ab+2a+1)x^3+a(2a^3c+a^2b^2+6a^2b+3ab+6a^2+5a+1)x^2+(ab+2a+1)(2a^2c+2ab+b+2a+1)x+a^3c^2+2a^2bc+abc+2a^2c+ac+c+ab^2+b^2+2ab+2b+a+1$

Then

$P(n)=P_1(x)P_2(x)P_3(x)$

where

$$\begin{align*} P_1(x)=&a^2x^2+abx+2ax+ac+b+1\\ \\ P_2(x)=&a^4x^2+a^3bx+2a^3x+2a^2x+a^3c+a^2b+ab+a^2+2a+1\\ \\ P_3(x)=&a^5x^4\\ &+2a^4bx^3+4a^4x^3+2a^3x^3\\ &+2a^4cx^2+a^3b^2x^2+6a^3bx^2+3a^2bx^2+6a^3x^2+4a^2x^2+ax^2\\ &+2a^3bcx+4a^3cx+2a^2cx+2a^2b^2x+ab^2x+6a^2bx+4abx+bx+4a^2x+2ax\\ &+a^3c^2+2a^2bc+abc+2a^2c+c+ab^2+b^2+2ab+b+a\\ =&n-(a^2x^2+abx+2ax+x+ac+b+1) \end{align*}$$

Clearly for $x$ large enough $P_1(x), P_2(x), P_3(x)$ are distinct and less than $n$ in absolute value. Since the product of 3 distinct numbers $\le n$ divides $n!$, the result follows.$\qquad\qquad\blacksquare$

The idea behind this proof is that always $P(x)\;|\;P(P(x)+x)$ and applying this idea twice allows to factor $P(\text{some polynomial})$ into 3 factors all small enough.

Here is the relevant Maxima code:

(%i1)   a*x*x+b*x+c;
(%o1)   ...
(%i2)   a*x^2+(b+1)*x+c;
(%o2)   ...
(%i3)   subst(a^2*x^2+a*b*x+2*a*x+x+a*c+b+1, x, (%o2));
(%o3)   ...
(%i4)   expand((%o3));
(%o4)   ...
(%i5)   subst(%o4, x, (%o1));
(%o5)   ...
(%i6)   expand((%o5));
(%o6)   ...
(%i7)   factor((%o6));
(%o7)   (a^2*x^2+a*b*x+2*a*x+a*c+b+1)*(a^4*x^2+a^3*b*x+2*a^3*x+2*a^2*x+a^3*c+a^2*b+a*b+a^2+2*a+1)*(a^5*x^4+2*a^4*b*x^3+4*a^4*x^3+2*a^3*x^3+2*a^4*c*x^2+a^3*b^2*x^2+6*a^3*b*x^2+3*a^2*b*x^2+6*a^3*x^2+4*a^2*x^2+a*x^2+2*a^3*b*c*x+4*a^3*c*x+2*a^2*c*x+2*a^2*b^2*x+a*b^2*x+6*a^2*b*x+4*a*b*x+b*x+4*a^2*x
+2*a*x+a^3*c^2+2*a^2*b*c+a*b*c+2*a^2*c+c+a*b^2+b^2+2*a*b+b+a)
$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

If the question is asking whether for a given irreducible quadratic polynomial $f$ whether there exist infinitely many positive integers $n$ for which $f(n) | n!$, then one argues as follows: we may assume that $f(n) > 0$, since there are finitely many $n$ for which $f(n) < 0$. If $n$ is such that whenever $p | f(n)$ we have $p \leq n$ then the desired outcome is true. Much more is true in fact, as shown by Bober, Fretwell, Martin, and Wooley: for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists infinitely many $n$ for which $f(n)$ is free of prime factors exceeding $n^\varepsilon$.

Edit: As Mark Sapir points out (but not explicitly), the above argument is too cavalier. It assumes implicitly that $f(n)$ is also square-free.

To fix the argument, we need to dig deeper into the proof given in the B-F-M-W paper. We describe their construction. First choose a large parameter $X$, and take $k$ to be the product of all primes $p < X$ and co-prime to $2a \phi(a)$, where $a$ is the leading coefficient of $f$ and $\phi$ is the Euler-totient function. In particular, $k$ is odd and square-free. For each positive integer $d$ let $\Omega_d$ be the set of primitive $d$-th roots of unity. Let $\alpha, \alpha^\prime$ be the two roots of $f$. Suppose $m,n, A,B$ are integers such that

$$\displaystyle (ma \alpha + n)^k = A\alpha + B.$$

Then put

$$\displaystyle h_d(t) = \prod_{\zeta \in \Omega_d} (t - (m a \alpha + n)\zeta)(t - (m a \alpha^\prime + n) \zeta),$$

and for $G(t) = (t^k - B)/A$ one finds

$$\displaystyle f(G(t)) = C \prod_{d | k} h_d(t).$$

In particular, the $G$ is square-free. They go on to show that an affine transformation of $G$, which is denoted $g$, satisfies the requirement of their theorem.

It follows that for the $g$ given in their theorem, one has $f(g(t)) = f_1(t) \cdots f_m (t)$ with the $f_j$'s pairwise co-prime. Thus, if $p$ is a prime and there exists an integer $k$ for which $p | \gcd(f_i(k), f_j(k))$ for distinct $i,j$ then $p$ must divide the resultant of $f_i, f_j$. It follows that there are only finitely many such primes and this possibility does not affect our argument. We may then assume that if $p^\ell | f(g(n))$ then $p^\ell | f_j(n)$ for exactly one $1 \leq j \leq m$. Then

$$p^\ell \leq |f_j(t)| \ll n^{ck/\sqrt{\log \log k}} < g(n)^\varepsilon,$$

say. By Polignac's formula, the largest power of $p$ dividing $(g(n))!$ is at least

$$\displaystyle \left \lfloor \frac{g(n)}{p} \right \rfloor \geq \frac{g(n)}{p} - 1 \gg g(n)^{1 - \varepsilon}.$$

If $p^\ell \nmid (g(n))!$ then we obtain an inequality of the form

$$\ell \gg_{\varepsilon} g(n)^{1 - \varepsilon},$$

and since $\ell \ll_{\varepsilon} \log g(n)$, this implies

$$\log g(n) \gg_{\varepsilon} g(n)^{1 - \varepsilon}$$

which can only hold for finitely many $n$. Hence for sufficiently large $n$ we see that $p^{\ell} | f(g(n))$ implies that $p^{\ell}$ divides $(g(n))!$, as desired.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ "If $n$ is such that whenever $p|f(n)$ we have $p\le n$ then the desired outcome is true." That claim and the rest of the answer are incorrect. $\endgroup$
    – markvs
    Commented Jul 11, 2021 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkSapir ah yes I agree... but nevertheless the given paper still implies the desired result. I will edit my answer $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 11, 2021 at 23:04
  • $\begingroup$ I do not think the result in the paper implies the result you want to prove, at least easily. $\endgroup$
    – markvs
    Commented Jul 11, 2021 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkSapir the argument ended up being more intricate than I thought, and requires looking at the actual proofs in the paper rather than just the statement of the main theorems. Luckily what they proved is enough to imply the result, without any new insights $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2021 at 0:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ we do not actually need $f(n)$ be square free: if $p$ divides $f(n)$ and $p<\sqrt{n}$, then we have something like $\nu_p(n)<3\log_2n<\nu_p(n!)$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 12, 2021 at 7:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .