Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I assume that is nigh-impossible to prove when the conditions on the integers are very general. However, my algebra professor told me that the following is true:

If $n$ is a composite positive integer, $(n - 1)! + 1$ is not a power of $n$.

I assume this is an easy number theory problem, but I don't know how to approach it. The form of $(n-1)!+1$ makes me think of somehow splitting the term into its primes and using Wilson's, however improbable it is to do so. And for a proof by contradiction, finding parameters on $x$ such that $n^x=(n-1)!+1$ gets me nowhere, since it would just translate to a discrete log problem.

I appreciate any hints or input!

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

HINT Since $n$ is composite, consider a prime dividing $n$. Will it divide $(n-1)! + 1$? (Remember that the prime dividing $n$ will occur in $(n-1)!$ and hence will divide $(n-1)!$).

share|cite|improve this answer
I think I have it now. Thanks! I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post full solutions, so I deleted my last comment. All one needs to do is prove a prime factor of $n$ doesn't divide $(n-1)!+1$ by your tip. Hence, it isn't a power of $n$ since the prime factor must divide powers of $n$. – Dustin Tran Jun 30 '12 at 7:33
That's kind of a heavy-handed hint :P – Ben Millwood Jun 30 '12 at 9:57

The number $(n-1)! + 1$ cannot even be divisible by $n$, nevermind actually being $n$ or a power of $n$.

See this new question for proof of this fact (at least for $n\geq 5$):


share|cite|improve this answer
So $4$ divides $6$, interesting. – Marc van Leeuwen Jun 30 '12 at 9:38
If you read the comments on the linked question you will see that $n=4$ is the only case that this doesn't work... – fretty Jun 30 '12 at 9:42
Then you should have said so. – Marc van Leeuwen Jun 30 '12 at 10:39
Why should I have? My answer said to follow the link and read the corresponding post for a related result, I did not claim the entire truth of this other result. It is a small amount of common sense from there to prove the $n=4$ case of the present question is not true either. – fretty Jun 30 '12 at 11:03
OK, I somewhat misread what you said, my excuses. "If $n$ is composite, then $n$ divides $(n−1)!$" is not a claim you make, but just the title of a question you link to. Since it is a false statement, I think it would be best here to actually change the clickable text, adding somthing like "unless $n=4$", or make clear in some other way that you don't claim this yourself. – Marc van Leeuwen Jun 30 '12 at 16:50

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.