Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

A number of years ago, I proved the following result:

For any integer $k$, the number of positive integral solutions to $x(x+1)...(x+n-1) = y^n+k$ with $n \ge 3$ is finite (i.e., there are only a finite number of $(x, y, n)$ satisfying this equation for any $k$).

It is pretty clear that for any fixed $k$ and $n$ there are only a finite number of $x$ and $y$ (you can prove that $y \le |k|$), but the fact that there are only a finite number of $n$ came as a surprise to me. I initially proved that $n < e|k|$ and later derived much stricter bounds.

The way I phrased this is "The product of $n$ consecutive integers is almost never close to an $n$-th power."

My question is whether this result is surprising?


share|cite|improve this question
Surprise is relative. Perhaps you might like to ask a more precise question, like "are there any common heuristics which suggest that this is the obvious answer" or "are there elementary techniques which quickly yield this result"? – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 27 '11 at 3:00
@ Qiaochu Yuan: I seem to recall a general result that when the sum of degrees of a Diophantine equation (here 2/n) is less than 1 you should expect a finite number of solutions, but a quick search doesn't turn it up. Maybe this would answer the question. – Ross Millikan Aug 27 '11 at 3:22
@Ross: this should follow from Scott Carnahan's answer in the linked MO post, but it only gives the result for fixed $n$. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 27 '11 at 3:26

The result is not surprising in the sense that standard probabilistic heuristics suggest it to be true. In the interval $[2^d, 2^{d+1})$ there are $2^d$ numbers. Of those numbers, $O(d \cdot 2^{d/3})$ are perfect third powers or higher, so the probability that a number in this interval is a perfect third power or higher is $O(d \cdot 2^{-2d/3})$. The probability that a number in this interval is of the form $x(x+1)...(x+n-1) - k$ for some $n \ge 3$ should be approximately the same, and if we assume that the two events are independent, then the probability that a solution exists to your Diophantine equation with $y^n \in [2^d, 2^{d+1})$ is $O(d^2 \cdot 2^{-4d/3})$.

The sum of these probabilities over all $d$ converges. A heuristic application of Borel-Cantelli then suggests that the number of solutions is finite.

Of course, this argument also applies, incorrectly, to $n = 2$. Here there is algebraic structure which violates the independence assumption. But this structure doesn't generalize to higher $n$, and I guess this can be made precise by Faltings' theorem for fixed $n$.

Speaking of which, Scott Carnahan's answer to this MO question about the Mordell conjecture may be more convincing to you, as it correctly excludes the case $n = 2$. (Take the sum over all $d \ge 3$, in the notation of his answer.)

share|cite|improve this answer

BTW, here is how I converted the bound on $y$ to a bound on $n$:

Since $2(n/e)^n < n!$,

$$2(n/e)^n < n! \le x(x+1)...(x+n-1) = y^n+k.$$

Using the corrected bound on $y$ of $y \le |k|$,

$$2(n/e)^n < |k|^n + |k| \le 2|k|^n$$

so $n/e < |k|$ or $n < e|k|$.

I did this over 40 years ago, but I still remember thinking that this was magic, somehow pulling the result out of thin air.

share|cite|improve this answer
Nothing particularly magical seems to be going on here given that $y \le |k|$: you're just using the fact that factorials grow faster than exponentials. What I'd really like to know is how you showed that $y \le |k|$. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 27 '11 at 4:49
I agree with Quaochu Yuan. – mick Dec 5 '13 at 22:55

It is a result of Erdos and Selfridge that the product of consecutive integers is never a power (with trivial exceptions). Perhaps something in their paper is of use here.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.