Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

One observes that $4!+1 =25=5^{2}$, $5!+1=121=11^{2}$ is a perfect square. Similarly for $n=7$ also we see that $n!+1$ is a perfect square. So one can ask the truth of this question:

  • Is $n!+1$ a perfect square for infinitely many $n$? If yes, then how to prove.
share|improve this question
2  
I remember having this same question while trying to prove that some polynomials were irreducible in an algebra assignment years ago. Namely, $(x-1)(x-2)\cdots(x-n)+1$ is irreducible when $n$ is not $4$. After showing that its reducibility would imply that it is a square, one is led to your question. We didn't know it was an open problem. –  Jonas Meyer Oct 27 '10 at 5:18
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 15 down vote accepted

This is Brocard's problem, and it is still open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocard%27s_problem

share|improve this answer
    
oh ho! great i didnt know about it –  anonymous Oct 26 '10 at 16:55
3  
Note that the article says that the number of solutions is finite on the assumption that the ABC conjecture is true. There is now a claimed proof of the ABC conjecture. –  Mark Bennet Oct 1 '12 at 12:19
1  
According to Wikipedia's ABC Conjecture entry, the original proof was in error, but as of March 2013, a proposed correction has been posted. –  Blue Jun 23 '13 at 18:32
add comment

The sequence of factorials $n!+1$ which are also perfect squares is here in Sloane. It contains three terms, and notes that there are no more terms below $(10^9)!+1$, but as far as I know there's no proof.

share|improve this answer
add comment

My intuition would be that there are very few. There are just not many squares and even fewer factorials. OEIS A025494 lists the squares which are a sum of distinct factorials, which is less restrictive than what you ask and says the list is probably finite. In particular, there are no more below 31!

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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