For $c=10$, we get $a=100$ and $b=99$.

However, I am wondering if it is possible to write a square of a number as a multiplication of consecutive integers. So, if

$c^2 = a (a-1) (a-2) \cdots (a-n)$

then we would possibly get a smaller $a+b+c$.

$b=1$, $\ \ $ ($n=a-1$) is not possible because the only square factorials are $0!$ and $1!$.

These are my thoughts on the problem. Thanks for your help.


Comment turned into answer per request.

The product of consecutive positive integers is never a perfect square. First proved by Paul Erdős in 1939. An online copy of that paper Notes on products of consecutive integers can be found here.

  • $\begingroup$ After a peek at the paper by Erdos it seems this is not an easy theorem. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Oct 22 '17 at 20:29

If you wanted to show this without using the Erdős theorem, you could proceed something like:

  1. The value $a+b+c$ is 209, using $a=100,b=99,c=10$. To obtain a smaller value for $a+b+c$, then $c < 209$.
  2. $208^2=43264$, so $c$ would have to be the product, $p$, of a set of consecutive integers, where $p \leq 43264$.
  3. The longest sequence of positive integers where $p \leq 43264$ is $1\dots 8$. The second longest is $2\dots8$. Neither are squares.
  4. The third longest (length$=6$) are $2\dots7$ and $3\dots8$. Not squares.
  5. The fourth longest (length$=5$) are $2\dots6,\dots, 4\dots8,\dots, 6\dots10$. None are squares.
  6. The fifth longest (length$=4$) are $2\dots5,\dots, 8\dots11, \dots, 12\dots15$. None are squares.
  7. The seventh longest (length$=3$) are $2\dots4, \dots, 14\dots16, \dots, 34\dots36$. None is a square.
  8. The seventh longest (length$=2$) are the pairs: $2\dots3, \dots, 36\dots37, \dots, 207\dots208$. The product of no pair of consecutive integers is a square.
  9. The shortest sequences are single numbers. However the minimum solution with a single number is $a=100,b=99,c=10$.
  10. Therefore you know the solution is $b=99$.

There are $1+2+5+11+33+206=258$ cases to check using this method.

You can eliminate the cases of 3 consecutive integers by observing the following (where the minimum number in all sequences is at least 2):

  1. Assume none of the 3 is a square. If the smallest of the 3 integers is odd, then all 3 integers are coprime, hence the product has at least 3 prime factors with odd exponents and isn't a square
  2. Assume none of the 3 is a square. If the smallest of the 3 integers is even, it and the last integer have 2 as common factor, but no other shared prime factors. The first integer divided by 2 may be a square, or the third divided by 2 may be a square, but not both. Therefore at least one of the two has a prime factorization where at least one odd prime factor has an odd exponent. Since, besides a factor of 2, the three are all coprime the product will have at least 2 odd prime factors with odd exponents, hence not a perfect squares.
  3. Assume one of the 3 is a square. The other two won't be squares. There are two cases: square is middle number, square is not middle number. If square is middle number the product of the other two is of the form $n^2+2n$, else $n^2+n$. Neither expression can be a square.

Although I haven't attempted it, I'm confident you could employ similar reasoning to prove that the products of sequences with lengths of 4, 5, 6, and 7 can't be square, but I'd guess the proofs might be more complicated.


This is a variant of Xpw's answer, intended to reduce the number of separate cases that need to be examined in order to show that $(a,b,c)=(100,99,10)$ minimizes the sum $a+b+c$ if $c\ge10$.

Suppose $a!=b!\cdot c^2$ with $c\ge10$ and $a+b+c\lt209$. Let's write $a=b+n$. Then we have


We cannot have $n=2$, since any two consecutive integers are relatively prime, hence each would have to be a square in order for their product to be a square, but positive squares differ by at least $3$.

For $n\ge3$ we have the following crude inequality:


(You can be less crude if you like, but there's little to be gained from it.) Since $40^3=64000$ and $20^4=160000$, we see that $b\lt40$ if $n=3$ and $b\lt20$ if $n\ge4$. Let's do the $n\ge4$ case first.

Any string of $4$ or more consecutive numbers starting at a number less than or equal to $20$ contains at least one prime within the final $4$ numbers in the string (the first prime gap greater than $4$ occurs at $29-23$). The product of such a string contains that prime to the first power only, hence cannot be a square.

Any string of three consecutive numbers contains exactly one number divisible by $3$. In order for their product to be a square, the number divisible by $3$ must be divisible by an even power of $3$. For strings beginning at $40$ or less, the only possibilities are $9$, $18$, and $36$. Since $7$, $11$, $17$, $19$, and $37$ are primes, the only strings to check are $8\cdot9\cdot10$ and $34\cdot35\cdot36$, neither of which is a square.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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