Is $prod_1leq i< jleq n fraca_i - a_ji-j$, with distinct integers $a_i$, an integer?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
16
down vote

favorite
7












It is known that for every $n$ consecutive integers, their product is divisible by $n!$, since $$mchoosen = fracm!n!(m-n)!$$ is also an integer.



So is it true that for every distinct integer $a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$, the number $$S = prod_1leq i< jleq n fraca_i - a_ji-j$$ is also an integer?



(Sorry for my grammar mistakes, English is my second language)










share|cite|improve this question























  • What will happen If each $a_i$ is a multiple of some prime $p>n$?
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 5:54






  • 1




    @JensSchwaiger I think the problem is still true i guess? I have tried with 4,5,6,7 and it satisfied that $S$ was an integer.
    – apple
    Aug 30 at 5:57










  • Forget my previous comment. I mixed up nominator and denominator. Probably still tired.
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 6:06










  • For what it's worth, the conjecture is true for all $nleq 7$, and I'm having a devil of a time finding counter-examples with simulations for larger $n$.
    – Hans Musgrave
    Aug 30 at 8:48














up vote
16
down vote

favorite
7












It is known that for every $n$ consecutive integers, their product is divisible by $n!$, since $$mchoosen = fracm!n!(m-n)!$$ is also an integer.



So is it true that for every distinct integer $a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$, the number $$S = prod_1leq i< jleq n fraca_i - a_ji-j$$ is also an integer?



(Sorry for my grammar mistakes, English is my second language)










share|cite|improve this question























  • What will happen If each $a_i$ is a multiple of some prime $p>n$?
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 5:54






  • 1




    @JensSchwaiger I think the problem is still true i guess? I have tried with 4,5,6,7 and it satisfied that $S$ was an integer.
    – apple
    Aug 30 at 5:57










  • Forget my previous comment. I mixed up nominator and denominator. Probably still tired.
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 6:06










  • For what it's worth, the conjecture is true for all $nleq 7$, and I'm having a devil of a time finding counter-examples with simulations for larger $n$.
    – Hans Musgrave
    Aug 30 at 8:48












up vote
16
down vote

favorite
7









up vote
16
down vote

favorite
7






7





It is known that for every $n$ consecutive integers, their product is divisible by $n!$, since $$mchoosen = fracm!n!(m-n)!$$ is also an integer.



So is it true that for every distinct integer $a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$, the number $$S = prod_1leq i< jleq n fraca_i - a_ji-j$$ is also an integer?



(Sorry for my grammar mistakes, English is my second language)










share|cite|improve this question















It is known that for every $n$ consecutive integers, their product is divisible by $n!$, since $$mchoosen = fracm!n!(m-n)!$$ is also an integer.



So is it true that for every distinct integer $a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$, the number $$S = prod_1leq i< jleq n fraca_i - a_ji-j$$ is also an integer?



(Sorry for my grammar mistakes, English is my second language)







combinatorics algebra-precalculus geometry number-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 30 at 8:16









Blue

44.1k868141




44.1k868141










asked Aug 30 at 5:30









apple

844




844











  • What will happen If each $a_i$ is a multiple of some prime $p>n$?
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 5:54






  • 1




    @JensSchwaiger I think the problem is still true i guess? I have tried with 4,5,6,7 and it satisfied that $S$ was an integer.
    – apple
    Aug 30 at 5:57










  • Forget my previous comment. I mixed up nominator and denominator. Probably still tired.
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 6:06










  • For what it's worth, the conjecture is true for all $nleq 7$, and I'm having a devil of a time finding counter-examples with simulations for larger $n$.
    – Hans Musgrave
    Aug 30 at 8:48
















  • What will happen If each $a_i$ is a multiple of some prime $p>n$?
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 5:54






  • 1




    @JensSchwaiger I think the problem is still true i guess? I have tried with 4,5,6,7 and it satisfied that $S$ was an integer.
    – apple
    Aug 30 at 5:57










  • Forget my previous comment. I mixed up nominator and denominator. Probably still tired.
    – Jens Schwaiger
    Aug 30 at 6:06










  • For what it's worth, the conjecture is true for all $nleq 7$, and I'm having a devil of a time finding counter-examples with simulations for larger $n$.
    – Hans Musgrave
    Aug 30 at 8:48















What will happen If each $a_i$ is a multiple of some prime $p>n$?
– Jens Schwaiger
Aug 30 at 5:54




What will happen If each $a_i$ is a multiple of some prime $p>n$?
– Jens Schwaiger
Aug 30 at 5:54




1




1




@JensSchwaiger I think the problem is still true i guess? I have tried with 4,5,6,7 and it satisfied that $S$ was an integer.
– apple
Aug 30 at 5:57




@JensSchwaiger I think the problem is still true i guess? I have tried with 4,5,6,7 and it satisfied that $S$ was an integer.
– apple
Aug 30 at 5:57












Forget my previous comment. I mixed up nominator and denominator. Probably still tired.
– Jens Schwaiger
Aug 30 at 6:06




Forget my previous comment. I mixed up nominator and denominator. Probably still tired.
– Jens Schwaiger
Aug 30 at 6:06












For what it's worth, the conjecture is true for all $nleq 7$, and I'm having a devil of a time finding counter-examples with simulations for larger $n$.
– Hans Musgrave
Aug 30 at 8:48




For what it's worth, the conjecture is true for all $nleq 7$, and I'm having a devil of a time finding counter-examples with simulations for larger $n$.
– Hans Musgrave
Aug 30 at 8:48










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
14
down vote













We observe that $prod_1 leq i < j leq n (i-j) = prod_r=1^n r!$ and the numerator is just the Vandermonde Determinant so that by performing row operations we obtain
$$prod_1 leq i < j leq n fraca_i-a_ji-j =
beginvmatrix
1 & 1 & cdots & 1 \
binoma_11 & binoma_21 & cdots & binoma_n1 \
binoma_12 & binoma_22 & cdots & binoma_n2 \
cdots & cdots & cdots & cdots \
binoma_1n-1 & binoma_2n-1 & cdots & binoma_nn-1 \
endvmatrix$$



which is obviously an integer.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
    – Arin Chaudhuri
    Aug 30 at 14:59










  • I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
    – Mark
    Aug 30 at 15:06







  • 2




    I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
    – J.G.
    Aug 30 at 15:21

















up vote
2
down vote













Let $q = p^k$ for some prime $p$ and integer $k>0$. If you let $n_q$ = the number of pairs $i<j$ for which $a_i - a_j$ is divisible by $q$, then notice that $n_q$ is minimized for $a_1,ldots,a_n = 1,2,ldots,n$ (it is a bit of work to show this but it is not deep) (basically, you consider the set $mathbbZ/(q)$ and now you look the function $f: mathbbZ/(q) rightarrow mathbbN$ for which $f(a)$ is the number of $i$ for which $a_i$ mod $q$ is $a$. Then observe that you can compute $n_q$ from $f$, and that $n_q$ is minimized if all values of $f$ are inside $m,m+1$ where $m$ is $n/q$ rounded down).



Now apply this for $q = p, p^2, p^3, ldots$ and you see that the $p$-adic valuation of the numerator of $S$ is at least that of the denominator. That means $S$ is an integer.






share|cite|improve this answer






















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2899169%2fis-prod-1-leq-i-j-leq-n-fraca-i-a-ji-j-with-distinct-integers-a-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    14
    down vote













    We observe that $prod_1 leq i < j leq n (i-j) = prod_r=1^n r!$ and the numerator is just the Vandermonde Determinant so that by performing row operations we obtain
    $$prod_1 leq i < j leq n fraca_i-a_ji-j =
    beginvmatrix
    1 & 1 & cdots & 1 \
    binoma_11 & binoma_21 & cdots & binoma_n1 \
    binoma_12 & binoma_22 & cdots & binoma_n2 \
    cdots & cdots & cdots & cdots \
    binoma_1n-1 & binoma_2n-1 & cdots & binoma_nn-1 \
    endvmatrix$$



    which is obviously an integer.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
      – Arin Chaudhuri
      Aug 30 at 14:59










    • I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
      – Mark
      Aug 30 at 15:06







    • 2




      I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
      – J.G.
      Aug 30 at 15:21














    up vote
    14
    down vote













    We observe that $prod_1 leq i < j leq n (i-j) = prod_r=1^n r!$ and the numerator is just the Vandermonde Determinant so that by performing row operations we obtain
    $$prod_1 leq i < j leq n fraca_i-a_ji-j =
    beginvmatrix
    1 & 1 & cdots & 1 \
    binoma_11 & binoma_21 & cdots & binoma_n1 \
    binoma_12 & binoma_22 & cdots & binoma_n2 \
    cdots & cdots & cdots & cdots \
    binoma_1n-1 & binoma_2n-1 & cdots & binoma_nn-1 \
    endvmatrix$$



    which is obviously an integer.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
      – Arin Chaudhuri
      Aug 30 at 14:59










    • I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
      – Mark
      Aug 30 at 15:06







    • 2




      I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
      – J.G.
      Aug 30 at 15:21












    up vote
    14
    down vote










    up vote
    14
    down vote









    We observe that $prod_1 leq i < j leq n (i-j) = prod_r=1^n r!$ and the numerator is just the Vandermonde Determinant so that by performing row operations we obtain
    $$prod_1 leq i < j leq n fraca_i-a_ji-j =
    beginvmatrix
    1 & 1 & cdots & 1 \
    binoma_11 & binoma_21 & cdots & binoma_n1 \
    binoma_12 & binoma_22 & cdots & binoma_n2 \
    cdots & cdots & cdots & cdots \
    binoma_1n-1 & binoma_2n-1 & cdots & binoma_nn-1 \
    endvmatrix$$



    which is obviously an integer.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    We observe that $prod_1 leq i < j leq n (i-j) = prod_r=1^n r!$ and the numerator is just the Vandermonde Determinant so that by performing row operations we obtain
    $$prod_1 leq i < j leq n fraca_i-a_ji-j =
    beginvmatrix
    1 & 1 & cdots & 1 \
    binoma_11 & binoma_21 & cdots & binoma_n1 \
    binoma_12 & binoma_22 & cdots & binoma_n2 \
    cdots & cdots & cdots & cdots \
    binoma_1n-1 & binoma_2n-1 & cdots & binoma_nn-1 \
    endvmatrix$$



    which is obviously an integer.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Aug 30 at 13:33









    A. S. Roy

    1412




    1412











    • I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
      – Arin Chaudhuri
      Aug 30 at 14:59










    • I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
      – Mark
      Aug 30 at 15:06







    • 2




      I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
      – J.G.
      Aug 30 at 15:21
















    • I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
      – Arin Chaudhuri
      Aug 30 at 14:59










    • I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
      – Mark
      Aug 30 at 15:06







    • 2




      I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
      – J.G.
      Aug 30 at 15:21















    I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
    – Arin Chaudhuri
    Aug 30 at 14:59




    I don't see how the first relation holds: $prod_1 leq i < j leq 2 (i - j) = (1 - 2) = -1 neq 1! times 2!$
    – Arin Chaudhuri
    Aug 30 at 14:59












    I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
    – Mark
    Aug 30 at 15:06





    I think that $prod_r=1^n r!$ should be $pm prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. But apart from that, the proof works. Notice how on the $r+1$'th row you have $a_1^r/r!$ plus lower powers of $a_1$, but those lower powers can be row-reduced away using previous rows. This means that after row-reduction you get a Vandermonde matrix with the $r+1$'th row divided by $r!$. So you get the determinant of the Vandermonde matrix, divided by $prod_r=1^n-1 r!$. With that being an integer, the result follows.
    – Mark
    Aug 30 at 15:06





    2




    2




    I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
    – J.G.
    Aug 30 at 15:21




    I believe this is what people call a proof from the book. +1.
    – J.G.
    Aug 30 at 15:21










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Let $q = p^k$ for some prime $p$ and integer $k>0$. If you let $n_q$ = the number of pairs $i<j$ for which $a_i - a_j$ is divisible by $q$, then notice that $n_q$ is minimized for $a_1,ldots,a_n = 1,2,ldots,n$ (it is a bit of work to show this but it is not deep) (basically, you consider the set $mathbbZ/(q)$ and now you look the function $f: mathbbZ/(q) rightarrow mathbbN$ for which $f(a)$ is the number of $i$ for which $a_i$ mod $q$ is $a$. Then observe that you can compute $n_q$ from $f$, and that $n_q$ is minimized if all values of $f$ are inside $m,m+1$ where $m$ is $n/q$ rounded down).



    Now apply this for $q = p, p^2, p^3, ldots$ and you see that the $p$-adic valuation of the numerator of $S$ is at least that of the denominator. That means $S$ is an integer.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Let $q = p^k$ for some prime $p$ and integer $k>0$. If you let $n_q$ = the number of pairs $i<j$ for which $a_i - a_j$ is divisible by $q$, then notice that $n_q$ is minimized for $a_1,ldots,a_n = 1,2,ldots,n$ (it is a bit of work to show this but it is not deep) (basically, you consider the set $mathbbZ/(q)$ and now you look the function $f: mathbbZ/(q) rightarrow mathbbN$ for which $f(a)$ is the number of $i$ for which $a_i$ mod $q$ is $a$. Then observe that you can compute $n_q$ from $f$, and that $n_q$ is minimized if all values of $f$ are inside $m,m+1$ where $m$ is $n/q$ rounded down).



      Now apply this for $q = p, p^2, p^3, ldots$ and you see that the $p$-adic valuation of the numerator of $S$ is at least that of the denominator. That means $S$ is an integer.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        Let $q = p^k$ for some prime $p$ and integer $k>0$. If you let $n_q$ = the number of pairs $i<j$ for which $a_i - a_j$ is divisible by $q$, then notice that $n_q$ is minimized for $a_1,ldots,a_n = 1,2,ldots,n$ (it is a bit of work to show this but it is not deep) (basically, you consider the set $mathbbZ/(q)$ and now you look the function $f: mathbbZ/(q) rightarrow mathbbN$ for which $f(a)$ is the number of $i$ for which $a_i$ mod $q$ is $a$. Then observe that you can compute $n_q$ from $f$, and that $n_q$ is minimized if all values of $f$ are inside $m,m+1$ where $m$ is $n/q$ rounded down).



        Now apply this for $q = p, p^2, p^3, ldots$ and you see that the $p$-adic valuation of the numerator of $S$ is at least that of the denominator. That means $S$ is an integer.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Let $q = p^k$ for some prime $p$ and integer $k>0$. If you let $n_q$ = the number of pairs $i<j$ for which $a_i - a_j$ is divisible by $q$, then notice that $n_q$ is minimized for $a_1,ldots,a_n = 1,2,ldots,n$ (it is a bit of work to show this but it is not deep) (basically, you consider the set $mathbbZ/(q)$ and now you look the function $f: mathbbZ/(q) rightarrow mathbbN$ for which $f(a)$ is the number of $i$ for which $a_i$ mod $q$ is $a$. Then observe that you can compute $n_q$ from $f$, and that $n_q$ is minimized if all values of $f$ are inside $m,m+1$ where $m$ is $n/q$ rounded down).



        Now apply this for $q = p, p^2, p^3, ldots$ and you see that the $p$-adic valuation of the numerator of $S$ is at least that of the denominator. That means $S$ is an integer.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 30 at 13:34

























        answered Aug 30 at 13:27









        Mark

        1,00657




        1,00657



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2899169%2fis-prod-1-leq-i-j-leq-n-fraca-i-a-ji-j-with-distinct-integers-a-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?