I Questions regarding Kurepa's Conjecture

AI Thread Summary
Kurepa's conjecture, formulated in 1971, posits that for any prime number p > 2, the sum of the factorials from 0 to (p - 1) is not congruent to zero modulo p. Despite being a significant unsolved problem in number theory for over 50 years, it remains relatively obscure with limited literature and research interest. The conjecture's complexity stems from its deep mathematical implications and the failure of numerous attempts to prove it, including recent work validating it for primes less than 2^40. Its potential consequences, if proven or disproven, could extend to various areas in mathematics, including continued fractions. Overall, Kurepa's conjecture exemplifies the challenges faced in advancing number theory.
Math_Maven
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Kurepa's conjecture states that for any prime number p > 2, we have

$$0! + 1! + \ldots + (p - 1)! \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$

We let !p denote the expression on the left-hand side. We call it the left factorial of p. We do not know any infinite set of prime numbers for which the conjecture holds. Moreover, Barsky and Benzaghou failed to prove it.

Kurepa’s conjecture/hypothesis for the left factorial has been an unsolved problem for more than 50 years now. Kurepa’s hypothesis, was formulated in 1971 by Duro Kurepa (1907–1993) and is a long-standing difficult conjecture.

Kurepa proposed that: For every natural number n > 1, it holds

gcd(!n, n!) = 2

where gcd(a, b) is the greatest common divisor of integers a and b and the left factorial !n is defined by

$$!0 = 0, \quad !n = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} k!, \quad n \in \mathbb{N}$$

In the same paper, Kurepa gave an equivalent reformulation of the hypothesis that:

$$!p \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$ for any odd prime p

Over the past fifty years, there have been many attempts to find a solution to Kurepa’s conjecture, and the problem still remains open. This problem is listed in Guy’s (Prob
lem B44), Koninck–Mercier’s (Problem 37), and in Sandor–Cristici’s books and has been studied by numerous researchers. Most recently, Vladica Andrejić, A. Bostan, and M. Tatarevic, in their paper, showed that Kurepa’s conjecture is valid for p < 2^{40}. There were several announcements about the final solution of Kurepa’s conjecture, even papers with incorrect proof were proposed.

My questions are:

1. Why is Kurepa's conjecture, also known as the Left Factorial Hypothesis, so less commonly known and relatively less studied in the field of Number Theory and mathematics as a whole?
2. What makes it so hard to prove that it's a long-standing difficult problem even after half a century?
3. Does it have any significant implications? Since I am not much aware about the uses of Left Factorial function, so please share (if you can) atleast some general consequences that will follow if the conjecture in question is proved or disproved (it might be even related to continued fractions, I guess).

There is only one question about this conjecture on MSE:
https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1808977/1379223.
Besides that, there is no proper Wiki page on it and hardly few papers (in my opinion less than 30) are there which discuss about this conjecture. So, there is negligible literature available on internet which talks about Kurepa’s conjecture, and I think this question would largely help people who want to learn more or understand about it.

I understand this is not a rigorous mathematical question, however if such requests for conjectures and theorems are permitted, then I humbly ask this question to be considered and approved here. I will make sure to include appropriate tags. Thanks in advance and suggestions are always welcome, since this is my first post here.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I can't say why it's not more well-known in the popular sphere, although I'm sure number theorists know it.

I couldn't find any reference stating that Erdos was working on it either, as he popularized many such problems.

He had a quote for the 3n+1 conjecture that applies here:

Math is not yet ready for these kinds of problems.

Kurepa's conjecture would be included in that mix.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top