Does $(n+1)(n-2)x_{n+1}=n(n^2-n-1)x_n-(n-1)^3x_{n-1}$ with $x_2=x_3=1$ define a sequence that is integral at...












36












$begingroup$


My son gave me the following recurrence formula for $x_n$ ($nge2$):




$$(n+1)(n-2)x_{n+1}=n(n^2-n-1)x_n-(n-1)^3x_{n-1}tag{1}$$
$$x_2=x_3=1$$




The task I got from him:




  • The sequence has an interesting property, find it out.

  • Make a conjecture and prove it.


Obviously I had to start with a few values and calculating them by hand turned out to be difficult. So I used Mathematica and defined the sequence as follows:



b[n_] := b[n] = n (n^2 - n - 1) a[n] - (n - 1)^3 a[n - 1];
a[n_] := a[n] = b[n - 1]/(n (n - 3));
a[2] = 1;
a[3] = 1;


And I got the following results:



$$ a_4=frac{7}{4}, a_5=5, a_6=frac{121}{6}, a_7=103, a_8=frac{5041}{8}, a_9=frac{40321}{9}, \ a_{10}=frac{362881}{10}, a_{11}=329891, a_{12}=frac{39916801}{12}, a_{13}=36846277, a_{14}=frac{6227020801}{14}dots$$



Numbers don't make any sense but it's strange that the sequence produces integer values from time to time. It's not something that I expected from a pretty complex definition like (1).



So I decided to find the values of $n$ producing integer values of $a_n$. I did an experiment for $2le n le 100$:



table = Table[{i, a[i]}, {i, 2, 100}];
integers = Select[table, (IntegerQ[#[[2]]]) &];
itegerIndexes = Map[#[[1]] &, integers]


...and the output was:



{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 
59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97}


Conjecture (pretty amazing, at least to me):




$a_n$ is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime.




Interesting primality test, isn't it? The trick is to prove that it's correct. I have started with the substitution:



$$y_n=n x_n$$



...which simplifies (1) a bit:



$$(n-2)y_{n+1}=(n^2-n-1)y_n-(n-1)^2y_{n-1}$$



...but I did not get much further (the next step, I guess, should be rearrangement).










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The fact that this sequence starts with the first prime index looks like a huge hint, seeing as mathematicians would start with n= 1 and software devs with n = 0 :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 15 at 15:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're interested in returning the favor to your son, there are Diophantine Equations which enumerate all primes. The result is an inequality such that, if this polynomial function (whose inputs are 26 whole numbers labeled a through z) is greater than zero, then k, the 11th argument to the function, is prime, and every prime on the entire numberline is enumerated this way.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 15 at 15:56








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Looking at OEIS reveals origins of this problem, numerators are oeis.org/A005450, denominators are oeis.org/A005451, and in the references in the second one you find this is from Problem 10578 in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), page 270, see jstor.org/stable/….
    $endgroup$
    – Sil
    Mar 16 at 18:05


















36












$begingroup$


My son gave me the following recurrence formula for $x_n$ ($nge2$):




$$(n+1)(n-2)x_{n+1}=n(n^2-n-1)x_n-(n-1)^3x_{n-1}tag{1}$$
$$x_2=x_3=1$$




The task I got from him:




  • The sequence has an interesting property, find it out.

  • Make a conjecture and prove it.


Obviously I had to start with a few values and calculating them by hand turned out to be difficult. So I used Mathematica and defined the sequence as follows:



b[n_] := b[n] = n (n^2 - n - 1) a[n] - (n - 1)^3 a[n - 1];
a[n_] := a[n] = b[n - 1]/(n (n - 3));
a[2] = 1;
a[3] = 1;


And I got the following results:



$$ a_4=frac{7}{4}, a_5=5, a_6=frac{121}{6}, a_7=103, a_8=frac{5041}{8}, a_9=frac{40321}{9}, \ a_{10}=frac{362881}{10}, a_{11}=329891, a_{12}=frac{39916801}{12}, a_{13}=36846277, a_{14}=frac{6227020801}{14}dots$$



Numbers don't make any sense but it's strange that the sequence produces integer values from time to time. It's not something that I expected from a pretty complex definition like (1).



So I decided to find the values of $n$ producing integer values of $a_n$. I did an experiment for $2le n le 100$:



table = Table[{i, a[i]}, {i, 2, 100}];
integers = Select[table, (IntegerQ[#[[2]]]) &];
itegerIndexes = Map[#[[1]] &, integers]


...and the output was:



{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 
59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97}


Conjecture (pretty amazing, at least to me):




$a_n$ is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime.




Interesting primality test, isn't it? The trick is to prove that it's correct. I have started with the substitution:



$$y_n=n x_n$$



...which simplifies (1) a bit:



$$(n-2)y_{n+1}=(n^2-n-1)y_n-(n-1)^2y_{n-1}$$



...but I did not get much further (the next step, I guess, should be rearrangement).










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The fact that this sequence starts with the first prime index looks like a huge hint, seeing as mathematicians would start with n= 1 and software devs with n = 0 :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 15 at 15:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're interested in returning the favor to your son, there are Diophantine Equations which enumerate all primes. The result is an inequality such that, if this polynomial function (whose inputs are 26 whole numbers labeled a through z) is greater than zero, then k, the 11th argument to the function, is prime, and every prime on the entire numberline is enumerated this way.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 15 at 15:56








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Looking at OEIS reveals origins of this problem, numerators are oeis.org/A005450, denominators are oeis.org/A005451, and in the references in the second one you find this is from Problem 10578 in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), page 270, see jstor.org/stable/….
    $endgroup$
    – Sil
    Mar 16 at 18:05
















36












36








36


10



$begingroup$


My son gave me the following recurrence formula for $x_n$ ($nge2$):




$$(n+1)(n-2)x_{n+1}=n(n^2-n-1)x_n-(n-1)^3x_{n-1}tag{1}$$
$$x_2=x_3=1$$




The task I got from him:




  • The sequence has an interesting property, find it out.

  • Make a conjecture and prove it.


Obviously I had to start with a few values and calculating them by hand turned out to be difficult. So I used Mathematica and defined the sequence as follows:



b[n_] := b[n] = n (n^2 - n - 1) a[n] - (n - 1)^3 a[n - 1];
a[n_] := a[n] = b[n - 1]/(n (n - 3));
a[2] = 1;
a[3] = 1;


And I got the following results:



$$ a_4=frac{7}{4}, a_5=5, a_6=frac{121}{6}, a_7=103, a_8=frac{5041}{8}, a_9=frac{40321}{9}, \ a_{10}=frac{362881}{10}, a_{11}=329891, a_{12}=frac{39916801}{12}, a_{13}=36846277, a_{14}=frac{6227020801}{14}dots$$



Numbers don't make any sense but it's strange that the sequence produces integer values from time to time. It's not something that I expected from a pretty complex definition like (1).



So I decided to find the values of $n$ producing integer values of $a_n$. I did an experiment for $2le n le 100$:



table = Table[{i, a[i]}, {i, 2, 100}];
integers = Select[table, (IntegerQ[#[[2]]]) &];
itegerIndexes = Map[#[[1]] &, integers]


...and the output was:



{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 
59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97}


Conjecture (pretty amazing, at least to me):




$a_n$ is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime.




Interesting primality test, isn't it? The trick is to prove that it's correct. I have started with the substitution:



$$y_n=n x_n$$



...which simplifies (1) a bit:



$$(n-2)y_{n+1}=(n^2-n-1)y_n-(n-1)^2y_{n-1}$$



...but I did not get much further (the next step, I guess, should be rearrangement).










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




My son gave me the following recurrence formula for $x_n$ ($nge2$):




$$(n+1)(n-2)x_{n+1}=n(n^2-n-1)x_n-(n-1)^3x_{n-1}tag{1}$$
$$x_2=x_3=1$$




The task I got from him:




  • The sequence has an interesting property, find it out.

  • Make a conjecture and prove it.


Obviously I had to start with a few values and calculating them by hand turned out to be difficult. So I used Mathematica and defined the sequence as follows:



b[n_] := b[n] = n (n^2 - n - 1) a[n] - (n - 1)^3 a[n - 1];
a[n_] := a[n] = b[n - 1]/(n (n - 3));
a[2] = 1;
a[3] = 1;


And I got the following results:



$$ a_4=frac{7}{4}, a_5=5, a_6=frac{121}{6}, a_7=103, a_8=frac{5041}{8}, a_9=frac{40321}{9}, \ a_{10}=frac{362881}{10}, a_{11}=329891, a_{12}=frac{39916801}{12}, a_{13}=36846277, a_{14}=frac{6227020801}{14}dots$$



Numbers don't make any sense but it's strange that the sequence produces integer values from time to time. It's not something that I expected from a pretty complex definition like (1).



So I decided to find the values of $n$ producing integer values of $a_n$. I did an experiment for $2le n le 100$:



table = Table[{i, a[i]}, {i, 2, 100}];
integers = Select[table, (IntegerQ[#[[2]]]) &];
itegerIndexes = Map[#[[1]] &, integers]


...and the output was:



{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 
59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97}


Conjecture (pretty amazing, at least to me):




$a_n$ is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime.




Interesting primality test, isn't it? The trick is to prove that it's correct. I have started with the substitution:



$$y_n=n x_n$$



...which simplifies (1) a bit:



$$(n-2)y_{n+1}=(n^2-n-1)y_n-(n-1)^2y_{n-1}$$



...but I did not get much further (the next step, I guess, should be rearrangement).







sequences-and-series elementary-number-theory prime-numbers recurrence-relations primality-test






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 17 at 1:07









Song

18.5k21651




18.5k21651










asked Mar 15 at 15:15









OldboyOldboy

8,93111138




8,93111138








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The fact that this sequence starts with the first prime index looks like a huge hint, seeing as mathematicians would start with n= 1 and software devs with n = 0 :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 15 at 15:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're interested in returning the favor to your son, there are Diophantine Equations which enumerate all primes. The result is an inequality such that, if this polynomial function (whose inputs are 26 whole numbers labeled a through z) is greater than zero, then k, the 11th argument to the function, is prime, and every prime on the entire numberline is enumerated this way.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 15 at 15:56








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Looking at OEIS reveals origins of this problem, numerators are oeis.org/A005450, denominators are oeis.org/A005451, and in the references in the second one you find this is from Problem 10578 in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), page 270, see jstor.org/stable/….
    $endgroup$
    – Sil
    Mar 16 at 18:05
















  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The fact that this sequence starts with the first prime index looks like a huge hint, seeing as mathematicians would start with n= 1 and software devs with n = 0 :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 15 at 15:51






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you're interested in returning the favor to your son, there are Diophantine Equations which enumerate all primes. The result is an inequality such that, if this polynomial function (whose inputs are 26 whole numbers labeled a through z) is greater than zero, then k, the 11th argument to the function, is prime, and every prime on the entire numberline is enumerated this way.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Mar 15 at 15:56








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Looking at OEIS reveals origins of this problem, numerators are oeis.org/A005450, denominators are oeis.org/A005451, and in the references in the second one you find this is from Problem 10578 in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), page 270, see jstor.org/stable/….
    $endgroup$
    – Sil
    Mar 16 at 18:05










2




2




$begingroup$
The fact that this sequence starts with the first prime index looks like a huge hint, seeing as mathematicians would start with n= 1 and software devs with n = 0 :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Mar 15 at 15:51




$begingroup$
The fact that this sequence starts with the first prime index looks like a huge hint, seeing as mathematicians would start with n= 1 and software devs with n = 0 :-)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Mar 15 at 15:51




2




2




$begingroup$
If you're interested in returning the favor to your son, there are Diophantine Equations which enumerate all primes. The result is an inequality such that, if this polynomial function (whose inputs are 26 whole numbers labeled a through z) is greater than zero, then k, the 11th argument to the function, is prime, and every prime on the entire numberline is enumerated this way.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Mar 15 at 15:56






$begingroup$
If you're interested in returning the favor to your son, there are Diophantine Equations which enumerate all primes. The result is an inequality such that, if this polynomial function (whose inputs are 26 whole numbers labeled a through z) is greater than zero, then k, the 11th argument to the function, is prime, and every prime on the entire numberline is enumerated this way.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Mar 15 at 15:56






2




2




$begingroup$
Looking at OEIS reveals origins of this problem, numerators are oeis.org/A005450, denominators are oeis.org/A005451, and in the references in the second one you find this is from Problem 10578 in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), page 270, see jstor.org/stable/….
$endgroup$
– Sil
Mar 16 at 18:05






$begingroup$
Looking at OEIS reveals origins of this problem, numerators are oeis.org/A005450, denominators are oeis.org/A005451, and in the references in the second one you find this is from Problem 10578 in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), page 270, see jstor.org/stable/….
$endgroup$
– Sil
Mar 16 at 18:05












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















44












$begingroup$

The given difference equation can be solved in the following way. We have for $nge 3$,
$$
(n-2)(y_{n+1}-y_n) = (n-1)^2(y_n-y_{n-1}),\
frac{y_{n+1}-y_n}{n-1}=(n-1)frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}.
$$
If we let $displaystyle z_n=frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}$, it follows that
$$
z_{n+1}=(n-1)z_n=(n-1)(n-2)z_{n-1}=cdots =(n-1)!z_3=(n-1)!frac{3x_3-2x_2}{1}=(n-1)!
$$
This gives
$$
y_{n+1}-y_n=(n-1)(n-1)!=n!-(n-1)!,
$$
hence $y_n = nx_n = (n-1)!+c$ for some $c$. Plugging $n=2$ yields $2=1!+c$, thus we have that $$displaystyle x_n =frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    34












    $begingroup$

    The $n^{rm{th}}$ term of the sequence is $dfrac{(n-1)! + 1}{n}$, which is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime (according to Wilson's Theorem).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
      $endgroup$
      – Oldboy
      Mar 15 at 15:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
      $endgroup$
      – FredH
      Mar 15 at 15:38






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
      $endgroup$
      – Oldboy
      Mar 15 at 19:48



















    19












    $begingroup$

    Too long for a comment:




    Numbers don't make any sense




    Actually, they do ! :-) Just take a closer look at the sequence's composite-index denominators, and notice the following:




    $$
    a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
    a_{5}=5,quad
    a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
    a_{7}=103,quad
    a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
    a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
    \~\~\
    a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
    a_{11}=329891,quad
    a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
    a_{13}=36846277,quaddots
    $$




    Let us now rewrite the sequence's prime-indexed elements in a similar manner, for a more uniform approach:




    $$
    a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
    a_{color{blue}5}=frac{25}{color{blue}5},quad
    a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
    a_{color{blue}7}=frac{721}{color{blue}7},quad
    a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
    a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
    \~\~\
    a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
    a_{color{blue}{11}}=frac{3628801}{color{blue}{11}},quad
    a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
    a_{color{blue}{13}}=frac{479001601}{color{blue}{13}},quaddots
    $$




    At this point, we might be able to cheat, and use OEIS to identify the afferent sequence $color{blue}{b_n=ncdot a_n}$ by its first few elements, yielding three possible suspects: but let's say that our mathematical virtue and intellectual integrity will prevail over our base urges of rampant curiosity, and we might resist the temptation to do so. Could we then, without any outside aide, still manage to deduce an expression for $b_n$ ? Indeed, even a superficial glance will undoubtedly reveal the growth to resemble what one might otherwise expect to see in a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. We then have:




    $$
    r_{color{blue}4}=frac{25}{7}simeqcolor{blue}4,quad
    r_{color{blue}5}=frac{121}{25}simeqcolor{blue}5,quad
    r_{color{blue}6}=frac{721}{121}simeqcolor{blue}6,quad
    r_{color{blue}7}=frac{5041}{721}simeqcolor{blue}7,quaddots
    $$




    In short, $color{blue}{r_n=dfrac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}simeq n}.~$ A type of “modified geometric progression”, as it were, with a variable ratio equal to the index itself: Does this sound in any way familiar ? If no, there is still no need to worry: We'll get to the bottom of it soon enough, anyway. More precisely, we have $color{blue}{b_{n+1}=ncdot b_n-(n-1)}.~$ Now we are left with showing that, for prime values of the index p, $~color{blue}{a_p=dfrac{b_p}pinmathbb N},~$ starting from $color{blue}{b_2=2}.~$ Could mathematical induction work in this case, or does the seemingly random distribution of primes throw a wrench into such an approach ? And, if so, could we then maybe slightly modify it, to fit the new conditions ? What would you say ? :-)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Mar 16 at 3:22






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
      $endgroup$
      – Lucian
      Mar 16 at 3:23








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
      $endgroup$
      – TreFox
      Mar 17 at 1:25



















    2












    $begingroup$

    My process to find the solution probably involves too far a leap of faith, but I will post it anyway.



    First, after writing out at least 8 terms, I noticed that, apart from integers, all terms are of the form $a_n=?/n$. So naturally I turned towards the sequence $b_nequiv a_ncdot n$, which goes like $3, 7, 25, 121, 721, 5041, 40321, dots$.



    Now my intuition senses the number sequence $504*, 4032*$, which resembles the factorial of 7&8, moreover, a lot of them seems to end in $1$. So I made a further conjecture that




    $$a_n=frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$




    A quick check of Wilson's theorem shows that it is compatible with the original conjecture. Thus, we seem to be on the right track. This can be easily proved by induction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      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%2f3149428%2fdoes-n1n-2x-n1-nn2-n-1x-n-n-13x-n-1-with-x-2-x-3-1-define-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      44












      $begingroup$

      The given difference equation can be solved in the following way. We have for $nge 3$,
      $$
      (n-2)(y_{n+1}-y_n) = (n-1)^2(y_n-y_{n-1}),\
      frac{y_{n+1}-y_n}{n-1}=(n-1)frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}.
      $$
      If we let $displaystyle z_n=frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}$, it follows that
      $$
      z_{n+1}=(n-1)z_n=(n-1)(n-2)z_{n-1}=cdots =(n-1)!z_3=(n-1)!frac{3x_3-2x_2}{1}=(n-1)!
      $$
      This gives
      $$
      y_{n+1}-y_n=(n-1)(n-1)!=n!-(n-1)!,
      $$
      hence $y_n = nx_n = (n-1)!+c$ for some $c$. Plugging $n=2$ yields $2=1!+c$, thus we have that $$displaystyle x_n =frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        44












        $begingroup$

        The given difference equation can be solved in the following way. We have for $nge 3$,
        $$
        (n-2)(y_{n+1}-y_n) = (n-1)^2(y_n-y_{n-1}),\
        frac{y_{n+1}-y_n}{n-1}=(n-1)frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}.
        $$
        If we let $displaystyle z_n=frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}$, it follows that
        $$
        z_{n+1}=(n-1)z_n=(n-1)(n-2)z_{n-1}=cdots =(n-1)!z_3=(n-1)!frac{3x_3-2x_2}{1}=(n-1)!
        $$
        This gives
        $$
        y_{n+1}-y_n=(n-1)(n-1)!=n!-(n-1)!,
        $$
        hence $y_n = nx_n = (n-1)!+c$ for some $c$. Plugging $n=2$ yields $2=1!+c$, thus we have that $$displaystyle x_n =frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          44












          44








          44





          $begingroup$

          The given difference equation can be solved in the following way. We have for $nge 3$,
          $$
          (n-2)(y_{n+1}-y_n) = (n-1)^2(y_n-y_{n-1}),\
          frac{y_{n+1}-y_n}{n-1}=(n-1)frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}.
          $$
          If we let $displaystyle z_n=frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}$, it follows that
          $$
          z_{n+1}=(n-1)z_n=(n-1)(n-2)z_{n-1}=cdots =(n-1)!z_3=(n-1)!frac{3x_3-2x_2}{1}=(n-1)!
          $$
          This gives
          $$
          y_{n+1}-y_n=(n-1)(n-1)!=n!-(n-1)!,
          $$
          hence $y_n = nx_n = (n-1)!+c$ for some $c$. Plugging $n=2$ yields $2=1!+c$, thus we have that $$displaystyle x_n =frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The given difference equation can be solved in the following way. We have for $nge 3$,
          $$
          (n-2)(y_{n+1}-y_n) = (n-1)^2(y_n-y_{n-1}),\
          frac{y_{n+1}-y_n}{n-1}=(n-1)frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}.
          $$
          If we let $displaystyle z_n=frac{y_{n}-y_{n-1}}{n-2}$, it follows that
          $$
          z_{n+1}=(n-1)z_n=(n-1)(n-2)z_{n-1}=cdots =(n-1)!z_3=(n-1)!frac{3x_3-2x_2}{1}=(n-1)!
          $$
          This gives
          $$
          y_{n+1}-y_n=(n-1)(n-1)!=n!-(n-1)!,
          $$
          hence $y_n = nx_n = (n-1)!+c$ for some $c$. Plugging $n=2$ yields $2=1!+c$, thus we have that $$displaystyle x_n =frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 15 at 15:54









          SongSong

          18.5k21651




          18.5k21651























              34












              $begingroup$

              The $n^{rm{th}}$ term of the sequence is $dfrac{(n-1)! + 1}{n}$, which is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime (according to Wilson's Theorem).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 15:35






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
                $endgroup$
                – FredH
                Mar 15 at 15:38






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 19:48
















              34












              $begingroup$

              The $n^{rm{th}}$ term of the sequence is $dfrac{(n-1)! + 1}{n}$, which is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime (according to Wilson's Theorem).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 15:35






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
                $endgroup$
                – FredH
                Mar 15 at 15:38






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 19:48














              34












              34








              34





              $begingroup$

              The $n^{rm{th}}$ term of the sequence is $dfrac{(n-1)! + 1}{n}$, which is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime (according to Wilson's Theorem).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              The $n^{rm{th}}$ term of the sequence is $dfrac{(n-1)! + 1}{n}$, which is an integer if and only if $n$ is prime (according to Wilson's Theorem).







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 15 at 15:22









              FredHFredH

              2,7231021




              2,7231021








              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 15:35






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
                $endgroup$
                – FredH
                Mar 15 at 15:38






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 19:48














              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 15:35






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
                $endgroup$
                – FredH
                Mar 15 at 15:38






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
                $endgroup$
                – Oldboy
                Mar 15 at 19:48








              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
              $endgroup$
              – Oldboy
              Mar 15 at 15:35




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but it is not obvious. Can you prove it?
              $endgroup$
              – Oldboy
              Mar 15 at 15:35




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
              $endgroup$
              – FredH
              Mar 15 at 15:38




              $begingroup$
              I can and I did. The algebra is tedious but not difficult.
              $endgroup$
              – FredH
              Mar 15 at 15:38




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
              $endgroup$
              – Oldboy
              Mar 15 at 19:48




              $begingroup$
              I have upvoted your answer but I accepted the one with the whole solution. :)
              $endgroup$
              – Oldboy
              Mar 15 at 19:48











              19












              $begingroup$

              Too long for a comment:




              Numbers don't make any sense




              Actually, they do ! :-) Just take a closer look at the sequence's composite-index denominators, and notice the following:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{5}=5,quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{7}=103,quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{11}=329891,quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{13}=36846277,quaddots
              $$




              Let us now rewrite the sequence's prime-indexed elements in a similar manner, for a more uniform approach:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{color{blue}5}=frac{25}{color{blue}5},quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{color{blue}7}=frac{721}{color{blue}7},quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{color{blue}{11}}=frac{3628801}{color{blue}{11}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{13}}=frac{479001601}{color{blue}{13}},quaddots
              $$




              At this point, we might be able to cheat, and use OEIS to identify the afferent sequence $color{blue}{b_n=ncdot a_n}$ by its first few elements, yielding three possible suspects: but let's say that our mathematical virtue and intellectual integrity will prevail over our base urges of rampant curiosity, and we might resist the temptation to do so. Could we then, without any outside aide, still manage to deduce an expression for $b_n$ ? Indeed, even a superficial glance will undoubtedly reveal the growth to resemble what one might otherwise expect to see in a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. We then have:




              $$
              r_{color{blue}4}=frac{25}{7}simeqcolor{blue}4,quad
              r_{color{blue}5}=frac{121}{25}simeqcolor{blue}5,quad
              r_{color{blue}6}=frac{721}{121}simeqcolor{blue}6,quad
              r_{color{blue}7}=frac{5041}{721}simeqcolor{blue}7,quaddots
              $$




              In short, $color{blue}{r_n=dfrac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}simeq n}.~$ A type of “modified geometric progression”, as it were, with a variable ratio equal to the index itself: Does this sound in any way familiar ? If no, there is still no need to worry: We'll get to the bottom of it soon enough, anyway. More precisely, we have $color{blue}{b_{n+1}=ncdot b_n-(n-1)}.~$ Now we are left with showing that, for prime values of the index p, $~color{blue}{a_p=dfrac{b_p}pinmathbb N},~$ starting from $color{blue}{b_2=2}.~$ Could mathematical induction work in this case, or does the seemingly random distribution of primes throw a wrench into such an approach ? And, if so, could we then maybe slightly modify it, to fit the new conditions ? What would you say ? :-)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                Mar 16 at 3:22






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
                $endgroup$
                – Lucian
                Mar 16 at 3:23








              • 3




                $begingroup$
                +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – TreFox
                Mar 17 at 1:25
















              19












              $begingroup$

              Too long for a comment:




              Numbers don't make any sense




              Actually, they do ! :-) Just take a closer look at the sequence's composite-index denominators, and notice the following:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{5}=5,quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{7}=103,quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{11}=329891,quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{13}=36846277,quaddots
              $$




              Let us now rewrite the sequence's prime-indexed elements in a similar manner, for a more uniform approach:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{color{blue}5}=frac{25}{color{blue}5},quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{color{blue}7}=frac{721}{color{blue}7},quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{color{blue}{11}}=frac{3628801}{color{blue}{11}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{13}}=frac{479001601}{color{blue}{13}},quaddots
              $$




              At this point, we might be able to cheat, and use OEIS to identify the afferent sequence $color{blue}{b_n=ncdot a_n}$ by its first few elements, yielding three possible suspects: but let's say that our mathematical virtue and intellectual integrity will prevail over our base urges of rampant curiosity, and we might resist the temptation to do so. Could we then, without any outside aide, still manage to deduce an expression for $b_n$ ? Indeed, even a superficial glance will undoubtedly reveal the growth to resemble what one might otherwise expect to see in a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. We then have:




              $$
              r_{color{blue}4}=frac{25}{7}simeqcolor{blue}4,quad
              r_{color{blue}5}=frac{121}{25}simeqcolor{blue}5,quad
              r_{color{blue}6}=frac{721}{121}simeqcolor{blue}6,quad
              r_{color{blue}7}=frac{5041}{721}simeqcolor{blue}7,quaddots
              $$




              In short, $color{blue}{r_n=dfrac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}simeq n}.~$ A type of “modified geometric progression”, as it were, with a variable ratio equal to the index itself: Does this sound in any way familiar ? If no, there is still no need to worry: We'll get to the bottom of it soon enough, anyway. More precisely, we have $color{blue}{b_{n+1}=ncdot b_n-(n-1)}.~$ Now we are left with showing that, for prime values of the index p, $~color{blue}{a_p=dfrac{b_p}pinmathbb N},~$ starting from $color{blue}{b_2=2}.~$ Could mathematical induction work in this case, or does the seemingly random distribution of primes throw a wrench into such an approach ? And, if so, could we then maybe slightly modify it, to fit the new conditions ? What would you say ? :-)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                Mar 16 at 3:22






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
                $endgroup$
                – Lucian
                Mar 16 at 3:23








              • 3




                $begingroup$
                +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – TreFox
                Mar 17 at 1:25














              19












              19








              19





              $begingroup$

              Too long for a comment:




              Numbers don't make any sense




              Actually, they do ! :-) Just take a closer look at the sequence's composite-index denominators, and notice the following:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{5}=5,quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{7}=103,quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{11}=329891,quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{13}=36846277,quaddots
              $$




              Let us now rewrite the sequence's prime-indexed elements in a similar manner, for a more uniform approach:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{color{blue}5}=frac{25}{color{blue}5},quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{color{blue}7}=frac{721}{color{blue}7},quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{color{blue}{11}}=frac{3628801}{color{blue}{11}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{13}}=frac{479001601}{color{blue}{13}},quaddots
              $$




              At this point, we might be able to cheat, and use OEIS to identify the afferent sequence $color{blue}{b_n=ncdot a_n}$ by its first few elements, yielding three possible suspects: but let's say that our mathematical virtue and intellectual integrity will prevail over our base urges of rampant curiosity, and we might resist the temptation to do so. Could we then, without any outside aide, still manage to deduce an expression for $b_n$ ? Indeed, even a superficial glance will undoubtedly reveal the growth to resemble what one might otherwise expect to see in a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. We then have:




              $$
              r_{color{blue}4}=frac{25}{7}simeqcolor{blue}4,quad
              r_{color{blue}5}=frac{121}{25}simeqcolor{blue}5,quad
              r_{color{blue}6}=frac{721}{121}simeqcolor{blue}6,quad
              r_{color{blue}7}=frac{5041}{721}simeqcolor{blue}7,quaddots
              $$




              In short, $color{blue}{r_n=dfrac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}simeq n}.~$ A type of “modified geometric progression”, as it were, with a variable ratio equal to the index itself: Does this sound in any way familiar ? If no, there is still no need to worry: We'll get to the bottom of it soon enough, anyway. More precisely, we have $color{blue}{b_{n+1}=ncdot b_n-(n-1)}.~$ Now we are left with showing that, for prime values of the index p, $~color{blue}{a_p=dfrac{b_p}pinmathbb N},~$ starting from $color{blue}{b_2=2}.~$ Could mathematical induction work in this case, or does the seemingly random distribution of primes throw a wrench into such an approach ? And, if so, could we then maybe slightly modify it, to fit the new conditions ? What would you say ? :-)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Too long for a comment:




              Numbers don't make any sense




              Actually, they do ! :-) Just take a closer look at the sequence's composite-index denominators, and notice the following:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{5}=5,quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{7}=103,quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{11}=329891,quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{13}=36846277,quaddots
              $$




              Let us now rewrite the sequence's prime-indexed elements in a similar manner, for a more uniform approach:




              $$
              a_{color{blue}4}=frac{7}{color{blue}4},quad
              a_{color{blue}5}=frac{25}{color{blue}5},quad
              a_{color{blue}6}=frac{121}{color{blue}6},quad
              a_{color{blue}7}=frac{721}{color{blue}7},quad
              a_{color{blue}8}=frac{5041}{color{blue}8},quad
              a_{color{blue}9}=frac{40321}{color{blue}9},quad
              \~\~\
              a_{color{blue}{10}}=frac{362881}{color{blue}{10}},
              a_{color{blue}{11}}=frac{3628801}{color{blue}{11}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{12}}=frac{39916801}{color{blue}{12}},quad
              a_{color{blue}{13}}=frac{479001601}{color{blue}{13}},quaddots
              $$




              At this point, we might be able to cheat, and use OEIS to identify the afferent sequence $color{blue}{b_n=ncdot a_n}$ by its first few elements, yielding three possible suspects: but let's say that our mathematical virtue and intellectual integrity will prevail over our base urges of rampant curiosity, and we might resist the temptation to do so. Could we then, without any outside aide, still manage to deduce an expression for $b_n$ ? Indeed, even a superficial glance will undoubtedly reveal the growth to resemble what one might otherwise expect to see in a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. We then have:




              $$
              r_{color{blue}4}=frac{25}{7}simeqcolor{blue}4,quad
              r_{color{blue}5}=frac{121}{25}simeqcolor{blue}5,quad
              r_{color{blue}6}=frac{721}{121}simeqcolor{blue}6,quad
              r_{color{blue}7}=frac{5041}{721}simeqcolor{blue}7,quaddots
              $$




              In short, $color{blue}{r_n=dfrac{b_{n+1}}{b_n}simeq n}.~$ A type of “modified geometric progression”, as it were, with a variable ratio equal to the index itself: Does this sound in any way familiar ? If no, there is still no need to worry: We'll get to the bottom of it soon enough, anyway. More precisely, we have $color{blue}{b_{n+1}=ncdot b_n-(n-1)}.~$ Now we are left with showing that, for prime values of the index p, $~color{blue}{a_p=dfrac{b_p}pinmathbb N},~$ starting from $color{blue}{b_2=2}.~$ Could mathematical induction work in this case, or does the seemingly random distribution of primes throw a wrench into such an approach ? And, if so, could we then maybe slightly modify it, to fit the new conditions ? What would you say ? :-)







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 16 at 3:14









              LucianLucian

              41.5k159131




              41.5k159131












              • $begingroup$
                I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                Mar 16 at 3:22






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
                $endgroup$
                – Lucian
                Mar 16 at 3:23








              • 3




                $begingroup$
                +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – TreFox
                Mar 17 at 1:25


















              • $begingroup$
                I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                Mar 16 at 3:22






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
                $endgroup$
                – Lucian
                Mar 16 at 3:23








              • 3




                $begingroup$
                +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – TreFox
                Mar 17 at 1:25
















              $begingroup$
              I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
              $endgroup$
              – YiFan
              Mar 16 at 3:22




              $begingroup$
              I'm confused. What does this add to the existing answers which already give the explicit formula $x_n=((n-1)!+1)/n$?
              $endgroup$
              – YiFan
              Mar 16 at 3:22




              5




              5




              $begingroup$
              @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
              $endgroup$
              – Lucian
              Mar 16 at 3:23






              $begingroup$
              @YiFan: Clarity, perhaps ? Maybe a bit of intuition ?
              $endgroup$
              – Lucian
              Mar 16 at 3:23






              3




              3




              $begingroup$
              +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – TreFox
              Mar 17 at 1:25




              $begingroup$
              +1. These types of answers are by far the most helpful IMO. They encourage discovery and intuitive thinking rather than just giving the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – TreFox
              Mar 17 at 1:25











              2












              $begingroup$

              My process to find the solution probably involves too far a leap of faith, but I will post it anyway.



              First, after writing out at least 8 terms, I noticed that, apart from integers, all terms are of the form $a_n=?/n$. So naturally I turned towards the sequence $b_nequiv a_ncdot n$, which goes like $3, 7, 25, 121, 721, 5041, 40321, dots$.



              Now my intuition senses the number sequence $504*, 4032*$, which resembles the factorial of 7&8, moreover, a lot of them seems to end in $1$. So I made a further conjecture that




              $$a_n=frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$




              A quick check of Wilson's theorem shows that it is compatible with the original conjecture. Thus, we seem to be on the right track. This can be easily proved by induction.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                My process to find the solution probably involves too far a leap of faith, but I will post it anyway.



                First, after writing out at least 8 terms, I noticed that, apart from integers, all terms are of the form $a_n=?/n$. So naturally I turned towards the sequence $b_nequiv a_ncdot n$, which goes like $3, 7, 25, 121, 721, 5041, 40321, dots$.



                Now my intuition senses the number sequence $504*, 4032*$, which resembles the factorial of 7&8, moreover, a lot of them seems to end in $1$. So I made a further conjecture that




                $$a_n=frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$




                A quick check of Wilson's theorem shows that it is compatible with the original conjecture. Thus, we seem to be on the right track. This can be easily proved by induction.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  My process to find the solution probably involves too far a leap of faith, but I will post it anyway.



                  First, after writing out at least 8 terms, I noticed that, apart from integers, all terms are of the form $a_n=?/n$. So naturally I turned towards the sequence $b_nequiv a_ncdot n$, which goes like $3, 7, 25, 121, 721, 5041, 40321, dots$.



                  Now my intuition senses the number sequence $504*, 4032*$, which resembles the factorial of 7&8, moreover, a lot of them seems to end in $1$. So I made a further conjecture that




                  $$a_n=frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$




                  A quick check of Wilson's theorem shows that it is compatible with the original conjecture. Thus, we seem to be on the right track. This can be easily proved by induction.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  My process to find the solution probably involves too far a leap of faith, but I will post it anyway.



                  First, after writing out at least 8 terms, I noticed that, apart from integers, all terms are of the form $a_n=?/n$. So naturally I turned towards the sequence $b_nequiv a_ncdot n$, which goes like $3, 7, 25, 121, 721, 5041, 40321, dots$.



                  Now my intuition senses the number sequence $504*, 4032*$, which resembles the factorial of 7&8, moreover, a lot of them seems to end in $1$. So I made a further conjecture that




                  $$a_n=frac{(n-1)!+1}{n}.$$




                  A quick check of Wilson's theorem shows that it is compatible with the original conjecture. Thus, we seem to be on the right track. This can be easily proved by induction.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 20 at 3:52









                  TreborTrebor

                  94815




                  94815






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149428%2fdoes-n1n-2x-n1-nn2-n-1x-n-n-13x-n-1-with-x-2-x-3-1-define-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?