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 is - 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?

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. Since this is my first question on MSE, any formatting tips and edits (instead of downvotes) are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Math_Maven
  • 77
  • 5
  • 1
    Kupera's conjecture is not only $S_p\neq 0$ in $\Bbb F_p$, but more generally $S_n\neq 0$ in $\Bbb Z/n$ for all $n\ge 3$, see here. There are hundreds of other such conjectures. It is not always clear, whether or not it is connected to many other topics, and why it is so hard. Often the available techniques are not enough. – Dietrich Burde Aug 21 '24 at 15:23
  • @DietrichBurde I agree Sir. Still I believe if somebody has done deep research into this topic then asking for their valuable insights isn't unworthy. Thanks! – Math_Maven Aug 21 '24 at 16:00
  • 1
    2^40 is incredible considering that factorials are involved. – Peter Aug 21 '24 at 16:44
  • 1
    Brocards problem is an even "easier" , yet unsolved problem. – Peter Aug 21 '24 at 17:00
  • 1
    Can anybody please give me some suggestions on how can I make the question more focused so that it is reopened? – Math_Maven Aug 21 '24 at 17:31
  • 1
    Fifty years of Kurepa's !n hypothesis might be of interest too. Personally I don't think there is any oddity here, this one was certainly known and studied a lot past fifty years... – Sil Aug 22 '24 at 16:51
  • Basically, we could ask the same question about most of the problems in Richard Guy's Unsolved Problems in Number Theory ... – Sil Aug 22 '24 at 17:06
  • @Sil got it, thanks. – Math_Maven Aug 22 '24 at 19:34
  • If you cross-post the same question on multiple sites, you should include links to all other versions of the question in every post, even in the original one. X-posting without explicit links has the risk of wasting both the time of users who might put time and effort into answering a post, which already has an answer elsewhere, as well as the time of users who might have the same problem but can't find the solutions you might have gotten on one of the other sites you x-posted your question –  Aug 24 '24 at 11:32
  • @user1381167 I don't think that's a requirement. If it is then please inform me and I would be happy to do that – Math_Maven Aug 24 '24 at 18:58

0 Answers0