Factorial Congruence, Complete Inverse Pairing and the Modulus-Two Exception

This batch has passed Schema, deduplication, source-snapshot, and independent-answer recomputation checks; it is still not marked as human-reviewed.

This question bank has corresponding bilingual step-by-step derivations. Source candidate and English ai_candidate states are retained. AI review, finite computation and Lean formal proof are labelled separately.

batch-20261015-advance-20261118-r04-wilson-theorem-foundations · 2026-10-15 · 100 questions

This English edition is an AI candidate and does not yet have an OCME Atlas (GPT-6) Twin closure receipt.

Field order uses a source-bound presentation supplement; canonical JSONL and mathematical answers are unchanged.

Field-order and source-binding data

1. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=2>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(2, Yes, [[1, 1]], 1, 1, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (2, Yes, [[1, 1]], 1, 1, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

2. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=3>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(3, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2]], 2, 2, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (3, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2]], 2, 2, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

3. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=4>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(4, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 2]], 2, 3, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (4, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 2]], 2, 3, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

4. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=5>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(5, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 1], [4, 4]], 4, 4, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (5, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 1], [4, 4]], 4, 4, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

5. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=6>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(6, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 0], [4, 0], [5, 0]], 0, 5, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (6, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 0], [4, 0], [5, 0]], 0, 5, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

6. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=7>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(7, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 1], [6, 6]], 6, 6, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (7, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 1], [6, 6]], 6, 6, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

7. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=8>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(8, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0]], 0, 7, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (8, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0]], 0, 7, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

8. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=9>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(9, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 3], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0]], 0, 8, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (9, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 3], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0]], 0, 8, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

9. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=10>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(10, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0]], 0, 9, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (10, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0]], 0, 9, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

10. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=11>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(11, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 2], [5, 10], [6, 5], [7, 2], [8, 5], [9, 1], [10, 10]], 10, 10, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (11, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 2], [5, 10], [6, 5], [7, 2], [8, 5], [9, 1], [10, 10]], 10, 10, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

11. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=12>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(12, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0]], 0, 11, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (12, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0]], 0, 11, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

12. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=13>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(13, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 11], [5, 3], [6, 5], [7, 9], [8, 7], [9, 11], [10, 6], [11, 1], [12, 12]], 12, 12, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (13, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 11], [5, 3], [6, 5], [7, 9], [8, 7], [9, 11], [10, 6], [11, 1], [12, 12]], 12, 12, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

13. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=14>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(14, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 10], [5, 8], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0]], 0, 13, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (14, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 10], [5, 8], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0]], 0, 13, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

14. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=15>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(15, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 9], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0]], 0, 14, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (15, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 9], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0]], 0, 14, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

15. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=16>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(16, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 8], [5, 8], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0]], 0, 15, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (16, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 8], [5, 8], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0]], 0, 15, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

16. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=17>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(17, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 7], [5, 1], [6, 6], [7, 8], [8, 13], [9, 15], [10, 14], [11, 1], [12, 12], [13, 3], [14, 8], [15, 1], [16, 16]], 16, 16, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (17, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 7], [5, 1], [6, 6], [7, 8], [8, 13], [9, 15], [10, 14], [11, 1], [12, 12], [13, 3], [14, 8], [15, 1], [16, 16]], 16, 16, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

17. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=18>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(18, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 12], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0]], 0, 17, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (18, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 12], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0]], 0, 17, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

18. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=19>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(19, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 5], [5, 6], [6, 17], [7, 5], [8, 2], [9, 18], [10, 9], [11, 4], [12, 10], [13, 16], [14, 15], [15, 16], [16, 9], [17, 1], [18, 18]], 18, 18, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (19, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 5], [5, 6], [6, 17], [7, 5], [8, 2], [9, 18], [10, 9], [11, 4], [12, 10], [13, 16], [14, 15], [15, 16], [16, 9], [17, 1], [18, 18]], 18, 18, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

19. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=20>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(20, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0]], 0, 19, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (20, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0]], 0, 19, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

20. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=21>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(21, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 15], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0]], 0, 20, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (21, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 15], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0]], 0, 20, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

21. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=22>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(22, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 2], [5, 10], [6, 16], [7, 2], [8, 16], [9, 12], [10, 10], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0]], 0, 21, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (22, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 2], [5, 10], [6, 16], [7, 2], [8, 16], [9, 12], [10, 10], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0]], 0, 21, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

22. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=23>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(23, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 1], [5, 5], [6, 7], [7, 3], [8, 1], [9, 9], [10, 21], [11, 1], [12, 12], [13, 18], [14, 22], [15, 8], [16, 13], [17, 14], [18, 22], [19, 4], [20, 11], [21, 1], [22, 22]], 22, 22, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (23, Yes, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 1], [5, 5], [6, 7], [7, 3], [8, 1], [9, 9], [10, 21], [11, 1], [12, 12], [13, 18], [14, 22], [15, 8], [16, 13], [17, 14], [18, 22], [19, 4], [20, 11], [21, 1], [22, 22]], 22, 22, Yes, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

23. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=24>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(24, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0]], 0, 23, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (24, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0]], 0, 23, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

24. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=25>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(25, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 20], [6, 20], [7, 15], [8, 20], [9, 5], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0]], 0, 24, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (25, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 20], [6, 20], [7, 15], [8, 20], [9, 5], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0]], 0, 24, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

25. Wilson Congruence and Primality Agree at the Specified Modulus

Use exact integer n=26>1. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, instance_equivalence, instance_scope).

instance_equivalence can be Yes at a composite n because both sides are false; it does not assert primality.

View answer and explanation

(26, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 16], [6, 18], [7, 22], [8, 20], [9, 24], [10, 6], [11, 14], [12, 12], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0]], 0, 25, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance)

Compute each running factorial residue through (n−1)! and separately classify primality. Compare the final residue with n−1. The equivalence flag can be Yes for a composite n when both primality and congruence are No. A single instance does not prove the universal equivalence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (26, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 16], [6, 18], [7, 22], [8, 20], [9, 24], [10, 6], [11, 14], [12, 12], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0]], 0, 25, No, Yes, Wilson_equivalence_instance).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-domain-factorial · candidate

26. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=2. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(2, [[1, 1]], [1], [], single_self_inverse_residue_1_equals_minus_1, 1, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (2, [[1, 1]], [1], [], single_self_inverse_residue_1_equals_minus_1, 1, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

27. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=3. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(3, [[1, 1], [2, 2]], [1, 2], [], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 2, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (3, [[1, 1], [2, 2]], [1, 2], [], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 2, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

28. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=5. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(5, [[1, 1], [2, 3], [3, 2], [4, 4]], [1, 4], [[2, 3, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 4, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (5, [[1, 1], [2, 3], [3, 2], [4, 4]], [1, 4], [[2, 3, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 4, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

29. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=7. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(7, [[1, 1], [2, 4], [3, 5], [4, 2], [5, 3], [6, 6]], [1, 6], [[2, 4, 1], [3, 5, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 6, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (7, [[1, 1], [2, 4], [3, 5], [4, 2], [5, 3], [6, 6]], [1, 6], [[2, 4, 1], [3, 5, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 6, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

30. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=11. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(11, [[1, 1], [2, 6], [3, 4], [4, 3], [5, 9], [6, 2], [7, 8], [8, 7], [9, 5], [10, 10]], [1, 10], [[2, 6, 1], [3, 4, 1], [5, 9, 1], [7, 8, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 10, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (11, [[1, 1], [2, 6], [3, 4], [4, 3], [5, 9], [6, 2], [7, 8], [8, 7], [9, 5], [10, 10]], [1, 10], [[2, 6, 1], [3, 4, 1], [5, 9, 1], [7, 8, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 10, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

31. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=13. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(13, [[1, 1], [2, 7], [3, 9], [4, 10], [5, 8], [6, 11], [7, 2], [8, 5], [9, 3], [10, 4], [11, 6], [12, 12]], [1, 12], [[2, 7, 1], [3, 9, 1], [4, 10, 1], [5, 8, 1], [6, 11, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 12, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (13, [[1, 1], [2, 7], [3, 9], [4, 10], [5, 8], [6, 11], [7, 2], [8, 5], [9, 3], [10, 4], [11, 6], [12, 12]], [1, 12], [[2, 7, 1], [3, 9, 1], [4, 10, 1], [5, 8, 1], [6, 11, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 12, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

32. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=17. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(17, [[1, 1], [2, 9], [3, 6], [4, 13], [5, 7], [6, 3], [7, 5], [8, 15], [9, 2], [10, 12], [11, 14], [12, 10], [13, 4], [14, 11], [15, 8], [16, 16]], [1, 16], [[2, 9, 1], [3, 6, 1], [4, 13, 1], [5, 7, 1], [8, 15, 1], [10, 12, 1], [11, 14, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 16, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (17, [[1, 1], [2, 9], [3, 6], [4, 13], [5, 7], [6, 3], [7, 5], [8, 15], [9, 2], [10, 12], [11, 14], [12, 10], [13, 4], [14, 11], [15, 8], [16, 16]], [1, 16], [[2, 9, 1], [3, 6, 1], [4, 13, 1], [5, 7, 1], [8, 15, 1], [10, 12, 1], [11, 14, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 16, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

33. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=19. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(19, [[1, 1], [2, 10], [3, 13], [4, 5], [5, 4], [6, 16], [7, 11], [8, 12], [9, 17], [10, 2], [11, 7], [12, 8], [13, 3], [14, 15], [15, 14], [16, 6], [17, 9], [18, 18]], [1, 18], [[2, 10, 1], [3, 13, 1], [4, 5, 1], [6, 16, 1], [7, 11, 1], [8, 12, 1], [9, 17, 1], [14, 15, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 18, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (19, [[1, 1], [2, 10], [3, 13], [4, 5], [5, 4], [6, 16], [7, 11], [8, 12], [9, 17], [10, 2], [11, 7], [12, 8], [13, 3], [14, 15], [15, 14], [16, 6], [17, 9], [18, 18]], [1, 18], [[2, 10, 1], [3, 13, 1], [4, 5, 1], [6, 16, 1], [7, 11, 1], [8, 12, 1], [9, 17, 1], [14, 15, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 18, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

34. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=23. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(23, [[1, 1], [2, 12], [3, 8], [4, 6], [5, 14], [6, 4], [7, 10], [8, 3], [9, 18], [10, 7], [11, 21], [12, 2], [13, 16], [14, 5], [15, 20], [16, 13], [17, 19], [18, 9], [19, 17], [20, 15], [21, 11], [22, 22]], [1, 22], [[2, 12, 1], [3, 8, 1], [4, 6, 1], [5, 14, 1], [7, 10, 1], [9, 18, 1], [11, 21, 1], [13, 16, 1], [15, 20, 1], [17, 19, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 22, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (23, [[1, 1], [2, 12], [3, 8], [4, 6], [5, 14], [6, 4], [7, 10], [8, 3], [9, 18], [10, 7], [11, 21], [12, 2], [13, 16], [14, 5], [15, 20], [16, 13], [17, 19], [18, 9], [19, 17], [20, 15], [21, 11], [22, 22]], [1, 22], [[2, 12, 1], [3, 8, 1], [4, 6, 1], [5, 14, 1], [7, 10, 1], [9, 18, 1], [11, 21, 1], [13, 16, 1], [15, 20, 1], [17, 19, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 22, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

35. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=29. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(29, [[1, 1], [2, 15], [3, 10], [4, 22], [5, 6], [6, 5], [7, 25], [8, 11], [9, 13], [10, 3], [11, 8], [12, 17], [13, 9], [14, 27], [15, 2], [16, 20], [17, 12], [18, 21], [19, 26], [20, 16], [21, 18], [22, 4], [23, 24], [24, 23], [25, 7], [26, 19], [27, 14], [28, 28]], [1, 28], [[2, 15, 1], [3, 10, 1], [4, 22, 1], [5, 6, 1], [7, 25, 1], [8, 11, 1], [9, 13, 1], [12, 17, 1], [14, 27, 1], [16, 20, 1], [18, 21, 1], [19, 26, 1], [23, 24, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 28, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (29, [[1, 1], [2, 15], [3, 10], [4, 22], [5, 6], [6, 5], [7, 25], [8, 11], [9, 13], [10, 3], [11, 8], [12, 17], [13, 9], [14, 27], [15, 2], [16, 20], [17, 12], [18, 21], [19, 26], [20, 16], [21, 18], [22, 4], [23, 24], [24, 23], [25, 7], [26, 19], [27, 14], [28, 28]], [1, 28], [[2, 15, 1], [3, 10, 1], [4, 22, 1], [5, 6, 1], [7, 25, 1], [8, 11, 1], [9, 13, 1], [12, 17, 1], [14, 27, 1], [16, 20, 1], [18, 21, 1], [19, 26, 1], [23, 24, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 28, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

36. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=31. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(31, [[1, 1], [2, 16], [3, 21], [4, 8], [5, 25], [6, 26], [7, 9], [8, 4], [9, 7], [10, 28], [11, 17], [12, 13], [13, 12], [14, 20], [15, 29], [16, 2], [17, 11], [18, 19], [19, 18], [20, 14], [21, 3], [22, 24], [23, 27], [24, 22], [25, 5], [26, 6], [27, 23], [28, 10], [29, 15], [30, 30]], [1, 30], [[2, 16, 1], [3, 21, 1], [4, 8, 1], [5, 25, 1], [6, 26, 1], [7, 9, 1], [10, 28, 1], [11, 17, 1], [12, 13, 1], [14, 20, 1], [15, 29, 1], [18, 19, 1], [22, 24, 1], [23, 27, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 30, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (31, [[1, 1], [2, 16], [3, 21], [4, 8], [5, 25], [6, 26], [7, 9], [8, 4], [9, 7], [10, 28], [11, 17], [12, 13], [13, 12], [14, 20], [15, 29], [16, 2], [17, 11], [18, 19], [19, 18], [20, 14], [21, 3], [22, 24], [23, 27], [24, 22], [25, 5], [26, 6], [27, 23], [28, 10], [29, 15], [30, 30]], [1, 30], [[2, 16, 1], [3, 21, 1], [4, 8, 1], [5, 25, 1], [6, 26, 1], [7, 9, 1], [10, 28, 1], [11, 17, 1], [12, 13, 1], [14, 20, 1], [15, 29, 1], [18, 19, 1], [22, 24, 1], [23, 27, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 30, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

37. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=37. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(37, [[1, 1], [2, 19], [3, 25], [4, 28], [5, 15], [6, 31], [7, 16], [8, 14], [9, 33], [10, 26], [11, 27], [12, 34], [13, 20], [14, 8], [15, 5], [16, 7], [17, 24], [18, 35], [19, 2], [20, 13], [21, 30], [22, 32], [23, 29], [24, 17], [25, 3], [26, 10], [27, 11], [28, 4], [29, 23], [30, 21], [31, 6], [32, 22], [33, 9], [34, 12], [35, 18], [36, 36]], [1, 36], [[2, 19, 1], [3, 25, 1], [4, 28, 1], [5, 15, 1], [6, 31, 1], [7, 16, 1], [8, 14, 1], [9, 33, 1], [10, 26, 1], [11, 27, 1], [12, 34, 1], [13, 20, 1], [17, 24, 1], [18, 35, 1], [21, 30, 1], [22, 32, 1], [23, 29, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 36, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (37, [[1, 1], [2, 19], [3, 25], [4, 28], [5, 15], [6, 31], [7, 16], [8, 14], [9, 33], [10, 26], [11, 27], [12, 34], [13, 20], [14, 8], [15, 5], [16, 7], [17, 24], [18, 35], [19, 2], [20, 13], [21, 30], [22, 32], [23, 29], [24, 17], [25, 3], [26, 10], [27, 11], [28, 4], [29, 23], [30, 21], [31, 6], [32, 22], [33, 9], [34, 12], [35, 18], [36, 36]], [1, 36], [[2, 19, 1], [3, 25, 1], [4, 28, 1], [5, 15, 1], [6, 31, 1], [7, 16, 1], [8, 14, 1], [9, 33, 1], [10, 26, 1], [11, 27, 1], [12, 34, 1], [13, 20, 1], [17, 24, 1], [18, 35, 1], [21, 30, 1], [22, 32, 1], [23, 29, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 36, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

38. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=41. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(41, [[1, 1], [2, 21], [3, 14], [4, 31], [5, 33], [6, 7], [7, 6], [8, 36], [9, 32], [10, 37], [11, 15], [12, 24], [13, 19], [14, 3], [15, 11], [16, 18], [17, 29], [18, 16], [19, 13], [20, 39], [21, 2], [22, 28], [23, 25], [24, 12], [25, 23], [26, 30], [27, 38], [28, 22], [29, 17], [30, 26], [31, 4], [32, 9], [33, 5], [34, 35], [35, 34], [36, 8], [37, 10], [38, 27], [39, 20], [40, 40]], [1, 40], [[2, 21, 1], [3, 14, 1], [4, 31, 1], [5, 33, 1], [6, 7, 1], [8, 36, 1], [9, 32, 1], [10, 37, 1], [11, 15, 1], [12, 24, 1], [13, 19, 1], [16, 18, 1], [17, 29, 1], [20, 39, 1], [22, 28, 1], [23, 25, 1], [26, 30, 1], [27, 38, 1], [34, 35, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 40, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (41, [[1, 1], [2, 21], [3, 14], [4, 31], [5, 33], [6, 7], [7, 6], [8, 36], [9, 32], [10, 37], [11, 15], [12, 24], [13, 19], [14, 3], [15, 11], [16, 18], [17, 29], [18, 16], [19, 13], [20, 39], [21, 2], [22, 28], [23, 25], [24, 12], [25, 23], [26, 30], [27, 38], [28, 22], [29, 17], [30, 26], [31, 4], [32, 9], [33, 5], [34, 35], [35, 34], [36, 8], [37, 10], [38, 27], [39, 20], [40, 40]], [1, 40], [[2, 21, 1], [3, 14, 1], [4, 31, 1], [5, 33, 1], [6, 7, 1], [8, 36, 1], [9, 32, 1], [10, 37, 1], [11, 15, 1], [12, 24, 1], [13, 19, 1], [16, 18, 1], [17, 29, 1], [20, 39, 1], [22, 28, 1], [23, 25, 1], [26, 30, 1], [27, 38, 1], [34, 35, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 40, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

39. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=43. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(43, [[1, 1], [2, 22], [3, 29], [4, 11], [5, 26], [6, 36], [7, 37], [8, 27], [9, 24], [10, 13], [11, 4], [12, 18], [13, 10], [14, 40], [15, 23], [16, 35], [17, 38], [18, 12], [19, 34], [20, 28], [21, 41], [22, 2], [23, 15], [24, 9], [25, 31], [26, 5], [27, 8], [28, 20], [29, 3], [30, 33], [31, 25], [32, 39], [33, 30], [34, 19], [35, 16], [36, 6], [37, 7], [38, 17], [39, 32], [40, 14], [41, 21], [42, 42]], [1, 42], [[2, 22, 1], [3, 29, 1], [4, 11, 1], [5, 26, 1], [6, 36, 1], [7, 37, 1], [8, 27, 1], [9, 24, 1], [10, 13, 1], [12, 18, 1], [14, 40, 1], [15, 23, 1], [16, 35, 1], [17, 38, 1], [19, 34, 1], [20, 28, 1], [21, 41, 1], [25, 31, 1], [30, 33, 1], [32, 39, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 42, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (43, [[1, 1], [2, 22], [3, 29], [4, 11], [5, 26], [6, 36], [7, 37], [8, 27], [9, 24], [10, 13], [11, 4], [12, 18], [13, 10], [14, 40], [15, 23], [16, 35], [17, 38], [18, 12], [19, 34], [20, 28], [21, 41], [22, 2], [23, 15], [24, 9], [25, 31], [26, 5], [27, 8], [28, 20], [29, 3], [30, 33], [31, 25], [32, 39], [33, 30], [34, 19], [35, 16], [36, 6], [37, 7], [38, 17], [39, 32], [40, 14], [41, 21], [42, 42]], [1, 42], [[2, 22, 1], [3, 29, 1], [4, 11, 1], [5, 26, 1], [6, 36, 1], [7, 37, 1], [8, 27, 1], [9, 24, 1], [10, 13, 1], [12, 18, 1], [14, 40, 1], [15, 23, 1], [16, 35, 1], [17, 38, 1], [19, 34, 1], [20, 28, 1], [21, 41, 1], [25, 31, 1], [30, 33, 1], [32, 39, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 42, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

40. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=47. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(47, [[1, 1], [2, 24], [3, 16], [4, 12], [5, 19], [6, 8], [7, 27], [8, 6], [9, 21], [10, 33], [11, 30], [12, 4], [13, 29], [14, 37], [15, 22], [16, 3], [17, 36], [18, 34], [19, 5], [20, 40], [21, 9], [22, 15], [23, 45], [24, 2], [25, 32], [26, 38], [27, 7], [28, 42], [29, 13], [30, 11], [31, 44], [32, 25], [33, 10], [34, 18], [35, 43], [36, 17], [37, 14], [38, 26], [39, 41], [40, 20], [41, 39], [42, 28], [43, 35], [44, 31], [45, 23], [46, 46]], [1, 46], [[2, 24, 1], [3, 16, 1], [4, 12, 1], [5, 19, 1], [6, 8, 1], [7, 27, 1], [9, 21, 1], [10, 33, 1], [11, 30, 1], [13, 29, 1], [14, 37, 1], [15, 22, 1], [17, 36, 1], [18, 34, 1], [20, 40, 1], [23, 45, 1], [25, 32, 1], [26, 38, 1], [28, 42, 1], [31, 44, 1], [35, 43, 1], [39, 41, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 46, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (47, [[1, 1], [2, 24], [3, 16], [4, 12], [5, 19], [6, 8], [7, 27], [8, 6], [9, 21], [10, 33], [11, 30], [12, 4], [13, 29], [14, 37], [15, 22], [16, 3], [17, 36], [18, 34], [19, 5], [20, 40], [21, 9], [22, 15], [23, 45], [24, 2], [25, 32], [26, 38], [27, 7], [28, 42], [29, 13], [30, 11], [31, 44], [32, 25], [33, 10], [34, 18], [35, 43], [36, 17], [37, 14], [38, 26], [39, 41], [40, 20], [41, 39], [42, 28], [43, 35], [44, 31], [45, 23], [46, 46]], [1, 46], [[2, 24, 1], [3, 16, 1], [4, 12, 1], [5, 19, 1], [6, 8, 1], [7, 27, 1], [9, 21, 1], [10, 33, 1], [11, 30, 1], [13, 29, 1], [14, 37, 1], [15, 22, 1], [17, 36, 1], [18, 34, 1], [20, 40, 1], [23, 45, 1], [25, 32, 1], [26, 38, 1], [28, 42, 1], [31, 44, 1], [35, 43, 1], [39, 41, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 46, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

41. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=53. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(53, [[1, 1], [2, 27], [3, 18], [4, 40], [5, 32], [6, 9], [7, 38], [8, 20], [9, 6], [10, 16], [11, 29], [12, 31], [13, 49], [14, 19], [15, 46], [16, 10], [17, 25], [18, 3], [19, 14], [20, 8], [21, 48], [22, 41], [23, 30], [24, 42], [25, 17], [26, 51], [27, 2], [28, 36], [29, 11], [30, 23], [31, 12], [32, 5], [33, 45], [34, 39], [35, 50], [36, 28], [37, 43], [38, 7], [39, 34], [40, 4], [41, 22], [42, 24], [43, 37], [44, 47], [45, 33], [46, 15], [47, 44], [48, 21], [49, 13], [50, 35], [51, 26], [52, 52]], [1, 52], [[2, 27, 1], [3, 18, 1], [4, 40, 1], [5, 32, 1], [6, 9, 1], [7, 38, 1], [8, 20, 1], [10, 16, 1], [11, 29, 1], [12, 31, 1], [13, 49, 1], [14, 19, 1], [15, 46, 1], [17, 25, 1], [21, 48, 1], [22, 41, 1], [23, 30, 1], [24, 42, 1], [26, 51, 1], [28, 36, 1], [33, 45, 1], [34, 39, 1], [35, 50, 1], [37, 43, 1], [44, 47, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 52, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (53, [[1, 1], [2, 27], [3, 18], [4, 40], [5, 32], [6, 9], [7, 38], [8, 20], [9, 6], [10, 16], [11, 29], [12, 31], [13, 49], [14, 19], [15, 46], [16, 10], [17, 25], [18, 3], [19, 14], [20, 8], [21, 48], [22, 41], [23, 30], [24, 42], [25, 17], [26, 51], [27, 2], [28, 36], [29, 11], [30, 23], [31, 12], [32, 5], [33, 45], [34, 39], [35, 50], [36, 28], [37, 43], [38, 7], [39, 34], [40, 4], [41, 22], [42, 24], [43, 37], [44, 47], [45, 33], [46, 15], [47, 44], [48, 21], [49, 13], [50, 35], [51, 26], [52, 52]], [1, 52], [[2, 27, 1], [3, 18, 1], [4, 40, 1], [5, 32, 1], [6, 9, 1], [7, 38, 1], [8, 20, 1], [10, 16, 1], [11, 29, 1], [12, 31, 1], [13, 49, 1], [14, 19, 1], [15, 46, 1], [17, 25, 1], [21, 48, 1], [22, 41, 1], [23, 30, 1], [24, 42, 1], [26, 51, 1], [28, 36, 1], [33, 45, 1], [34, 39, 1], [35, 50, 1], [37, 43, 1], [44, 47, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 52, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

42. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=59. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(59, [[1, 1], [2, 30], [3, 20], [4, 15], [5, 12], [6, 10], [7, 17], [8, 37], [9, 46], [10, 6], [11, 43], [12, 5], [13, 50], [14, 38], [15, 4], [16, 48], [17, 7], [18, 23], [19, 28], [20, 3], [21, 45], [22, 51], [23, 18], [24, 32], [25, 26], [26, 25], [27, 35], [28, 19], [29, 57], [30, 2], [31, 40], [32, 24], [33, 34], [34, 33], [35, 27], [36, 41], [37, 8], [38, 14], [39, 56], [40, 31], [41, 36], [42, 52], [43, 11], [44, 55], [45, 21], [46, 9], [47, 54], [48, 16], [49, 53], [50, 13], [51, 22], [52, 42], [53, 49], [54, 47], [55, 44], [56, 39], [57, 29], [58, 58]], [1, 58], [[2, 30, 1], [3, 20, 1], [4, 15, 1], [5, 12, 1], [6, 10, 1], [7, 17, 1], [8, 37, 1], [9, 46, 1], [11, 43, 1], [13, 50, 1], [14, 38, 1], [16, 48, 1], [18, 23, 1], [19, 28, 1], [21, 45, 1], [22, 51, 1], [24, 32, 1], [25, 26, 1], [27, 35, 1], [29, 57, 1], [31, 40, 1], [33, 34, 1], [36, 41, 1], [39, 56, 1], [42, 52, 1], [44, 55, 1], [47, 54, 1], [49, 53, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 58, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (59, [[1, 1], [2, 30], [3, 20], [4, 15], [5, 12], [6, 10], [7, 17], [8, 37], [9, 46], [10, 6], [11, 43], [12, 5], [13, 50], [14, 38], [15, 4], [16, 48], [17, 7], [18, 23], [19, 28], [20, 3], [21, 45], [22, 51], [23, 18], [24, 32], [25, 26], [26, 25], [27, 35], [28, 19], [29, 57], [30, 2], [31, 40], [32, 24], [33, 34], [34, 33], [35, 27], [36, 41], [37, 8], [38, 14], [39, 56], [40, 31], [41, 36], [42, 52], [43, 11], [44, 55], [45, 21], [46, 9], [47, 54], [48, 16], [49, 53], [50, 13], [51, 22], [52, 42], [53, 49], [54, 47], [55, 44], [56, 39], [57, 29], [58, 58]], [1, 58], [[2, 30, 1], [3, 20, 1], [4, 15, 1], [5, 12, 1], [6, 10, 1], [7, 17, 1], [8, 37, 1], [9, 46, 1], [11, 43, 1], [13, 50, 1], [14, 38, 1], [16, 48, 1], [18, 23, 1], [19, 28, 1], [21, 45, 1], [22, 51, 1], [24, 32, 1], [25, 26, 1], [27, 35, 1], [29, 57, 1], [31, 40, 1], [33, 34, 1], [36, 41, 1], [39, 56, 1], [42, 52, 1], [44, 55, 1], [47, 54, 1], [49, 53, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 58, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

43. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=61. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(61, [[1, 1], [2, 31], [3, 41], [4, 46], [5, 49], [6, 51], [7, 35], [8, 23], [9, 34], [10, 55], [11, 50], [12, 56], [13, 47], [14, 48], [15, 57], [16, 42], [17, 18], [18, 17], [19, 45], [20, 58], [21, 32], [22, 25], [23, 8], [24, 28], [25, 22], [26, 54], [27, 52], [28, 24], [29, 40], [30, 59], [31, 2], [32, 21], [33, 37], [34, 9], [35, 7], [36, 39], [37, 33], [38, 53], [39, 36], [40, 29], [41, 3], [42, 16], [43, 44], [44, 43], [45, 19], [46, 4], [47, 13], [48, 14], [49, 5], [50, 11], [51, 6], [52, 27], [53, 38], [54, 26], [55, 10], [56, 12], [57, 15], [58, 20], [59, 30], [60, 60]], [1, 60], [[2, 31, 1], [3, 41, 1], [4, 46, 1], [5, 49, 1], [6, 51, 1], [7, 35, 1], [8, 23, 1], [9, 34, 1], [10, 55, 1], [11, 50, 1], [12, 56, 1], [13, 47, 1], [14, 48, 1], [15, 57, 1], [16, 42, 1], [17, 18, 1], [19, 45, 1], [20, 58, 1], [21, 32, 1], [22, 25, 1], [24, 28, 1], [26, 54, 1], [27, 52, 1], [29, 40, 1], [30, 59, 1], [33, 37, 1], [36, 39, 1], [38, 53, 1], [43, 44, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 60, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (61, [[1, 1], [2, 31], [3, 41], [4, 46], [5, 49], [6, 51], [7, 35], [8, 23], [9, 34], [10, 55], [11, 50], [12, 56], [13, 47], [14, 48], [15, 57], [16, 42], [17, 18], [18, 17], [19, 45], [20, 58], [21, 32], [22, 25], [23, 8], [24, 28], [25, 22], [26, 54], [27, 52], [28, 24], [29, 40], [30, 59], [31, 2], [32, 21], [33, 37], [34, 9], [35, 7], [36, 39], [37, 33], [38, 53], [39, 36], [40, 29], [41, 3], [42, 16], [43, 44], [44, 43], [45, 19], [46, 4], [47, 13], [48, 14], [49, 5], [50, 11], [51, 6], [52, 27], [53, 38], [54, 26], [55, 10], [56, 12], [57, 15], [58, 20], [59, 30], [60, 60]], [1, 60], [[2, 31, 1], [3, 41, 1], [4, 46, 1], [5, 49, 1], [6, 51, 1], [7, 35, 1], [8, 23, 1], [9, 34, 1], [10, 55, 1], [11, 50, 1], [12, 56, 1], [13, 47, 1], [14, 48, 1], [15, 57, 1], [16, 42, 1], [17, 18, 1], [19, 45, 1], [20, 58, 1], [21, 32, 1], [22, 25, 1], [24, 28, 1], [26, 54, 1], [27, 52, 1], [29, 40, 1], [30, 59, 1], [33, 37, 1], [36, 39, 1], [38, 53, 1], [43, 44, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 60, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

44. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=67. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(67, [[1, 1], [2, 34], [3, 45], [4, 17], [5, 27], [6, 56], [7, 48], [8, 42], [9, 15], [10, 47], [11, 61], [12, 28], [13, 31], [14, 24], [15, 9], [16, 21], [17, 4], [18, 41], [19, 60], [20, 57], [21, 16], [22, 64], [23, 35], [24, 14], [25, 59], [26, 49], [27, 5], [28, 12], [29, 37], [30, 38], [31, 13], [32, 44], [33, 65], [34, 2], [35, 23], [36, 54], [37, 29], [38, 30], [39, 55], [40, 62], [41, 18], [42, 8], [43, 53], [44, 32], [45, 3], [46, 51], [47, 10], [48, 7], [49, 26], [50, 63], [51, 46], [52, 58], [53, 43], [54, 36], [55, 39], [56, 6], [57, 20], [58, 52], [59, 25], [60, 19], [61, 11], [62, 40], [63, 50], [64, 22], [65, 33], [66, 66]], [1, 66], [[2, 34, 1], [3, 45, 1], [4, 17, 1], [5, 27, 1], [6, 56, 1], [7, 48, 1], [8, 42, 1], [9, 15, 1], [10, 47, 1], [11, 61, 1], [12, 28, 1], [13, 31, 1], [14, 24, 1], [16, 21, 1], [18, 41, 1], [19, 60, 1], [20, 57, 1], [22, 64, 1], [23, 35, 1], [25, 59, 1], [26, 49, 1], [29, 37, 1], [30, 38, 1], [32, 44, 1], [33, 65, 1], [36, 54, 1], [39, 55, 1], [40, 62, 1], [43, 53, 1], [46, 51, 1], [50, 63, 1], [52, 58, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 66, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (67, [[1, 1], [2, 34], [3, 45], [4, 17], [5, 27], [6, 56], [7, 48], [8, 42], [9, 15], [10, 47], [11, 61], [12, 28], [13, 31], [14, 24], [15, 9], [16, 21], [17, 4], [18, 41], [19, 60], [20, 57], [21, 16], [22, 64], [23, 35], [24, 14], [25, 59], [26, 49], [27, 5], [28, 12], [29, 37], [30, 38], [31, 13], [32, 44], [33, 65], [34, 2], [35, 23], [36, 54], [37, 29], [38, 30], [39, 55], [40, 62], [41, 18], [42, 8], [43, 53], [44, 32], [45, 3], [46, 51], [47, 10], [48, 7], [49, 26], [50, 63], [51, 46], [52, 58], [53, 43], [54, 36], [55, 39], [56, 6], [57, 20], [58, 52], [59, 25], [60, 19], [61, 11], [62, 40], [63, 50], [64, 22], [65, 33], [66, 66]], [1, 66], [[2, 34, 1], [3, 45, 1], [4, 17, 1], [5, 27, 1], [6, 56, 1], [7, 48, 1], [8, 42, 1], [9, 15, 1], [10, 47, 1], [11, 61, 1], [12, 28, 1], [13, 31, 1], [14, 24, 1], [16, 21, 1], [18, 41, 1], [19, 60, 1], [20, 57, 1], [22, 64, 1], [23, 35, 1], [25, 59, 1], [26, 49, 1], [29, 37, 1], [30, 38, 1], [32, 44, 1], [33, 65, 1], [36, 54, 1], [39, 55, 1], [40, 62, 1], [43, 53, 1], [46, 51, 1], [50, 63, 1], [52, 58, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 66, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

45. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=71. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(71, [[1, 1], [2, 36], [3, 24], [4, 18], [5, 57], [6, 12], [7, 61], [8, 9], [9, 8], [10, 64], [11, 13], [12, 6], [13, 11], [14, 66], [15, 19], [16, 40], [17, 46], [18, 4], [19, 15], [20, 32], [21, 44], [22, 42], [23, 34], [24, 3], [25, 54], [26, 41], [27, 50], [28, 33], [29, 49], [30, 45], [31, 55], [32, 20], [33, 28], [34, 23], [35, 69], [36, 2], [37, 48], [38, 43], [39, 51], [40, 16], [41, 26], [42, 22], [43, 38], [44, 21], [45, 30], [46, 17], [47, 68], [48, 37], [49, 29], [50, 27], [51, 39], [52, 56], [53, 67], [54, 25], [55, 31], [56, 52], [57, 5], [58, 60], [59, 65], [60, 58], [61, 7], [62, 63], [63, 62], [64, 10], [65, 59], [66, 14], [67, 53], [68, 47], [69, 35], [70, 70]], [1, 70], [[2, 36, 1], [3, 24, 1], [4, 18, 1], [5, 57, 1], [6, 12, 1], [7, 61, 1], [8, 9, 1], [10, 64, 1], [11, 13, 1], [14, 66, 1], [15, 19, 1], [16, 40, 1], [17, 46, 1], [20, 32, 1], [21, 44, 1], [22, 42, 1], [23, 34, 1], [25, 54, 1], [26, 41, 1], [27, 50, 1], [28, 33, 1], [29, 49, 1], [30, 45, 1], [31, 55, 1], [35, 69, 1], [37, 48, 1], [38, 43, 1], [39, 51, 1], [47, 68, 1], [52, 56, 1], [53, 67, 1], [58, 60, 1], [59, 65, 1], [62, 63, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 70, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (71, [[1, 1], [2, 36], [3, 24], [4, 18], [5, 57], [6, 12], [7, 61], [8, 9], [9, 8], [10, 64], [11, 13], [12, 6], [13, 11], [14, 66], [15, 19], [16, 40], [17, 46], [18, 4], [19, 15], [20, 32], [21, 44], [22, 42], [23, 34], [24, 3], [25, 54], [26, 41], [27, 50], [28, 33], [29, 49], [30, 45], [31, 55], [32, 20], [33, 28], [34, 23], [35, 69], [36, 2], [37, 48], [38, 43], [39, 51], [40, 16], [41, 26], [42, 22], [43, 38], [44, 21], [45, 30], [46, 17], [47, 68], [48, 37], [49, 29], [50, 27], [51, 39], [52, 56], [53, 67], [54, 25], [55, 31], [56, 52], [57, 5], [58, 60], [59, 65], [60, 58], [61, 7], [62, 63], [63, 62], [64, 10], [65, 59], [66, 14], [67, 53], [68, 47], [69, 35], [70, 70]], [1, 70], [[2, 36, 1], [3, 24, 1], [4, 18, 1], [5, 57, 1], [6, 12, 1], [7, 61, 1], [8, 9, 1], [10, 64, 1], [11, 13, 1], [14, 66, 1], [15, 19, 1], [16, 40, 1], [17, 46, 1], [20, 32, 1], [21, 44, 1], [22, 42, 1], [23, 34, 1], [25, 54, 1], [26, 41, 1], [27, 50, 1], [28, 33, 1], [29, 49, 1], [30, 45, 1], [31, 55, 1], [35, 69, 1], [37, 48, 1], [38, 43, 1], [39, 51, 1], [47, 68, 1], [52, 56, 1], [53, 67, 1], [58, 60, 1], [59, 65, 1], [62, 63, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 70, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

46. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=73. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(73, [[1, 1], [2, 37], [3, 49], [4, 55], [5, 44], [6, 61], [7, 21], [8, 64], [9, 65], [10, 22], [11, 20], [12, 67], [13, 45], [14, 47], [15, 39], [16, 32], [17, 43], [18, 69], [19, 50], [20, 11], [21, 7], [22, 10], [23, 54], [24, 70], [25, 38], [26, 59], [27, 46], [28, 60], [29, 68], [30, 56], [31, 33], [32, 16], [33, 31], [34, 58], [35, 48], [36, 71], [37, 2], [38, 25], [39, 15], [40, 42], [41, 57], [42, 40], [43, 17], [44, 5], [45, 13], [46, 27], [47, 14], [48, 35], [49, 3], [50, 19], [51, 63], [52, 66], [53, 62], [54, 23], [55, 4], [56, 30], [57, 41], [58, 34], [59, 26], [60, 28], [61, 6], [62, 53], [63, 51], [64, 8], [65, 9], [66, 52], [67, 12], [68, 29], [69, 18], [70, 24], [71, 36], [72, 72]], [1, 72], [[2, 37, 1], [3, 49, 1], [4, 55, 1], [5, 44, 1], [6, 61, 1], [7, 21, 1], [8, 64, 1], [9, 65, 1], [10, 22, 1], [11, 20, 1], [12, 67, 1], [13, 45, 1], [14, 47, 1], [15, 39, 1], [16, 32, 1], [17, 43, 1], [18, 69, 1], [19, 50, 1], [23, 54, 1], [24, 70, 1], [25, 38, 1], [26, 59, 1], [27, 46, 1], [28, 60, 1], [29, 68, 1], [30, 56, 1], [31, 33, 1], [34, 58, 1], [35, 48, 1], [36, 71, 1], [40, 42, 1], [41, 57, 1], [51, 63, 1], [52, 66, 1], [53, 62, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 72, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (73, [[1, 1], [2, 37], [3, 49], [4, 55], [5, 44], [6, 61], [7, 21], [8, 64], [9, 65], [10, 22], [11, 20], [12, 67], [13, 45], [14, 47], [15, 39], [16, 32], [17, 43], [18, 69], [19, 50], [20, 11], [21, 7], [22, 10], [23, 54], [24, 70], [25, 38], [26, 59], [27, 46], [28, 60], [29, 68], [30, 56], [31, 33], [32, 16], [33, 31], [34, 58], [35, 48], [36, 71], [37, 2], [38, 25], [39, 15], [40, 42], [41, 57], [42, 40], [43, 17], [44, 5], [45, 13], [46, 27], [47, 14], [48, 35], [49, 3], [50, 19], [51, 63], [52, 66], [53, 62], [54, 23], [55, 4], [56, 30], [57, 41], [58, 34], [59, 26], [60, 28], [61, 6], [62, 53], [63, 51], [64, 8], [65, 9], [66, 52], [67, 12], [68, 29], [69, 18], [70, 24], [71, 36], [72, 72]], [1, 72], [[2, 37, 1], [3, 49, 1], [4, 55, 1], [5, 44, 1], [6, 61, 1], [7, 21, 1], [8, 64, 1], [9, 65, 1], [10, 22, 1], [11, 20, 1], [12, 67, 1], [13, 45, 1], [14, 47, 1], [15, 39, 1], [16, 32, 1], [17, 43, 1], [18, 69, 1], [19, 50, 1], [23, 54, 1], [24, 70, 1], [25, 38, 1], [26, 59, 1], [27, 46, 1], [28, 60, 1], [29, 68, 1], [30, 56, 1], [31, 33, 1], [34, 58, 1], [35, 48, 1], [36, 71, 1], [40, 42, 1], [41, 57, 1], [51, 63, 1], [52, 66, 1], [53, 62, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 72, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

47. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=79. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(79, [[1, 1], [2, 40], [3, 53], [4, 20], [5, 16], [6, 66], [7, 34], [8, 10], [9, 44], [10, 8], [11, 36], [12, 33], [13, 73], [14, 17], [15, 58], [16, 5], [17, 14], [18, 22], [19, 25], [20, 4], [21, 64], [22, 18], [23, 55], [24, 56], [25, 19], [26, 76], [27, 41], [28, 48], [29, 30], [30, 29], [31, 51], [32, 42], [33, 12], [34, 7], [35, 70], [36, 11], [37, 47], [38, 52], [39, 77], [40, 2], [41, 27], [42, 32], [43, 68], [44, 9], [45, 72], [46, 67], [47, 37], [48, 28], [49, 50], [50, 49], [51, 31], [52, 38], [53, 3], [54, 60], [55, 23], [56, 24], [57, 61], [58, 15], [59, 75], [60, 54], [61, 57], [62, 65], [63, 74], [64, 21], [65, 62], [66, 6], [67, 46], [68, 43], [69, 71], [70, 35], [71, 69], [72, 45], [73, 13], [74, 63], [75, 59], [76, 26], [77, 39], [78, 78]], [1, 78], [[2, 40, 1], [3, 53, 1], [4, 20, 1], [5, 16, 1], [6, 66, 1], [7, 34, 1], [8, 10, 1], [9, 44, 1], [11, 36, 1], [12, 33, 1], [13, 73, 1], [14, 17, 1], [15, 58, 1], [18, 22, 1], [19, 25, 1], [21, 64, 1], [23, 55, 1], [24, 56, 1], [26, 76, 1], [27, 41, 1], [28, 48, 1], [29, 30, 1], [31, 51, 1], [32, 42, 1], [35, 70, 1], [37, 47, 1], [38, 52, 1], [39, 77, 1], [43, 68, 1], [45, 72, 1], [46, 67, 1], [49, 50, 1], [54, 60, 1], [57, 61, 1], [59, 75, 1], [62, 65, 1], [63, 74, 1], [69, 71, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 78, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (79, [[1, 1], [2, 40], [3, 53], [4, 20], [5, 16], [6, 66], [7, 34], [8, 10], [9, 44], [10, 8], [11, 36], [12, 33], [13, 73], [14, 17], [15, 58], [16, 5], [17, 14], [18, 22], [19, 25], [20, 4], [21, 64], [22, 18], [23, 55], [24, 56], [25, 19], [26, 76], [27, 41], [28, 48], [29, 30], [30, 29], [31, 51], [32, 42], [33, 12], [34, 7], [35, 70], [36, 11], [37, 47], [38, 52], [39, 77], [40, 2], [41, 27], [42, 32], [43, 68], [44, 9], [45, 72], [46, 67], [47, 37], [48, 28], [49, 50], [50, 49], [51, 31], [52, 38], [53, 3], [54, 60], [55, 23], [56, 24], [57, 61], [58, 15], [59, 75], [60, 54], [61, 57], [62, 65], [63, 74], [64, 21], [65, 62], [66, 6], [67, 46], [68, 43], [69, 71], [70, 35], [71, 69], [72, 45], [73, 13], [74, 63], [75, 59], [76, 26], [77, 39], [78, 78]], [1, 78], [[2, 40, 1], [3, 53, 1], [4, 20, 1], [5, 16, 1], [6, 66, 1], [7, 34, 1], [8, 10, 1], [9, 44, 1], [11, 36, 1], [12, 33, 1], [13, 73, 1], [14, 17, 1], [15, 58, 1], [18, 22, 1], [19, 25, 1], [21, 64, 1], [23, 55, 1], [24, 56, 1], [26, 76, 1], [27, 41, 1], [28, 48, 1], [29, 30, 1], [31, 51, 1], [32, 42, 1], [35, 70, 1], [37, 47, 1], [38, 52, 1], [39, 77, 1], [43, 68, 1], [45, 72, 1], [46, 67, 1], [49, 50, 1], [54, 60, 1], [57, 61, 1], [59, 75, 1], [62, 65, 1], [63, 74, 1], [69, 71, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 78, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

48. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=83. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(83, [[1, 1], [2, 42], [3, 28], [4, 21], [5, 50], [6, 14], [7, 12], [8, 52], [9, 37], [10, 25], [11, 68], [12, 7], [13, 32], [14, 6], [15, 72], [16, 26], [17, 44], [18, 60], [19, 35], [20, 54], [21, 4], [22, 34], [23, 65], [24, 45], [25, 10], [26, 16], [27, 40], [28, 3], [29, 63], [30, 36], [31, 75], [32, 13], [33, 78], [34, 22], [35, 19], [36, 30], [37, 9], [38, 59], [39, 66], [40, 27], [41, 81], [42, 2], [43, 56], [44, 17], [45, 24], [46, 74], [47, 53], [48, 64], [49, 61], [50, 5], [51, 70], [52, 8], [53, 47], [54, 20], [55, 80], [56, 43], [57, 67], [58, 73], [59, 38], [60, 18], [61, 49], [62, 79], [63, 29], [64, 48], [65, 23], [66, 39], [67, 57], [68, 11], [69, 77], [70, 51], [71, 76], [72, 15], [73, 58], [74, 46], [75, 31], [76, 71], [77, 69], [78, 33], [79, 62], [80, 55], [81, 41], [82, 82]], [1, 82], [[2, 42, 1], [3, 28, 1], [4, 21, 1], [5, 50, 1], [6, 14, 1], [7, 12, 1], [8, 52, 1], [9, 37, 1], [10, 25, 1], [11, 68, 1], [13, 32, 1], [15, 72, 1], [16, 26, 1], [17, 44, 1], [18, 60, 1], [19, 35, 1], [20, 54, 1], [22, 34, 1], [23, 65, 1], [24, 45, 1], [27, 40, 1], [29, 63, 1], [30, 36, 1], [31, 75, 1], [33, 78, 1], [38, 59, 1], [39, 66, 1], [41, 81, 1], [43, 56, 1], [46, 74, 1], [47, 53, 1], [48, 64, 1], [49, 61, 1], [51, 70, 1], [55, 80, 1], [57, 67, 1], [58, 73, 1], [62, 79, 1], [69, 77, 1], [71, 76, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 82, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (83, [[1, 1], [2, 42], [3, 28], [4, 21], [5, 50], [6, 14], [7, 12], [8, 52], [9, 37], [10, 25], [11, 68], [12, 7], [13, 32], [14, 6], [15, 72], [16, 26], [17, 44], [18, 60], [19, 35], [20, 54], [21, 4], [22, 34], [23, 65], [24, 45], [25, 10], [26, 16], [27, 40], [28, 3], [29, 63], [30, 36], [31, 75], [32, 13], [33, 78], [34, 22], [35, 19], [36, 30], [37, 9], [38, 59], [39, 66], [40, 27], [41, 81], [42, 2], [43, 56], [44, 17], [45, 24], [46, 74], [47, 53], [48, 64], [49, 61], [50, 5], [51, 70], [52, 8], [53, 47], [54, 20], [55, 80], [56, 43], [57, 67], [58, 73], [59, 38], [60, 18], [61, 49], [62, 79], [63, 29], [64, 48], [65, 23], [66, 39], [67, 57], [68, 11], [69, 77], [70, 51], [71, 76], [72, 15], [73, 58], [74, 46], [75, 31], [76, 71], [77, 69], [78, 33], [79, 62], [80, 55], [81, 41], [82, 82]], [1, 82], [[2, 42, 1], [3, 28, 1], [4, 21, 1], [5, 50, 1], [6, 14, 1], [7, 12, 1], [8, 52, 1], [9, 37, 1], [10, 25, 1], [11, 68, 1], [13, 32, 1], [15, 72, 1], [16, 26, 1], [17, 44, 1], [18, 60, 1], [19, 35, 1], [20, 54, 1], [22, 34, 1], [23, 65, 1], [24, 45, 1], [27, 40, 1], [29, 63, 1], [30, 36, 1], [31, 75, 1], [33, 78, 1], [38, 59, 1], [39, 66, 1], [41, 81, 1], [43, 56, 1], [46, 74, 1], [47, 53, 1], [48, 64, 1], [49, 61, 1], [51, 70, 1], [55, 80, 1], [57, 67, 1], [58, 73, 1], [62, 79, 1], [69, 77, 1], [71, 76, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 82, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

49. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=89. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(89, [[1, 1], [2, 45], [3, 30], [4, 67], [5, 18], [6, 15], [7, 51], [8, 78], [9, 10], [10, 9], [11, 81], [12, 52], [13, 48], [14, 70], [15, 6], [16, 39], [17, 21], [18, 5], [19, 75], [20, 49], [21, 17], [22, 85], [23, 31], [24, 26], [25, 57], [26, 24], [27, 33], [28, 35], [29, 43], [30, 3], [31, 23], [32, 64], [33, 27], [34, 55], [35, 28], [36, 47], [37, 77], [38, 82], [39, 16], [40, 69], [41, 76], [42, 53], [43, 29], [44, 87], [45, 2], [46, 60], [47, 36], [48, 13], [49, 20], [50, 73], [51, 7], [52, 12], [53, 42], [54, 61], [55, 34], [56, 62], [57, 25], [58, 66], [59, 86], [60, 46], [61, 54], [62, 56], [63, 65], [64, 32], [65, 63], [66, 58], [67, 4], [68, 72], [69, 40], [70, 14], [71, 84], [72, 68], [73, 50], [74, 83], [75, 19], [76, 41], [77, 37], [78, 8], [79, 80], [80, 79], [81, 11], [82, 38], [83, 74], [84, 71], [85, 22], [86, 59], [87, 44], [88, 88]], [1, 88], [[2, 45, 1], [3, 30, 1], [4, 67, 1], [5, 18, 1], [6, 15, 1], [7, 51, 1], [8, 78, 1], [9, 10, 1], [11, 81, 1], [12, 52, 1], [13, 48, 1], [14, 70, 1], [16, 39, 1], [17, 21, 1], [19, 75, 1], [20, 49, 1], [22, 85, 1], [23, 31, 1], [24, 26, 1], [25, 57, 1], [27, 33, 1], [28, 35, 1], [29, 43, 1], [32, 64, 1], [34, 55, 1], [36, 47, 1], [37, 77, 1], [38, 82, 1], [40, 69, 1], [41, 76, 1], [42, 53, 1], [44, 87, 1], [46, 60, 1], [50, 73, 1], [54, 61, 1], [56, 62, 1], [58, 66, 1], [59, 86, 1], [63, 65, 1], [68, 72, 1], [71, 84, 1], [74, 83, 1], [79, 80, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 88, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (89, [[1, 1], [2, 45], [3, 30], [4, 67], [5, 18], [6, 15], [7, 51], [8, 78], [9, 10], [10, 9], [11, 81], [12, 52], [13, 48], [14, 70], [15, 6], [16, 39], [17, 21], [18, 5], [19, 75], [20, 49], [21, 17], [22, 85], [23, 31], [24, 26], [25, 57], [26, 24], [27, 33], [28, 35], [29, 43], [30, 3], [31, 23], [32, 64], [33, 27], [34, 55], [35, 28], [36, 47], [37, 77], [38, 82], [39, 16], [40, 69], [41, 76], [42, 53], [43, 29], [44, 87], [45, 2], [46, 60], [47, 36], [48, 13], [49, 20], [50, 73], [51, 7], [52, 12], [53, 42], [54, 61], [55, 34], [56, 62], [57, 25], [58, 66], [59, 86], [60, 46], [61, 54], [62, 56], [63, 65], [64, 32], [65, 63], [66, 58], [67, 4], [68, 72], [69, 40], [70, 14], [71, 84], [72, 68], [73, 50], [74, 83], [75, 19], [76, 41], [77, 37], [78, 8], [79, 80], [80, 79], [81, 11], [82, 38], [83, 74], [84, 71], [85, 22], [86, 59], [87, 44], [88, 88]], [1, 88], [[2, 45, 1], [3, 30, 1], [4, 67, 1], [5, 18, 1], [6, 15, 1], [7, 51, 1], [8, 78, 1], [9, 10, 1], [11, 81, 1], [12, 52, 1], [13, 48, 1], [14, 70, 1], [16, 39, 1], [17, 21, 1], [19, 75, 1], [20, 49, 1], [22, 85, 1], [23, 31, 1], [24, 26, 1], [25, 57, 1], [27, 33, 1], [28, 35, 1], [29, 43, 1], [32, 64, 1], [34, 55, 1], [36, 47, 1], [37, 77, 1], [38, 82, 1], [40, 69, 1], [41, 76, 1], [42, 53, 1], [44, 87, 1], [46, 60, 1], [50, 73, 1], [54, 61, 1], [56, 62, 1], [58, 66, 1], [59, 86, 1], [63, 65, 1], [68, 72, 1], [71, 84, 1], [74, 83, 1], [79, 80, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 88, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

50. All Nonzero Prime Residues Pair with Inverses, with a Special p=2 Case

Use prime modulus p=97. Give (p, all_inverse_pairs, self_inverse_residues, distinct_cancelling_pairs, self_inverse_scope, factorial_residue, Wilson_congruence).

View answer and explanation

(97, [[1, 1], [2, 49], [3, 65], [4, 73], [5, 39], [6, 81], [7, 14], [8, 85], [9, 54], [10, 68], [11, 53], [12, 89], [13, 15], [14, 7], [15, 13], [16, 91], [17, 40], [18, 27], [19, 46], [20, 34], [21, 37], [22, 75], [23, 38], [24, 93], [25, 66], [26, 56], [27, 18], [28, 52], [29, 87], [30, 55], [31, 72], [32, 94], [33, 50], [34, 20], [35, 61], [36, 62], [37, 21], [38, 23], [39, 5], [40, 17], [41, 71], [42, 67], [43, 88], [44, 86], [45, 69], [46, 19], [47, 64], [48, 95], [49, 2], [50, 33], [51, 78], [52, 28], [53, 11], [54, 9], [55, 30], [56, 26], [57, 80], [58, 92], [59, 74], [60, 76], [61, 35], [62, 36], [63, 77], [64, 47], [65, 3], [66, 25], [67, 42], [68, 10], [69, 45], [70, 79], [71, 41], [72, 31], [73, 4], [74, 59], [75, 22], [76, 60], [77, 63], [78, 51], [79, 70], [80, 57], [81, 6], [82, 84], [83, 90], [84, 82], [85, 8], [86, 44], [87, 29], [88, 43], [89, 12], [90, 83], [91, 16], [92, 58], [93, 24], [94, 32], [95, 48], [96, 96]], [1, 96], [[2, 49, 1], [3, 65, 1], [4, 73, 1], [5, 39, 1], [6, 81, 1], [7, 14, 1], [8, 85, 1], [9, 54, 1], [10, 68, 1], [11, 53, 1], [12, 89, 1], [13, 15, 1], [16, 91, 1], [17, 40, 1], [18, 27, 1], [19, 46, 1], [20, 34, 1], [21, 37, 1], [22, 75, 1], [23, 38, 1], [24, 93, 1], [25, 66, 1], [26, 56, 1], [28, 52, 1], [29, 87, 1], [30, 55, 1], [31, 72, 1], [32, 94, 1], [33, 50, 1], [35, 61, 1], [36, 62, 1], [41, 71, 1], [42, 67, 1], [43, 88, 1], [44, 86, 1], [45, 69, 1], [47, 64, 1], [48, 95, 1], [51, 78, 1], [57, 80, 1], [58, 92, 1], [59, 74, 1], [60, 76, 1], [63, 77, 1], [70, 79, 1], [82, 84, 1], [83, 90, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 96, Yes)

List every nonzero residue and its inverse, identify self-inverse residues and pair each remaining unordered inverse pair once. For p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue, not two distinct ones. Retain the complete factorial congruence for this modulus. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (97, [[1, 1], [2, 49], [3, 65], [4, 73], [5, 39], [6, 81], [7, 14], [8, 85], [9, 54], [10, 68], [11, 53], [12, 89], [13, 15], [14, 7], [15, 13], [16, 91], [17, 40], [18, 27], [19, 46], [20, 34], [21, 37], [22, 75], [23, 38], [24, 93], [25, 66], [26, 56], [27, 18], [28, 52], [29, 87], [30, 55], [31, 72], [32, 94], [33, 50], [34, 20], [35, 61], [36, 62], [37, 21], [38, 23], [39, 5], [40, 17], [41, 71], [42, 67], [43, 88], [44, 86], [45, 69], [46, 19], [47, 64], [48, 95], [49, 2], [50, 33], [51, 78], [52, 28], [53, 11], [54, 9], [55, 30], [56, 26], [57, 80], [58, 92], [59, 74], [60, 76], [61, 35], [62, 36], [63, 77], [64, 47], [65, 3], [66, 25], [67, 42], [68, 10], [69, 45], [70, 79], [71, 41], [72, 31], [73, 4], [74, 59], [75, 22], [76, 60], [77, 63], [78, 51], [79, 70], [80, 57], [81, 6], [82, 84], [83, 90], [84, 82], [85, 8], [86, 44], [87, 29], [88, 43], [89, 12], [90, 83], [91, 16], [92, 58], [93, 24], [94, 32], [95, 48], [96, 96]], [1, 96], [[2, 49, 1], [3, 65, 1], [4, 73, 1], [5, 39, 1], [6, 81, 1], [7, 14, 1], [8, 85, 1], [9, 54, 1], [10, 68, 1], [11, 53, 1], [12, 89, 1], [13, 15, 1], [16, 91, 1], [17, 40, 1], [18, 27, 1], [19, 46, 1], [20, 34, 1], [21, 37, 1], [22, 75, 1], [23, 38, 1], [24, 93, 1], [25, 66, 1], [26, 56, 1], [28, 52, 1], [29, 87, 1], [30, 55, 1], [31, 72, 1], [32, 94, 1], [33, 50, 1], [35, 61, 1], [36, 62, 1], [41, 71, 1], [42, 67, 1], [43, 88, 1], [44, 86, 1], [45, 69, 1], [47, 64, 1], [48, 95, 1], [51, 78, 1], [57, 80, 1], [58, 92, 1], [59, 74, 1], [60, 76, 1], [63, 77, 1], [70, 79, 1], [82, 84, 1], [83, 90, 1]], self_inverse_residues_1_and_p_minus_1, 96, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-prime-inverse-pairing · candidate

51. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=4. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(4, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 2]], 2, 3, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (4, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 2]], 2, 3, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

52. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=6. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(6, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 0], [4, 0], [5, 0]], 0, 5, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (6, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 0], [4, 0], [5, 0]], 0, 5, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

53. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=8. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(8, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0]], 0, 7, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (8, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0]], 0, 7, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

54. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=9. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(9, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 3], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0]], 0, 8, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (9, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 3], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0]], 0, 8, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

55. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=10. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(10, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0]], 0, 9, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (10, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0]], 0, 9, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

56. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=12. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(12, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0]], 0, 11, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (12, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0]], 0, 11, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

57. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=14. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(14, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 10], [5, 8], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0]], 0, 13, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (14, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 10], [5, 8], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0]], 0, 13, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

58. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=15. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(15, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 9], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0]], 0, 14, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (15, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 9], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0]], 0, 14, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

59. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=16. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(16, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 8], [5, 8], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0]], 0, 15, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (16, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 8], [5, 8], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0]], 0, 15, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

60. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=18. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(18, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 12], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0]], 0, 17, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (18, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 6], [5, 12], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0]], 0, 17, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

61. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=20. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(20, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0]], 0, 19, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (20, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 4], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0]], 0, 19, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

62. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=21. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(21, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 15], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0]], 0, 20, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (21, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 15], [6, 6], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0]], 0, 20, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

63. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=22. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(22, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 2], [5, 10], [6, 16], [7, 2], [8, 16], [9, 12], [10, 10], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0]], 0, 21, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (22, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 2], [5, 10], [6, 16], [7, 2], [8, 16], [9, 12], [10, 10], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0]], 0, 21, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

64. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=24. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(24, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0]], 0, 23, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (24, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 0], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0]], 0, 23, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

65. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=25. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(25, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 20], [6, 20], [7, 15], [8, 20], [9, 5], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0]], 0, 24, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (25, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 20], [6, 20], [7, 15], [8, 20], [9, 5], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0]], 0, 24, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

66. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=26. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(26, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 16], [6, 18], [7, 22], [8, 20], [9, 24], [10, 6], [11, 14], [12, 12], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0]], 0, 25, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (26, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 16], [6, 18], [7, 22], [8, 20], [9, 24], [10, 6], [11, 14], [12, 12], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0]], 0, 25, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

67. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=27. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(27, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 12], [6, 18], [7, 18], [8, 9], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0]], 0, 26, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (27, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 12], [6, 18], [7, 18], [8, 9], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0]], 0, 26, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

68. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=28. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(28, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 8], [6, 20], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0]], 0, 27, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (28, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 8], [6, 20], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0]], 0, 27, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

69. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=30. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(30, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0]], 0, 29, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (30, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 0], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0]], 0, 29, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

70. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=32. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(32, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 24], [6, 16], [7, 16], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0]], 0, 31, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (32, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 24], [6, 16], [7, 16], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0]], 0, 31, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

71. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=33. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(33, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 21], [6, 27], [7, 24], [8, 27], [9, 12], [10, 21], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0]], 0, 32, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (33, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 21], [6, 27], [7, 24], [8, 27], [9, 12], [10, 21], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0]], 0, 32, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

72. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=34. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(34, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 18], [6, 6], [7, 8], [8, 30], [9, 32], [10, 14], [11, 18], [12, 12], [13, 20], [14, 8], [15, 18], [16, 16], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0]], 0, 33, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (34, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 18], [6, 6], [7, 8], [8, 30], [9, 32], [10, 14], [11, 18], [12, 12], [13, 20], [14, 8], [15, 18], [16, 16], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0]], 0, 33, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

73. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=35. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(35, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 15], [6, 20], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0], [34, 0]], 0, 34, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (35, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 15], [6, 20], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0], [34, 0]], 0, 34, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

74. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=36. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(36, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 12], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0], [34, 0], [35, 0]], 0, 35, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (36, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 12], [6, 0], [7, 0], [8, 0], [9, 0], [10, 0], [11, 0], [12, 0], [13, 0], [14, 0], [15, 0], [16, 0], [17, 0], [18, 0], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0], [34, 0], [35, 0]], 0, 35, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

75. A Composite Factorial Computation Is an Instance, Not the Converse Proof

Use composite integer n=38. Give (n, prime, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence_fails, finite_scope).

View answer and explanation

(38, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 6], [6, 36], [7, 24], [8, 2], [9, 18], [10, 28], [11, 4], [12, 10], [13, 16], [14, 34], [15, 16], [16, 28], [17, 20], [18, 18], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0], [34, 0], [35, 0], [36, 0], [37, 0]], 0, 37, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof)

Compute all running factorial residues and show the final residue differs from n−1. This exact finite instance does not replace the converse proof for all composite integers, and it is not Fermat little theorem. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (38, No, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 6], [6, 36], [7, 24], [8, 2], [9, 18], [10, 28], [11, 4], [12, 10], [13, 16], [14, 34], [15, 16], [16, 28], [17, 20], [18, 18], [19, 0], [20, 0], [21, 0], [22, 0], [23, 0], [24, 0], [25, 0], [26, 0], [27, 0], [28, 0], [29, 0], [30, 0], [31, 0], [32, 0], [33, 0], [34, 0], [35, 0], [36, 0], [37, 0]], 0, 37, Yes, finite_composite_instance_not_converse_proof).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-composite-instance · candidate

76. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=p2_self_inverse and exact integer n=2. Give (mode, p, self_inverse_residues, modular_identity, distinct_residue_scope, exception_qualified).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(p2_self_inverse, 2, [1], 1_equals_minus_1_mod_2, one_not_two_distinct_self_inverse_residues, Yes)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (p2_self_inverse, 2, [1], 1_equals_minus_1_mod_2, one_not_two_distinct_self_inverse_residues, Yes).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

77. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-1. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -1, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -1, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

78. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=4. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 4, 3, checked_moduli_2_through_4, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 4, 3, checked_moduli_2_through_4, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

79. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=7. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 7, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 1], [6, 6]], 6, 6, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_7, Fermat:a^(7-1)==1_mod_7_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 7, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 3], [5, 1], [6, 6]], 6, 6, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_7, Fermat:a^(7-1)==1_mod_7_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

80. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-4. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -4, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -4, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

81. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=7. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 7, 6, checked_moduli_2_through_7, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 7, 6, checked_moduli_2_through_7, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

82. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=17. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 17, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 7], [5, 1], [6, 6], [7, 8], [8, 13], [9, 15], [10, 14], [11, 1], [12, 12], [13, 3], [14, 8], [15, 1], [16, 16]], 16, 16, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_17, Fermat:a^(17-1)==1_mod_17_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 17, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 7], [5, 1], [6, 6], [7, 8], [8, 13], [9, 15], [10, 14], [11, 1], [12, 12], [13, 3], [14, 8], [15, 1], [16, 16]], 16, 16, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_17, Fermat:a^(17-1)==1_mod_17_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

83. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-7. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -7, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -7, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

84. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=10. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 10, 9, checked_moduli_2_through_10, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 10, 9, checked_moduli_2_through_10, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

85. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=29. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 29, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 4], [6, 24], [7, 23], [8, 10], [9, 3], [10, 1], [11, 11], [12, 16], [13, 5], [14, 12], [15, 6], [16, 9], [17, 8], [18, 28], [19, 10], [20, 26], [21, 24], [22, 6], [23, 22], [24, 6], [25, 5], [26, 14], [27, 1], [28, 28]], 28, 28, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_29, Fermat:a^(29-1)==1_mod_29_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 29, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 4], [6, 24], [7, 23], [8, 10], [9, 3], [10, 1], [11, 11], [12, 16], [13, 5], [14, 12], [15, 6], [16, 9], [17, 8], [18, 28], [19, 10], [20, 26], [21, 24], [22, 6], [23, 22], [24, 6], [25, 5], [26, 14], [27, 1], [28, 28]], 28, 28, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_29, Fermat:a^(29-1)==1_mod_29_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

86. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-10. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -10, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -10, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

87. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=13. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 13, 12, checked_moduli_2_through_13, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 13, 12, checked_moduli_2_through_13, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

88. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=41. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 41, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 38], [6, 23], [7, 38], [8, 17], [9, 30], [10, 13], [11, 20], [12, 35], [13, 4], [14, 15], [15, 20], [16, 33], [17, 28], [18, 12], [19, 23], [20, 9], [21, 25], [22, 17], [23, 22], [24, 36], [25, 39], [26, 30], [27, 31], [28, 7], [29, 39], [30, 22], [31, 26], [32, 12], [33, 27], [34, 16], [35, 27], [36, 29], [37, 7], [38, 20], [39, 1], [40, 40]], 40, 40, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_41, Fermat:a^(41-1)==1_mod_41_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 41, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 38], [6, 23], [7, 38], [8, 17], [9, 30], [10, 13], [11, 20], [12, 35], [13, 4], [14, 15], [15, 20], [16, 33], [17, 28], [18, 12], [19, 23], [20, 9], [21, 25], [22, 17], [23, 22], [24, 36], [25, 39], [26, 30], [27, 31], [28, 7], [29, 39], [30, 22], [31, 26], [32, 12], [33, 27], [34, 16], [35, 27], [36, 29], [37, 7], [38, 20], [39, 1], [40, 40]], 40, 40, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_41, Fermat:a^(41-1)==1_mod_41_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

89. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-13. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -13, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -13, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

90. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=16. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 16, 15, checked_moduli_2_through_16, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 16, 15, checked_moduli_2_through_16, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

91. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=53. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 53, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 14], [6, 31], [7, 5], [8, 40], [9, 42], [10, 49], [11, 9], [12, 2], [13, 26], [14, 46], [15, 1], [16, 16], [17, 7], [18, 20], [19, 9], [20, 21], [21, 17], [22, 3], [23, 16], [24, 13], [25, 7], [26, 23], [27, 38], [28, 4], [29, 10], [30, 35], [31, 25], [32, 5], [33, 6], [34, 45], [35, 38], [36, 43], [37, 1], [38, 38], [39, 51], [40, 26], [41, 6], [42, 40], [43, 24], [44, 49], [45, 32], [46, 41], [47, 19], [48, 11], [49, 9], [50, 26], [51, 1], [52, 52]], 52, 52, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_53, Fermat:a^(53-1)==1_mod_53_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 53, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 14], [6, 31], [7, 5], [8, 40], [9, 42], [10, 49], [11, 9], [12, 2], [13, 26], [14, 46], [15, 1], [16, 16], [17, 7], [18, 20], [19, 9], [20, 21], [21, 17], [22, 3], [23, 16], [24, 13], [25, 7], [26, 23], [27, 38], [28, 4], [29, 10], [30, 35], [31, 25], [32, 5], [33, 6], [34, 45], [35, 38], [36, 43], [37, 1], [38, 38], [39, 51], [40, 26], [41, 6], [42, 40], [43, 24], [44, 49], [45, 32], [46, 41], [47, 19], [48, 11], [49, 9], [50, 26], [51, 1], [52, 52]], 52, 52, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_53, Fermat:a^(53-1)==1_mod_53_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

92. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-16. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -16, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -16, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

93. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=19. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 19, 18, checked_moduli_2_through_19, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 19, 18, checked_moduli_2_through_19, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

94. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=67. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 67, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 53], [6, 50], [7, 15], [8, 53], [9, 8], [10, 13], [11, 9], [12, 41], [13, 64], [14, 25], [15, 40], [16, 37], [17, 26], [18, 66], [19, 48], [20, 22], [21, 60], [22, 47], [23, 9], [24, 15], [25, 40], [26, 35], [27, 7], [28, 62], [29, 56], [30, 5], [31, 21], [32, 2], [33, 66], [34, 33], [35, 16], [36, 40], [37, 6], [38, 27], [39, 48], [40, 44], [41, 62], [42, 58], [43, 15], [44, 57], [45, 19], [46, 3], [47, 7], [48, 1], [49, 49], [50, 38], [51, 62], [52, 8], [53, 22], [54, 49], [55, 15], [56, 36], [57, 42], [58, 24], [59, 9], [60, 4], [61, 43], [62, 53], [63, 56], [64, 33], [65, 1], [66, 66]], 66, 66, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_67, Fermat:a^(67-1)==1_mod_67_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 67, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 53], [6, 50], [7, 15], [8, 53], [9, 8], [10, 13], [11, 9], [12, 41], [13, 64], [14, 25], [15, 40], [16, 37], [17, 26], [18, 66], [19, 48], [20, 22], [21, 60], [22, 47], [23, 9], [24, 15], [25, 40], [26, 35], [27, 7], [28, 62], [29, 56], [30, 5], [31, 21], [32, 2], [33, 66], [34, 33], [35, 16], [36, 40], [37, 6], [38, 27], [39, 48], [40, 44], [41, 62], [42, 58], [43, 15], [44, 57], [45, 19], [46, 3], [47, 7], [48, 1], [49, 49], [50, 38], [51, 62], [52, 8], [53, 22], [54, 49], [55, 15], [56, 36], [57, 42], [58, 24], [59, 9], [60, 4], [61, 43], [62, 53], [63, 56], [64, 33], [65, 1], [66, 66]], 66, 66, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_67, Fermat:a^(67-1)==1_mod_67_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

95. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-19. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -19, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -19, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

96. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=22. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 22, 21, checked_moduli_2_through_22, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 22, 21, checked_moduli_2_through_22, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

97. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=79. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 79, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 41], [6, 9], [7, 63], [8, 30], [9, 33], [10, 14], [11, 75], [12, 31], [13, 8], [14, 33], [15, 21], [16, 20], [17, 24], [18, 37], [19, 71], [20, 77], [21, 37], [22, 24], [23, 78], [24, 55], [25, 32], [26, 42], [27, 28], [28, 73], [29, 63], [30, 73], [31, 51], [32, 52], [33, 57], [34, 42], [35, 48], [36, 69], [37, 25], [38, 2], [39, 78], [40, 39], [41, 19], [42, 8], [43, 28], [44, 47], [45, 61], [46, 41], [47, 31], [48, 66], [49, 74], [50, 66], [51, 48], [52, 47], [53, 42], [54, 56], [55, 78], [56, 23], [57, 47], [58, 40], [59, 69], [60, 32], [61, 56], [62, 75], [63, 64], [64, 67], [65, 10], [66, 28], [67, 59], [68, 62], [69, 12], [70, 50], [71, 74], [72, 35], [73, 27], [74, 23], [75, 66], [76, 39], [77, 1], [78, 78]], 78, 78, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_79, Fermat:a^(79-1)==1_mod_79_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 79, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 41], [6, 9], [7, 63], [8, 30], [9, 33], [10, 14], [11, 75], [12, 31], [13, 8], [14, 33], [15, 21], [16, 20], [17, 24], [18, 37], [19, 71], [20, 77], [21, 37], [22, 24], [23, 78], [24, 55], [25, 32], [26, 42], [27, 28], [28, 73], [29, 63], [30, 73], [31, 51], [32, 52], [33, 57], [34, 42], [35, 48], [36, 69], [37, 25], [38, 2], [39, 78], [40, 39], [41, 19], [42, 8], [43, 28], [44, 47], [45, 61], [46, 41], [47, 31], [48, 66], [49, 74], [50, 66], [51, 48], [52, 47], [53, 42], [54, 56], [55, 78], [56, 23], [57, 47], [58, 40], [59, 69], [60, 32], [61, 56], [62, 75], [63, 64], [64, 67], [65, 10], [66, 28], [67, 59], [68, 62], [69, 12], [70, 50], [71, 74], [72, 35], [73, 27], [74, 23], [75, 66], [76, 39], [77, 1], [78, 78]], 78, 78, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_79, Fermat:a^(79-1)==1_mod_79_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

98. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=invalid_n and exact integer n=-22. Give (mode, n, Wilson_domain_qualified, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(invalid_n, -22, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (invalid_n, -22, No, Wilson_domain_requires_n>1).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

99. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=finite_testing and exact integer n=25. Give (mode, cutoff, tested_modulus_count, tested_range, universal_proof_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(finite_testing, 25, 24, checked_moduli_2_through_25, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (finite_testing, 25, 24, checked_moduli_2_through_25, No, finite_cutoff_does_not_prove_the_universal_equivalence).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

100. Wilson Domain, Finite Testing, Fermat Comparison and the p=2 Exception Stay Separate

Use mode=fermat_confusion and exact integer n=97. Give (mode, n, running_factorial_residues, factorial_residue, minus_one_residue, Wilson_congruence, Wilson_statement, Fermat_statement, theorem_identification_claim, boundary).

The four modes have4/6/10/6 fields. At p=2,1 and−1 are the same residue. The Fermat string is a theorem comparison; that branch does not recompute powers of a.

View answer and explanation

(fermat_confusion, 97, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 23], [6, 41], [7, 93], [8, 65], [9, 3], [10, 30], [11, 39], [12, 80], [13, 70], [14, 10], [15, 53], [16, 72], [17, 60], [18, 13], [19, 53], [20, 90], [21, 47], [22, 64], [23, 17], [24, 20], [25, 15], [26, 2], [27, 54], [28, 57], [29, 4], [30, 23], [31, 34], [32, 21], [33, 14], [34, 88], [35, 73], [36, 9], [37, 42], [38, 44], [39, 67], [40, 61], [41, 76], [42, 88], [43, 1], [44, 44], [45, 40], [46, 94], [47, 53], [48, 22], [49, 11], [50, 65], [51, 17], [52, 11], [53, 1], [54, 54], [55, 60], [56, 62], [57, 42], [58, 11], [59, 67], [60, 43], [61, 4], [62, 54], [63, 7], [64, 60], [65, 20], [66, 59], [67, 73], [68, 17], [69, 9], [70, 48], [71, 13], [72, 63], [73, 40], [74, 50], [75, 64], [76, 14], [77, 11], [78, 82], [79, 76], [80, 66], [81, 11], [82, 29], [83, 79], [84, 40], [85, 5], [86, 42], [87, 65], [88, 94], [89, 24], [90, 26], [91, 38], [92, 4], [93, 81], [94, 48], [95, 1], [96, 96]], 96, 96, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_97, Fermat:a^(97-1)==1_mod_97_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed)

Reject n≤1 from the theorem domain. Testing moduli2 through a cutoff is not a universal proof. The Fermat comparison supplies named statements but does not recompute powers of a. At p=2 there is one self-inverse nonzero residue. Preserve the mode-specific layouts and distinguish a failed inference from a false congruence. The exact result, retaining the requested order, is (fermat_confusion, 97, [[1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 6], [4, 24], [5, 23], [6, 41], [7, 93], [8, 65], [9, 3], [10, 30], [11, 39], [12, 80], [13, 70], [14, 10], [15, 53], [16, 72], [17, 60], [18, 13], [19, 53], [20, 90], [21, 47], [22, 64], [23, 17], [24, 20], [25, 15], [26, 2], [27, 54], [28, 57], [29, 4], [30, 23], [31, 34], [32, 21], [33, 14], [34, 88], [35, 73], [36, 9], [37, 42], [38, 44], [39, 67], [40, 61], [41, 76], [42, 88], [43, 1], [44, 44], [45, 40], [46, 94], [47, 53], [48, 22], [49, 11], [50, 65], [51, 17], [52, 11], [53, 1], [54, 54], [55, 60], [56, 62], [57, 42], [58, 11], [59, 67], [60, 43], [61, 4], [62, 54], [63, 7], [64, 60], [65, 20], [66, 59], [67, 73], [68, 17], [69, 9], [70, 48], [71, 13], [72, 63], [73, 40], [74, 50], [75, 64], [76, 14], [77, 11], [78, 82], [79, 76], [80, 66], [81, 11], [82, 29], [83, 79], [84, 40], [85, 5], [86, 42], [87, 65], [88, 94], [89, 24], [90, 26], [91, 38], [92, 4], [93, 81], [94, 48], [95, 1], [96, 96]], 96, 96, Yes, Wilson:(n-1)!==-1_mod_97, Fermat:a^(97-1)==1_mod_97_when_n_does_not_divide_a, No, distinct_theorems_no_Fermat_power_claim_recomputed).

Reviewed step-by-step derivation

Wilson theorem · qf-mod49-wilson-boundary · candidate

Canonical question JSONL · English JSONL · Validation report