← Return to results
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