Exponential diophantine equations

involving produ ts of onse utive

integers and related equations
T.N. Shorey

Dedi ated to Professor Alan Baker on his 60th birthday

0. Introdu tion

This paper ontains an a ount of the results on the following topi s:

1. Squares in produ ts from a blo k of onse utive integers
2. Equal produ ts of onse utive integers
3. An equation of Goormaghtigh
4. An equation of Nagell - Ljunggren
5. Equal produ ts of integers in arithmeti progressions
6. The greatest prime fa tor of integers in arithmeti progression
7. Cubes and higher powers in produ ts from a blo k of onse utive integers
8. Perfe t powers in produ ts of integers in arithmeti progression
It is not our intention to give a histori al survey. We have in luded 112
referen es and we hope that they will provide an a ess to the related results
whi h are not mentioned in this paper. In se tion 1, we have des ribed the
method of Erdos and Rigge that a produ t of two or more onse utive positive
integers is never a square. A sket h of developments on the method of Erdos
1

and Rigge is also in luded. In se tion 2, we have explained an extension of

Runge's method to exponential diophantine equations by giving a proof that
for a given integer m  2, there are only nitely many instan es when a
produ t of k onse utive positive integers is equal to a produ t of mk onse utive positive integers. In the next se tion, the above method is ombined
with the theory of linear forms in logarithms for applying to an equation of
Goormaghtigh. The equation of Goormaghtigh asks for integers whose digits
are all equal to one with respe t to two distin t bases. In se tion 4, we give a
survey of the results on the equation of Nagell - Ljunggren asking for perfe t
powers in integers with all the digits equal to one. It is shown that a b
onje ture implies that the equations of Goormaghtigh and Nagell - Ljunggren have only nitely many solutions. We apply the latter equation and its
parti ular ase (30) with m even to show that ertain numbers onsidered by
Mahler are irrational. Solving (30) with m even is equivalent to solving simultaneously a Nagell-Ljunggren equation and an equation of Catalan. The
equation of Catalan is a parti ular ase of the equation of Pillai. Thus we
turn to onsidering the equations of Catalan and Pillai in se tion 4. As an extension of the theorem of S hinzel and Tijdeman on hyper-ellipti equations
in the theory of exponential diophantine equations, we formulate a onje ture whi h in ludes a well-known onje ture of Pillai on his equation. The
formulated onje ture follows from generalised a b onje ture. The se tion
5 is a ontinuation of se tion 2. It gives an a ount of developments in the
extension of Runge's method to exponential diophantine equations on equal
produ ts in arithmeti progressions. The se tion 7 explains an elementary
method of Erdos by proving that there are only nitely many possibilities
when a produ t of two or more onse utive positive integers is a ube or a
higher power. We also onsider a more general question on an upper bound
for the number of integers in a blo k of onse utive positive integers su h that
their produ t is a ube or higher power. The treatment to this more general
question is no more elementary. The se tion 8 gives analogues of the results
of se tion 7 for arithmeti progressions. An assumption g d (n; d) = 1 in a
result on equation n(n + d)


(n + (k 1)d) = by ` has been relaxed to d6 jn
in se tion 8. Further we show that a b onje ture implies that k is bounded
by an absolute onstant whenever the pre eding equation with g d (n; d) = 1
and l > 3 holds. The se tion 6 is on erned with improvements and extensions of a well-known theorem of Sylvester that a produ t of k onse utive
positive integers > k is divisible by a prime ex eeding k: It gives estimates on
parti ular ases of equations onsidered in se tions 1, 7, 8 and the results of
2

se tions 7, 8 imply some estimates related to the ones onsidered in se tion

6. The paper points out ru ial basi tools and it suggests several problems
for further investigations. It aims at updating the book of Shorey and Tijdeman [95 on exponential diophantine equations written in 1986. An arti le
with similar intention was already written by Tijdeman [109. The proofs
of several results of this book depend on its Theorems B.3 and B.4 due to
van der Poorten on p adi linear forms in logarithms. The proofs of van
der Poorten of these theorems have turned out to be in orre t. But orre t
proofs have been established by Yu [111, [112. Hen e all the onsequen es
of Theorems B.3 and B.4 in the book are valid. All the onstants appearing
in this paper are ee tively omputable. Unless otherwise spe ied, the results mentioned in this paper are ee tive. For an integer  > 1, we write
P ( ) and ! ( ) for the greatest prime fa tor and the number of distin t prime
divisors of  , respe tively, and we put P (0) = P (1) = 1; ! (0) = ! (1) = 0.
1. Squares in produ ts from a blo k of onse utive integers

Erdos [22 and Rigge [63 proved in 1939 that a produ t of two or more
onse utive positive integers is never a square. Further Erdos and Selfridge [27 proved in 1975 the analogous statement for ubes and higher
powers. Therefore a produ t of two or more onse utive positive integers
is never a power. The rst ontribution in this dire tion dates ba k to 1724
when Goldba h, in a letter to D. Bernoulli, showed that a produ t of three
onse utive positive integers is not a square. The theorem of Erdos - Rigge
is equivalent to saying that equation
(1)

n(n + 1)


(n + k

1) = y 2 in integers n > 0; y > 0; k  2

has no solution. First we give a sket h of the proof that (1) has no solution
whenever k ex eeds a su iently large absolute onstant.
If n  k, we refer to Bertrand's postulate to nd a prime p satisfying
n  n+2 k  p  n + k 1 and dividing the left hand side of (1) to the
rst power. Therefore (1) implies that n > k. Now we apply a well-known
theorem of Sylvester [105 to nd a prime q ex eeding k and dividing the
left hand side of (1). Consequently there is unique i with 0  i < k su h
that q j (n + i). Furthermore we derive from (1) that n + i is divisible by q 2 .
3

Hen e

n + k > n + i  q 2  (k + 1)2

whi h implies that

n > k2 :

(2)

We assume that k ex eeds a su iently large absolute onstant so that

all our estimates are valid. By (1), we write

n + i = ai x2i for 0  i < k

where ai is square free and P (ai)  k. The inequality (2) implies that
ao ; a1 ;


; ak 1 are distin t and this is fundamental for the proof. Let ai = aj
with i > j . Then
(3)

k > i j = aj (x2i

x2j )

= aj (xi xj )(xi + xj )
 2aj xj  2(aj x2j )1=2  2n1=2
whi h ontradi ts (2). The proof depends on omparing a lower and an upper
bound for
4 =: aoa1


ak 1:
Sin e ao ; a1 ;


; ak 1 are distin t, it is lear that

4  k!:
This an be sharpened to
(4)

4  ( 32 )k k!;

by using that ao ; a1 ;


; ak 1 are square free. Now we turn to an upper

bound for 4. If a prime p divides ai and aj with i > j , then i  j (mod p).
Therefore, sin e ai 's are square free, we have

k
p

ordp(4)  [ + 1:
Thus

4 j k!

pk

p:

In parti ular

4  k!

pk

p  k!3k :

Our intention is to nd an upper bound for 4 less than the lower bound
(4). The above upper bound is not su ient for this purpose and we must
sharpen it. Let q 2 f2; 3g and we write

gq = ordq (4); hq = ordq (k!):

In fa t we have

4 j k!

Y
pk

p 2g2

h2 3g3 h3 :

Sin e ai is square free, a prime divides ai if and only if it divides n + i to an

odd power. Thus one an imagine that gq is mu h smaller than hq . This is
the ase:
2k
log k
g2 h2 
+2
+2
3
log 2
and
log k
k
+2
+ 2:
g3 h3 
4
log 3
We obtain
(5)

4  k!3k 2

k=3 3 k=4 36k 4 :

Finally we ombine (4) and (5) to obtain

(1:04)k  (

3 1 2=3 1=4 k
2 3 )  36k4
23

whi h is not possible if k is su iently large. Hen e (1) has no solution

whenever k ex eeds a su iently large absolute onstant.
We always write b for a positive integer su h that P (b)  k. Let d1 ;


; dt
with t  2 be distin t integers in [0; k). We onsider
(6)

(n + d1 )


(n + dt ) = by 2 :

Equation (6) with t = k and b = 1 oin ides with (1). It is natural to

suppose that the left hand side of (6) is divisible by a prime ex eeding k.
Then Saradha [67, [68 showed that equation (6) with t = k and k  3 has
5

50
no solution other than the one given by
= 1402 . This in ludes a result
3
of Erdos [23 of 1951 on (6) with t = k and b = k! i.e.

n+k
= y2:
k

The assumption k  3 is ne essary in the above result of Saradha; equation

(6) with t = k = b = 2 has innitely many solutions. Now we onsider the
question of relaxing the assumption t = k. Erdos [25 observed in 1955 that
the proof given above allows to show that there exist absolute onstants C1
and C2 su h that (6) with
(7)

n > k2 ; t  k

C1

log k

implies that k  C2 . The assumption n > k2 is satised if the left hand side
of (6) is divisible by a prime ex eeding k. Saradha [67 showed that equation
0156)k
(6) with n > k2 ; t  k [ (:log
k implies that k < 870. It is easy to see that
the above proof fails if (7) is repla ed by

n > k2 ; t  k

kf (k)
log k

with f (k) ! 1 as k ! 1. Therefore we should look for repla ing the idea
of saving powers of 2 and 3 in the proof given above by a dierent argument
and it was found by Shorey [84 in 1986. For  > 0, Shorey [87 applied in
1987 Baker's theorem on integral solutions of hyper-ellipti equations and
Sieve - theoreti arguments to show that (6) with
(8)

n > k2 ; t  k

(1

) k

log log k
log k

implies that k is bounded by a number depending only on . This was asked

by Erdos [25 in 1955 when he proved the analogous result for higher powers.
We shall explain the proof. Before this we ontinue des ribing further results
on (6). Balasubramanian and Shorey [7 obtained a further relaxation of the
assumption (8), namely,
(9)

n > k 2 ; t  k
6

where

log log k log log log k


+
+ 0 )
log k
log k
log k
for some absolute onstant 0 . We x 0 and write

k = k(1

F (k) = k(log k)=log log k for k  3:

We onsider (6) with

e1

(10)

0 + F (k )

< n  k2 :

Then

P (n + di )  k for 1  i  t:
For every prime p  k, we hoose an f (p) 2 fn + d1 ;


; n + dt g su h that
p does not appear to a higher power in the fa torisation of any other n + di
with 1  i  t. Then, by an argument of Erdos [25, we have
nt (k)

Y

(n + di ) 

p[ p +[ p2 +


 kk
k

pk

Q
whi h, by (10), implies that t < k . Here the produ t  is taken after
omitting all f (p) with p  k. The above argument has turned out to be
basi and we shall apply it again in se tions 6, 7, 8 where we refer to it as
`a fundamental argument of Erdos'. Further we observe that the assumption
(9) an be repla ed by

n > e1

0 + F (k );

t  k :

On the other hand, Balasubramanian and Shorey [7 showed that the pre eding assumption is lose to the best possible. More pre isely, they [7 proved:
Let
 > 0; k  3 and n  e 1 0  F (k)
where denotes the Euler's onstant. For k  k0 = k0 (), we an nd
distin t integers d1 ;


; dt 2 [0; k) with t  k su h that (n + d1 )


(n + dt )
is a square. Now we give a sket h of the proof of this assertion. For a set T
of positive integers, we write ! (T ) for the number of distin t prime divisors
of all elements of T . Then it is well-known that there exists a subset T 0 of T
with
j T 0 j j T j !(T )
7

su h that the produ t of all elements of T 0 is a square. We take T for all n + i

with 0  i < k su h that P (n + i)  k and we write T1 for the omplement
of T in fn; n + 1;


; n + k 1g. It is enough to show that

j T j  k + (k)
i.e.

j T j  k  k  (k ):
1

It is easy to he k that

j T j

(n+k

=k

( (

1)

n+k


(

n 1
)):


The proof is ompleted by applying deep results on dieren e between onse utive primes for obtaining the desired estimate.
As promised, we turn to giving a sket h of the proof that (6) with (8)
implies that k is bounded by a number depending only on . We may assume
that k ex eeds a su iently large number depending only on . By (6), we
have
(11)

n + di = ai x2i for 1  i  t

where ai and xi are positive integers su h that P (ai)

free. We put
S = fa1 ;


; at g:
As earlier we observe from n > k2 that j S j= t and

a1


at 

p[k=p+1  (3k)k :

pk

Then there exists a subset S1 of S su h that

(12)

j S j k=2
1

and
(13)

ai  k(log k)1

=2)

if ai 2 S1 :

Further we noti e from (11), (8) and (13) that

(14)

xi  k1=4 if ai 2 S1 :
8

 k and ai is square

We write S2 for the set of all ai 2 S1 su h that ai  3k and we denote by S3

the omplement of S2 in S1 . We split the proof in two ases:
Case I. j S2 j k=4
Then we observe from (12) that

j S j k=4:

(15)

Further we use ai > 3k for showing as in (3) that the produ ts

ai aj with ai 2 S3 ; aj 2 S3
are distin t. This property is restri tive; Erdos [25 showed by Sieve that

j S j 2G= log G

(16)

where G is the largest element of S3 . By (16) and (13), we have

j S j k(log k)
3

=4

whi h ontradi ts (15).

Case II: j S2 j> k=4
We start with three distin t elements of S2 . By permuting d1 ;


; dt , there
is no loss of generality in numbering them as a1 ; a2 and a3 . We write from
(11) that

a2 x22 = a1 x21 + (d2

We put
and
Then

d1 ) ; a3 x23 = a1 x21 + (d3

d1 ):

a = g d (a1 ; a2 ; a3 ); bi = a 1 ai for 1  i  3
R = a 1 (d2

d1 ); R0 = a 1 (d3

d1 ):

b2 b3 (x2 x3 )2 = (b1 x21 + R)(b1 x21 + R0 ):

Thus we have arrived at a hyper-ellipti equation. For applying results on

integral solutions of hyper-ellipti equations, we must have ontrol on the
magnitude of b1 ; b2 and b3 . This is provided by a Sieving argument due to
9

Erdos. In this ase, we an nd three distin t elements of S2 su h that

b1 ; b2 and b3 are bounded. Now we apply a theorem of Baker [3 to derive
that max(x1 ; x2 ; x3 ) is bounded whi h, together with (14), implies that k is
bounded. Hen e we on lude the assertion that (6) with (8) implies that k
is bounded by a number depending only . The proof of Baker's theorem
depends on his theory of linear forms in logarithms. This deep theory nds
appli ations at several pla es in this paper and we refer to Baker [4 for an
a ount.
2. Equal produ ts of onse utive integers

We onsider (1) with the left hand side repla ed by two blo ks of onse utive integers. More pre isely, we onsider the equation

X (X + 1)


(X + K

1)Y (Y + 1)


(Y + K 0

1) = Z 2

where K  2; K 0  2; K + K 0  5 and X  Y + K 0 . It has been onje tured

(see [26) that this equation has only nitely many solutions in all the integral
variables X > 0; Y > 0; Z > 0; K and K 0 . This onje ture implies that

x(x + 1)


(x + k

1) = y (y + 1)


(y + k + `

1)

has only nitely many solutions in integers x > 0; y > 0; k  2 and `  0

satisfying x  y + k + `. More generally, for relatively prime positive integers
A and B , Erdos [26 onje tured in 1975 that there are only nitely many
integers x > 0; y > 0; k  3; `  0 with x  y + k + ` satisfying
(17)

Ax(x + 1)


(x + k

1) = By (y + 1)


(y + k + `

1):

All the solutions of (17) have been determined for several values of (A; B; k; `)
and we refer to [91, p.239 for an a ount of these results. The rst result in
this dire tion is due to Mordell [48 that (17) with A = B = 1; k = 2; ` = 1
implies that x = 2; y = 1 and x = 14; y = 5. For a given (A; B; k; `),
Beukers, Shorey and Tijdeman [11 onrmed the above onje ture of Erdos.
For the proof, they showed that the underlying urve is irredu ible and it
has positive genus. Then the assertion follows from a theorem of Siegel [104
on integral points on urves but it provides no expli it bound for the magnitude of the solutions. In fa t they determined all (A; B; k; `) for whi h the
urve has genus one and (17) has only nitely many rational solutions for all
10

other (A; B; k; `) by a theorem of Faltings [28 on Mordell's onje ture. In

parti ular, they [11 proved that (17) with A = B = 1 has only nitely many
rational solutions. These results are non-ee tive in the sense that they provide no expli it estimate for the heights of the solutions. If ` = 0, Shorey [82
onrmed the onje ture of Erdos when x 1 and y 1 are omposed of xed
primes. Saradha and Shorey [69 extended this result to all `  0 and the
proof depends on the theory of linear forms in logarithms. Further Saradha
and Shorey [69 showed that (17) with x  y + k + ` implies that

x y  C3 x2=3
for ertain number C3 > 0 depending only on A and B . It is a di ult
problem to onrm the above onje ture in general. Even a very parti ular
ase A = B = 1; k = 2 and y = 1 of (17) is an open problem. We onsider
(17) with A = B = 1 and k + ` an integral multiple of k. For an integer
m  2; we re-write (17) in this ase as
(18) x(x+1)


(x+k 1) = y (y +1)


(y +mk 1) in integers x > 0; y > 0; k  2:
Ma Leod and Barrodale [40 onsidered (18) with m = 2. If m = 2, equation
(18) has a solution given by
8:9:10 = 6!
i.e.
(19)

x = 8; y = 1; k = 3:

Ma Leod and Barrodale [40 observed that (19) is the only solution of (18)
with m = 2 and k  5. Saradha and Shorey [69 showed that (19) is the only
solution of (18) with m = 2. Further Saradha and Shorey [70 proved that
(18) with m = 3; 4 has no solution and Mignotte and Shorey [47 veried it
for m = 5; 6. In general Saradha and Shorey [71 showed that (18) implies
that
(20)

max(x; y; k)  C4 (m)

where C4 (m) is a number depending only on m. We have not been able to

repla e C4 (m) by an absolute onstant. It is likely that (18) with m  3 has
no solution.
11

Now we give a sket h of the proof of (20). There is no loss of generality

in proving (20) for integers x  0; y  0 and k  2 satisfying
(21)

(x + 1)


(x + k) = (y + 1)


(y + mk):

By ounting the powers of 2 on both the sides of equation (21), we nd that

x and y are large as ompared with k. In fa t

x  2k

k:

We write
(z + 1)


(z + mk) =

(22)

mk
X

Aj (m; k)z mk j :

j =0

Further we determine rational numbers

Bj = Bj (m; k) for 1  j  m
su h that
(23)

( z m + B1 z m

+


+ Bm )k =

mk
X

Hj (m; k)z mk

j =0

satises
(24)

Hj (m; k) = Aj (m; k) for 0  j  m:

By (23) and (24),

kB1

k

kB2 + 2 B12

A1 (m; k);

A2 (m; k);

Therefore B1 ;


; Bm are determined re ursively.

Let z be a su iently large number as ompared with k and m. The
relations (24) imply that the left hand side of (22) is lose to the left hand
12

side of (23). Therefore the k th root of the left hand side of (22) is lose to
the k th root of the left hand side of (23). We use this observation with z
repla ed by x and y , sin e x and y are large as ompared with k and m. The
k th root of the left hand side of (21) is lose to x + k+1
and the k th root of
2
m
m
1
the right hand side of (21) is lose to y + B1 y
+


+ Bm . Consequently
k
+1
m
m
1
we derive that x + 2 is lose to y + B1 y
+


+ Bm . In fa t, we show
that
j x (ym + B1 ym 1 +


+ Bm k +2 1 ) j< 
where
 = (2 l m (den (B1 );


; den (Bm ))) 1 :
Therefore
k+1
:
x = y m + B1 y m 1 +


+ Bm
2
We substitute this relation in (21) to get

Hj (m; k) = Aj (m; k) for 0  j < 2m:

Thus we have added m 1 relations to (24) with whi h we started. This is
the main idea of the proof. Further Balasubramanian (see [71, Appendix)
showed that these 2m 1 relations an not hold whenever k is su iently
large. For a dierent and more general proof of the pre eding assertion, see
Balasubramanian and Shorey [6. Thus we may suppose that k is bounded
and y is su iently large. Then we derive the polynomial identity
(X +1)


(X +k) = (Y +1)


(Y +mk); X = Y m +B1 Y m 1 +


+Bm

k+1
2

This is not possible and the assertion (20) follows.

We observe that k is a variable in equation (21). The left hand side of
(21) is a polynomial in x of degree k and the right hand side is a polynomial
in y of degree mk: Thus the exponents also appear as variables in equation
(21). Therefore (21) is an exponential diophantine equation. Thus the above
method an be onsidered as an extension of a method of Runge [64 to
some exponential diophantine equations. We shall apply the above method
to an equation of Goormaghtigh whi h we onsider in the next se tion. Let
= 1 or = 2 a ording as m is odd or even, respe tively. It has been
onje tured in Saradha and Shorey [71 that Hm+ (m; k) 6= Am+ (m; k). It
is easy to see that Hm+1 (m; k) = Am+1 (m; k) if m is even. Glesser [70,
13

Appendix and Mignotte and Shorey [47 he ked the onje ture for m  12
and 13  m  20, respe tively. Further Mignotte and Shorey [47 showed
that (21) with Hm+ (m; k) 6= Am+ (m; k) implies that

y  1:026  2m (m + 1 + )!km+1+ (2mk)m+2+

and

y  21=m 2k(1

=m

mk))=mk)

mk + 2

)
2
where log2 denotes the logarithm with respe t to the base 2. Thus the above
estimates are valid for 7  m  20. We re all that (21) with 2  m  6 has
no solution other than m = 2; x = 7; y = 0; k = 3.
1

(log 2 (

3. An equation of Goormaghtigh

We start this se tion with the well-known a b onje ture : Let  > 0
and a; b; be relatively prime positive integers satisfying

a + b = :
Then there exists a number  depending only on  su h that

< G1+
where

G=

p:

pjab

Next we re all that Nagell [51 onrmed a onje ture of Ramanujan [60
that the solutions of

x2 + 7 = 2n in integers x > 0; n > 0

(25)

are given by (x; n) = (1; 3); (3; 4); (5; 5); (11; 7); (181; 15). We onsider an
equation of Goormaghtigh
xm 1 y n 1
=
in integers x > 1; y > 1; m > 2; n > 2 with x 6= y:
(26)
x 1
y 1
It has been onje tured that (26) has only nitely many solutions. Goormaghtigh [30 observed in 1917 that
(27)

31 =

213 1 903 1
25 1 53 1
=
; 8191 =
=
:
2 1
5 1
2 1
90 1
14

There is no loss of generality in assuming that x < y in (26) and then m > n.
Further we re-write (26) as
(28)

1)xm

(y

1)y n = y

(x

x:

We show that a b onje ture implies that (26) has only nitely many
solutions. By applying a b onje ture to (28) after dividing both the sides
by g = g d ((x 1)y n; y x), we have

1)xm < 1 G1+
1

(y

where  = 1=100; 1 is an absolute onstant and G1 is the produ t of all

prime divisors of xy (x 1)(y 1)(y x)=g: Therefore

xm

< 1 y 2+3

and we may suppose that y ex eeds a su iently large absolute onstant.

On the other hand, we see from (26) that y n 1 < 2xm 1 whi h implies that

xm

1
2

> y (n

1)(

=m

2 ) (

1)

Finally we ombine the pre eding two inequalities to on lude that n = 3. I

thank A. Granville for pointing out an ina ura y in the above appli ation
of a b onje ture in an earlier draft of this paper. Further N. Saradha
observed that a b onje ture implies that (26) with n = 3 has only nitely
many solutions. For this, we observe that m  4 and we re-write (26) with
n = 3 as
(2y + 1)2 = 4(xm

+


+ x) + 1

and we he k that the roots of the polynomial 4(X m 1 +


+ X ) + 1 are

simple. Then we may suppose that m  6 by a result of Baker [3 on integral
solutions of hyper-ellipti equations. Now we re-write (26) as
4xm = (x

1)(2y + 1)2 + (3x + 1)

and we apply a b onje ture to on lude the assertion.

It is not known that (26) with n = 3 has only nitely many solutions.
Nesterenko and Shorey [53 proved that (26) with m  1 (mod 2); m  23
15

and n = 3 has no solution other than the ones given by (27). Let n = 3 and
x = 2 in (26). Then y > 2 and we re-write (26) as
(2y + 1)2 + 7 = 2m+2 :
Now we apply the result of Nagell stated above in this se tion to on lude
that (26) with x = 2 and n = 3 implies (27). Thus the numbers 31 and
8191 are given by Ramanujan - Nagell equation (25). Perhaps (26) has no
solution other than the ones given by (27). If x and y are xed, we read the
exponents mod 3 to write (28) as Thue equations with xed oe ients and
hen e (26) has only nitely many solutions. Balasubramanian and Shorey [5
extended the pre eding result by showing that (26) has only nitely many
solutions whenever x and y are omposed of primes from a given nite set.
Further Shorey [83 showed that this is also the ase if g d (x; y ) = 1 and
either x; y x or y; y x are omposed of primes from a given nite set. For
a given m and n; Davenport, Lewis and S hinzel [20 proved that (26) has
only nitely many solutions. The proof depends on the well-known theorem
of Siegel [104 on integral solutions of polynomial equations in two variables
and therefore the proof of Davenport, Lewis and S hinzel does not allow an
expli it bound for the magnitude of the solutions. Further for a given m and
n with g d (m 1; n 1) > 1, Davenport, Lewis and S hinzel [20 gave an
ee tive version of their result. Now the proof depends on an elementary
method of Runge [64. Further Nesterenko and Shorey [53 showed that (26)
with h = g d (m 1; n 1) > 1 implies that max (x; y; m; n) is bounded by
a number depending only on (m 1)=h. This in ludes the ee tive version
of Davenport, Lewis and S hinzel stated above. The proof depends on an
extension of Runge's method to exponential diophantine equations sket hed
in the last se tion. We ounted the power of 2 on both the sides of (21) to
show that k is small as ompared with x. Analogous assertion for (26) should
be that m is small as ompared with y . This is a hieved by the theory of
linear forms in logarithms. For a given pair (r; s) 6= (1; 1) of relatively prime
positive integers, let Sr;s be the set of all pairs (m; n) = (1 + dr; 1 + ds) with
d = 2; 3;


. This is an innite set and the above result states that (26) has
only nitely many solutions when the exponents m and n are restri ted to
the elements of Sr;s. This is the rst result on (26) of the type where the
exponents m and n are unbounded and there is no restri tion on variables
x and y . We observe that (26) asks for integers with all the digits equal to
one with respe t to two distin t bases. Further we noti e that 31 and 8191
are prime numbers su h that ! (N 1) = 3 if N = 31 and ! (N 1) = 5 if
16

N = 8191. Shorey [90 showed that 31 and 8191 are the only prime numbers
N su h that ! (N 1)  5 and N has all the digits equal to one with respe t

to two distin t bases.

For relatively prime positive integers A and B , a more general equation
than (26), namely,
(29)

xm 1
yn 1
=B
x 1
y 1

in integers x > 1; y > 1; m > 2; n > 2 with B (x 1) 6= A(y 1) has been

onsidered in [5, [83, and [86. It has been shown in [5 that (29) implies that
max (x; y; m; n) is bounded by a number depending only on A; B and the
greatest prime fa tor of xy . Let A; B; X and Y be positive integers satisfying
1  A < X; 1  B < Y and B (X 1) 6= A(Y 1). Then it has been proved
in [86 that the number of integers whose digits are all equal to A with respe t
to base X and equal to B with respe t to base Y does not ex eed 24. That
the estimate is independent of A; B; X and Y is an interesting feature of the
pre eding result.
4 An equation of Nagell - Ljunggren

We onsider the equation

(30)

xm 1
= y q in integers x > 1; y > 1; m > 2; q  2:
x 1

This equation asks for perfe t powers whose digits are all equal to one with
respe t to base x. By writing y q = (y q=p)p ; there is no loss of generality in assuming that q is a prime number. We observe that (x; y; m; q ) =
(3; 11; 5; 2); (7; 20; 4; 2) and (18; 7; 3; 3) are solutions of (30). It has been onje tured that (30) has no other solution. Ljunggren [39 onrmed it whenever q = 2. Therefore we always suppose that q > 2 in (30). Further it follows from the results of Ljunggren [39 and Nagell [50 that (30) implies that
3 6 jm; 4 6 jm and if q = 3 then m  5 (mod 6) unless (x; y; m; q ) = (18; 7; 3; 3).
The proofs of these results are also available in Ribenboim [61.
We show that a b onje ture implies that (30) has only nitely many
solutions. We re-write (30) as

xm = (x 1)y q + 1:
17

Now we apply a b onje ture with  = 1=8 to the pre eding equation for
deriving that

xm

(31)

< 2 y 1+

where 2 is an absolute onstant. On the other hand, we see from (30) that
y q < 2xm 1 whi h implies that
1
2 2)=(m 1)
:
2
By the results of Ljunggren and Nagell stated above, we may suppose that
m  5. Therefore, sin e  = 1=8 and q  3; we see that the exponent of y
in the pre eding inequality is at least 3=2. This ontradi ts (31) sin e y is
su iently large.
>From now onward in this se tion, we onne to a weaker version of
the onje ture that (30) has only nitely many solutions. Shorey and Tijdeman [94 onrmed this onje ture when x is xed. In parti ular there
are only nitely many perfe t powers with all the digits equal to one in
their de imal expansions. This settles an old problem and the proof depends on the theory of linear forms in logarithms. Now we apply the above
result of Shorey and Tijdeman to show that it su es to prove the onje ture when m is a prime power. Let m = P a m1 where a > 0 is an integer,
P = P (m); g d (m1 ; P ) = 1 and we re-write (30) as

xm

> y q(m

xm 1 xP a 1
= yq:
xP a 1 x 1
Let p be a prime dividing ea h of the fa tors on the left hand side. Then p
divides m1 : Let  be the least positive integer su h that x  1 (mod p):
Then  divides P a as well as p 1: Thus either  = 1 or P   < p  P sin e
P = P (m): Consequently  = 1 whi h implies that that p = P divides m1
ontradi ting g d (m1 ; P ) = 1: Therefore we on lude that the fa tors on the
left hand side are relatively prime. Thus the se ond fa tor is a q th power.
Hen e the assertion follows from the result of Shorey and Tijdeman stated
above. The above fa torisation on equation (30) appears for the rst time
in [84, Lemma 7 and it has been very useful. Shorey [84, [85 onrmed the
onje ture when ! (m) > q 2. For the proof of this result, Shorey [84, [85
showed that (30) has only nitely many solutions when either m  1 (mod q )
or x is a q th power. The proofs depend on the theory of linear forms in
18

logarithms and a result of Baker [1 on the approximations of ertain algebrai

numbers by rationals proved by Thue - Siegel hypergeometri method. The
latter result already found appli ation in Shorey and Tijdeman [94 that (30)
with x = 10 and q  19 has no solution. Le [38 proved that (30) has no
solution whenever x is a q th power. Further Le (A ta Arith. 69 (1995),
91-97) laimed that (30) with m  1 (mod q ) has no solution but his proof
is not orre t. A orre t proof has been given by Bennett [9. This is an
immediate onsequen e of his result [9 that for integers a > 0 and n  3;
the equation
(a + 1)xn

ay n = 1
has no solution in integers x > 0 and y > 0 other than x = y = 1: A weaker

version of the pre eding result was given by Bennett and de Weger [10. We
repla e the above stated results of Shorey that (30) has only nitely many
solutions if x is a q -th power or m  1 (mod q ) by the results of Le and
Bennett that (30) has no solution if either x is a q -th power or m  1 (mod q )
in the proof of Shorey that (30) with ! (m) > q 2 has only nitely many
solutions. Then we on lude that (30) with ! (m) > q 2 has no solution.
Now we show that (30) with q j m implies that m is a power of q . We write
m = q e m0 where e  1 and g d (m0 ; q ) = 1. Further we may suppose that m0
is not divisible by a prime  1 (mod q ) otherwise the assertion follows as in
[84 from the above fa torisation on (30) and the result of Bennett . Now we
re-write (30) as
xm 1 xqe 1
= yq:
xqe 1 x 1
Let p be a prime dividing ea h of the fa tors on the left hand side. Then p
divides m0 : Let  be the least positive integer su h that x  1 (mod p):
Then  divides q e and p 1: Therefore  = 1 sin e p 6 1 (mod q ): Now
we see that p = q divides m0 ontradi ting g d (m0 ; q ) = 1: Hen e we derive
that the fa tors on the left hand side are relatively prime. Therefore the rst
fa tor on the left hand side is a q th power. Then we may suppose that
m0 = 1 or m0 = 2 sin e xqe = (xqe 1 )q is a q th power. The latter possibility
is ruled out sin e two onse utive positive integers annot be q th powers
and the assertion is proved. On the other hand, a very parti ular ase of
the onje ture that (30) has only nitely many solutions when m is a power
of q is an open problem. An easier question than the onje ture that (30)
has only nitely many solutions is to repla e ! (m) > q 2 by ! (m)  2 in
19

the result of Shorey stated above. This is possible if m is divisible by q as

derived above.
Now we onsider (30) with m even. Then m = 2n where m > 1 is odd
by Nagell [50 and

xn 1
= y1q ; xn + 1 = y2q
x 1

where y1 and y2 are relatively prime positive integers greater than one. The
se ond is the equation of Catalan. Catalan [17 onje tured that the only
solution of this equation is given by x = 2; n = 3; y2 = 3; q = 2: In other
words, the onje ture of Catalan states that 9 and 8 are the only perfe t
powers that dier by one. This remains open but Tijdeman [108 proved
that the equation of Catalan has only nitely many solutions in integers in
x > 1; y2 > 1; n > 1; q > 1. Therfore we derive that (30) with m even
has only nitely many solutions. More generally, Shorey and Tijdeman [94
showed that (30) has only nitely many solutions if m is divisible by a xed
prime. It has not yet been possible to show that (30) has no solution whenever
m is even. Mignotte and Roy [46 proved that xn + 1 = y2q implies that
max (n; q ) > 106 ; min (n; q ) > 105 :
For positive integers a; b and non - zero integer k; the equation of Catalan is
a parti ular ase of the following equation of Pillai:

axm

by n = k in integers x > 1; y > 1; m > 1; n > 1 with mn  6:

Pillai [56 onje tured that this equation has only nitely many solutions.
This onje ture has been onrmed if at least one of the four variables in the
above equation is xed, see Shorey and Tijdeman [95, Chapter 12 whi h we
also refer for a survey on exponential diophantine equations. This equation
is known as Pillai's equation.
The height of a rational number, in its redu ed form, is the maximum
of the absolute values of its numerator and denominator. Let f(X) be a
polynomial of degree n with rational oe ients su h that it has at least two
distin t roots and f (0) 6= 0: We write

f (X ) = a0 X n + a1 X n 1 +


+ an
20

where a0 ; a1 ;


; an are rational numbers with a0 6= 0 and an 6= 0: Let H

be the maximum of the heights of ai with 0  i  n and L be the number
of i with 0  i  n su h that ai 6= 0: Let m  2; x and y with j y j > 1 be
integers satisfying

y m = f (x)
whi h we suppose without referen e in this paragraph. By a proper subsum
of y m f (x), we understand a proper subsum of y m a0 xn a1 xn 1


an :
S hinzel and Tijdeman [79 proved that m is bounded by a number depending
only on f: We onje ture: There exists a number C5 depending only on L and
H su h that either

m  C5

or y m f (x) has a proper subsum whi h vanishes. We refer to the above

onje ture as Conje ture 1. For the proof of the onje ture, we may suppose that m ex eeds a su iently large number depending only on L; H
and y m f (x) has no proper subsum whi h vanishes. Then we apply generalised a b onje ture (see Darmon and Granville [18, p.533) to derive that
n is bounded by a number depending only on L and H: Now we see from
the theorem of S hinzel and Tijdeman stated above that m is bounded by a
number depending only on L andH: Thus Conje ture 1 follows from generalised a b onje ture. Further onje ture 1 implies that the exponents in
Pillai's equation are bounded and then the onje ture of Pillai follows from
the result of Baker [3 on integral solutions of hyper-ellipti equations. Next,
we see that Conje ture 1 implies that either m  C5 or j x j 2H 2 : Therefore
Conje ture 1 in ludes the theorem of S hinzel and Tijdeman with f (0) 6= 0
stated above. For positive integers m; x; ;  with m > 1; x > 1;  > 
and  = (m  m )2 ; we onsider onje ture 1 in the following ases:

f (X ) = (X 2

)=4; x = m +  m ; y = 

and

f (X ) = (x 1)(X m 1 +


+ X ) + x; y = x:
We observe that no proper subsum of y m f (x) vanishes in either of the
ases. Sin e f (x) = ( )m in the rst ase and f (x) = xm in the se ond
ase, we see that the dependan e of C5 on L as well as H is ne essary in
21

Conje ture 1. Further it is lear that the assumption that f has at least two
distin t roots su h that f (0) 6= 0 is also ne essary in Conje ture 1.
Let us onsider the equation
(32)

xm 1
= y q + 1 in integers x > 1; y > 1; m > 2; q  2:
x 1

By subtra ting one on both the sides of (32), we have

xm 1 1
x
= yq :
x 1

We see that m  4 sin e a produ t of two onse utive integers is not a power.
Further we observe that the fa tors on the left hand side are relatively prime.
Therefore
xm 1 1
= y4q
x = y3q ;
x 1
where y3 > 1 and y4 > 1 are integers. Then Shorey [89 applied his result stated above to on lude that (32) has only nitely many solutions.
Further Le [38 on luded that (32) has no solution. This is an immediate
onsequen e of his result that (30) has no solution whenever x is a q th
power. The rst result in the dire tion of the pre eding result is due to
Inkeri [33 that (30) with q = 3 has no solution whenever x is a ube. Saradha
and Shorey [74 proved that (30) with x = z 2 implies that z  31 and
z 2= f2; 3; 4; 8; 9; 16; 25; 27g. The proof depends on an estimate of Laurent,
Mignotte and Nesterenko [36 on linear forms in two logarithms, irrationality
measures of Baker [1 of ertain algebrai numbers, p adi method of Skolem
as given by Le [37 and ongruen e arguments due to Inkeri [33. Mignotte
[45 has re ently improved the above referred estimate on linear forms in
two logarithms. By ombining this estimate with estimates on solutions of
ertain Thue- Mahler equations and di ult and elaborate omputations,
Bugeaud, Mignotte, Roy and Shorey [15 showed that (30) with x = z 2 and
z  31; z 62 f2; 3; 4; 8; 9; 16; 25; 27g has no solution. The pre eding result
was proved, independently and dierently, by Bennett [9. Hen e (30) has no
solution whenever x is a square. The proof of Bennett depends on his result
on the equation (a + 1)xn axn = 1 stated above. Further Hirata - Kohno
and Shorey [54 proved that for a prime number   3, equation (30) with
x = z  and q > 2( 1)(2 3) implies that max (x; y; m; q ) is bounded by
a number depending only on . If  = 3, we may suppose that q 6= 3 in view
22

of a result of Inkeri stated above. Therefore (30) with x = z 3 and q 6= 5; 7; 11

has only nitely many solutions. Linear forms in logarithms with i 's very
lose to one appear in the proof. If i 's are very lose to one Shorey [80, by
integrating the auxiliary fun tion on a large ir le, obtained for the rst time
sharp estimates for linear forms in logarithms and these are lose to the best
possible in the sense that log A1


log An an be repla ed by log A where
A = 1max
A . The proof of Hirata - Kohno and Shorey shows that sharp
j n j
estimates for these spe ial linear forms in logarithms ombine well with the
irrationality measures of Baker [1, [2 proved by hypergeometri method.
This feature appeared for the rst time in Shorey [84. See also se tions 7,
8 below and Mignotte [44, Bennett and de Weger [10 where linear forms in
logarithms with i0 s lose to one nd appli ations.
We re all that (30) has only nitely many solutions if x is xed. A natural
p adi extension of the above result is not known. In other words, we do
not know whether (30) has only nitely many solutions if x is omposed of
primes from a given nite set. Even a proof of weaker assertion that (30)
has only nitely many solutions if x is a power of an arbitrary xed integer
is not available. Saradha and Shorey [74 gave an innite set S4 ontaining
all integers in the inteval (1,20 other than 11 su h that for h 2 S4 and
integer t > 0, equation (30) with x = ht implies that max (x; y; m; q ) is
bounded by an absolute onstant. We refer to [74 and [12 for an expli it
onstru tion of the set S4 : Now we give an appli ation of this result to show
that ertain numbers onsidered by Mahler are irrational. Let g  2 and
h  2 be integers. For any integer n  1, we write n = a1 hr 1 +


+ ar for
some integers r > 0 and 0  ai < h for 1  i  r with a1 6= 0. We dene
(n)h = a1


ar i.e. the sequen e of digits of n written in h ary notation.
For a sequen e fni g1
i=1 of non-negative integers, we put

ah (g ) = 0:(g n1 )h (g n2 )h


:

1
Mahler [41 proved that a10 (g ) is irrational for fni g1
i=1 = fi 1gi=1 . It is
now known that ah (g ) is irrational for any unbounded sequen e fni g1
i=1 of
non-negative integers, see Sander [65. If an element o urs in a sequen e
innitely many times, it is alled a limit point of the sequen e. Let fni g1
i=1
be a bounded sequen e of non-negative integers. If it has only one limit point,
it is ultimately periodi and hen e ah (g ) is rational. We always suppose now
onward that it has exa tly two limit points N1 < N2 su h that g N2 N1 6= h +1
whenever g N1 < h and it is not ultimately periodi . Then the above result

23

of Saradha and Shorey on (30) implies that for integers g  2 and h 2 S4 ,

if ah (g ) is rational then N2 is bounded by an absolute onstant. In fa t
Sander [65 laimed more general irrationality result but it depends on an
unproved assertion on (30) stated in the beginning of this paragraph. The
onne tion between (30) and irrationality of ah (g ) is due to Sander [65. More
pre isely, Sander [65 showed that if ah (g ) is rational, then

htL 1
ht 1
for some integer L  2 and t given by ht 1  g N1 < ht : Bugeaud, Mignotte
g N2

N1

and Roy [14 improved the assertion of Saradha and Shorey by showing that

ah (g ) with g  2 and h 2 S4 is irrational unless g = 1+ h +


+ hL 1 for every

L  2 if (N1 ; N2 ) = (0; 1) or (N1 ; N2 ; g; h) = (0; 2; 11; 3); (0; 2; 20; 7); (0; 3; 7; 18);
(1; 4; 7; 18): On the other hand, it is easy to see that ah (g ) is rational in any of
the above possibilities. A more general statement of irrationality of ah (g ) is
available if g is even and h is odd. In this ase, we observe that L appearing

above in the result of Sander has to be even. Thus we are led to (30) with
m even and it has only nitely many solutions. Hen e we on lude that, for
integers g  2 and h  2 su h that g is even and h is odd, if ah (g ) is rational
then N2 is bounded by an absolute onstant. For bounded sequen es with
more than two limit points, Sander [65 obtained some partial results and
further investigations are desirable. For proving the above result on (30) applied to derive an irrationality riterion, Saradha and Shorey [74 showed that
(30) implies that either max (x; y; m; q ) is bounded by an absolute onstant
or there exists a prime p su h that p j x and p6 j(y 1). M. Le (A ta Arith. 69
(1995), 91-97) and L. Yu and M. Le (A ta Arith. 73 (1995), 363-365) laimed
stronger version of the pre eding result but their proofs are not orre t. Corre t proofs have re ently been given by Bugeaud, Mignotte and Roy [14
who proved that (30) has no solution other than (x; y; m; q ) = (18; 7; 3; 3)
if every prime divisor of x divides y 1: This implies their result on irrationality of ah (g ) stated above. This also in ludes a result of Bugeaud and
Mignotte [13 that (30) with 2  x  10 has no solution settling a problem
of Inkeri [33. Thus it is not possible to nd a perfe t power greater than
one with digits identi ally equal to one in its de imal expansion. Further
the result of Bugeaud and Mignotte that (30) with x = 3 has no solution
nds appli ation in group theory. We remark that p adi linear forms in
logarithms with i0 s p adi ally lose to one appear in the work of Bugeaud,
Mignotte, Roy and sharp estimates of Bugeaud [12 for these p adi linear
24

forms in logarithms are utilised. The work also involves very heavy omputations depending on a result of Bennett that (30) with m  1 (mod q ) has
no solution.
Now we onsider a more general equation than (30). For positive integers
A; B and prime number q with AB > 1, g d (A; B ) = 1 and q free A, we
onsider the equation
(33)

xm 1
= By q in integers x > 1; y > 1; m > 2; q  2:
x 1

Oblath [55 showed that (33) with 1 < A < 10; B = 1 and x = 10 has no
solution. Inkeri [33 determined all solutions of (33) with 1 < A < x  10
and B = 1. Shorey and Tijdeman (see [94, [93) showed that (33) implies
that either max (x; y; m; q ) is bounded by a number depending only on A
and B or m = 2n with

xn 1
= y5q ; A(xn + 1) = By6q
x 1
where y5 > 1 and y6 > 1 are integers satisfying g d (y5 ; y6 ) = 1 and y5 y6 = y .

Now it is lear from the above relations that it is easier to deal with (33)
than (30). Therefore stronger results on (33) than (30) are available though
we have not been able to show that (33) has only nitely many solutions.
By ombining the pre eding result with the known results in the theory
of exponential diophantine equation, Shorey [93 observed that (33) implies
that max (x; y; m; q ) is bounded by a number depending only on A; B and
the greatest prime fa tor of x. As already mentioned, the pre eding assertion
remains unproved for (30). For integer x > 1 and prime number q , we write
U (A; B; x; q ) and U (x; q ) for the number of solutions of (33) and (30) in
integers y > 1 and m > 2, respe tively. Shorey [85 showed that

U (x; q )  q + C6
where C6 is an absolute onstant. Le [38 sharpened it to

U (x; q )  q:
Shorey [93 showed that

U (A; B; x; q )  C7
25

where C7 is a number depending only on A and B . We refer to Shorey [93 for

stronger results on equation (33) when the exponents m run through innite
set satisfying
(34)

g d(m; AB'(AB )) = 1

where ' is the Euler totient fun tion. For example, (33) with x = z 2 , (34)
and (33) with q = 2; (34) have no solution.
5. Equal produ ts of integers in arithmeti progression

In this se tion we shall ontinue appli ations of extension of Runge's

method to exponential diophantine equations sket hed in se tion 2. Further
these appli ations result in developing the method. For positive integers
m; d1 and d2 , we onsider
(35)
x(x+d1 )


(x+(k 1)d1 ) = y (y +d2)


(y +(mk 1)d2 ) in integers x > 0; y > 0; k  2:
Equation (35) with d1 = d2 = 1 oin ides with (18). Saradha and Shorey [72
showed that (35) with m  2 and d1 = d2 = d implies that max(x; y; k) is
bounded by a number depending only on m; d and this in ludes (20) orresponding to the ase d1 = d2 = 1. If m = 2, Saradha and Shorey [73 proved
that (35) implies that either max(x; y; k) is bounded by a number depending
only on d1 ; d2 or k = 2; d1 = 2d22 ; x = y 2 + 3d2 y: On the other hand,
equation (35) with m = 2 is satised whenever the latter possibility holds.
Saradha, Shorey and Tijdeman [77 proved that (35) with m = 2; d1 = 1
and d2  k + 1 implies that k  35 and d2 = 2` for some integer `  2
and onsequently they showed that 32.33=1.6.11.16, 207.208 = 8.13.18.23
are the only solutions of (35) with m = 2; d1 = 1 and d2 = 5; 6. Saradha
and Shorey [73 proved that (35) with m > 2 implies that k is bounded by a
number depending only on m; d1 and d2 . For a xed k, they [73 showed that
(35) implies that either max(x; y ) is bounded by a number depending only
on m; d1 ; d2 or d1 =dm
2 is a produ t of m distin t positive integers omposed
of primes not ex eeding m. It is lear that the latter possibility an not hold
whenever d1 = d2 . Further it is repla ed in [73 by m  (k) where

8
>
< 14 for 2  k  7
(k) = > 50 for k = 8
: exp (k log k (1:25475)k
26

log k + 1:56577) for k  9:

We observe that (k)  2568 for k  9. Finally Saradha, Shorey and

Tijdeman [75 proved that (35) with m > 2 implies that max (x; y ) is bounded
by a number depending only on d1 ; d2 ; k and m. In fa t, for positive integers
d1 ; d2 ; ` and m with ` < m; m > 2 and g d (`; m) = 1, Saradha, Shorey and
Tijdeman [75 showed that if x > 0; y > 0 and k  2 are integers satisfying

x(x + d1 )


(x + (`k 1)d1 ) = y (y + d2 )


(y + (mk 1)d2 )

then max (x; y; k) is bounded by a number depending only on d1 ; d2 and m.
Let f (X ) be a moni polynomial of degree  > 0 with rational oe ients.
(36)

Then we onsider

(37) f (x)f (x + d1 )


f (x +(`k 1)d1) = f (y )f (y + d2)


f (y +(mk 1)d2)

in integers x; y and k  2 su h that f (x + jd1 ) 6= 0 for 0  j  `k 1.

We observe that equation (37) with f (X ) = X is (36). Saradha, Shorey
and Tijdeman [78 proved that (37) implies that k is bounded by a number
depending only on d1 ; d2 ; m and f . Further, if f is a power of an irredu ible
polynomial, they [78 proved that (37) implies that max (j x j; j y j; k) is
bounded by a number depending only on d1 ; d2 ; m and f unless ` = 1; m =
k = 2; d1 = 2d22 and f (X ) = (X + r) with integer r; x + r = (y + r)(y +
r + 3d2 ). An extension of this result to all non- onstant moni polynomials
with rational oe ients remains unproved. Further it is lear from the
proof that the pre eding result extends to all non- onstant moni polynomials
with rational oe ients if we show that the underlying urve for (37) is
irredu ible. A proof for irredu ibility in a parti ular ase f (X ) = X and
(`; m; k) 6= (1; 2; 2) was given by Beukers, Shorey and Tijdeman [11. A
parti ular ase d1 = d2 = ` = 1 of the result of Saradha, Shorey and Tijdeman
on (37) was already proved by Balasubramanian and Shorey [6. Saradha [66
onsidered (37) when f is redu ible. Let s1 ;


; s with   2 be distin t
positive integers. Suppose that x; y and k  1 are integers satisfying
 (`kY1)
Y
i=1 j =0

(x

si + jd1 ) =

 (mk
Y
Y 1)
i=1 j =0

(y

si + jd2 )

su h that the fa tors on the left hand side as well as the fa tors on the right
hand side are non-zero and pairwise distin t. Then Saradha [66 proved that
max (j x j; j y j; k) is bounded by a number depending only on d1 ; d2 ; `; m; 
and s1 ;


; s whenever

m = 2 or  = 2; 3; 4 or d2 = 1
27

unless

m =  = 2; ` = k = d2 = 1; x = y 2 + y (1 s1

s2 ) + s1 s2 :

Further we observe that the above innitely many possibilities satisfy the
pre eding equation.
Finally we turn to onsidering (35) with m = 1:
(38)

x(x + d1 )


(x + (k

1)d1 ) = y (y + d2 )


(y + (k

1)d2 ):

This equation was suggested by Gabovi h [29 in 1966. It is lear that (38)
with k = 2 has innitely many solutions. Further Gabovi h [29 gave an
innite lass of solutions of (38) with k = 3; 4. Some innite lasses of solutions of (38) with k = 5 were given by Szymi zek [106 and Choudhry [16.
Choudhry [16 also provided an innite lass of solutions of (38) with arbitrary k and unbounded d1 ; d2 . Finally we onsider equation (38) with xed
d1 and d2 . If d1 = d2 , we observe that x = y . Therefore we suppose that d1
and d2 are distin t. Further there is no loss of generality in assuming that
d1 < d2 and g d (x; y; d1; d2 ) = 1. Then Saradha, Shorey and Tijdeman [76
proved that max(x; y; k) is bounded by a number depending only on d2 unless
(39)

x = k + 1; y = 2; d1 = 1; d2 = 4:

In view of the relations due to Makowski [42,

(k + 1)


(2k) = 2:6:::(4k

2) for k = 2; 3;


;

the possibilities (39) an not be ex luded. The proof depends on Prime Number Theorem for arithmeti progressions. On the other hand, it is possible
to make the proof independent of Prime Number Theorem for ertain values
of d1 and d2 . This led Saradha, Shorey and Tijdeman [77 to show that all
the solutions of (38) with d1 = 1 and d2 = 2; 3; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10 are given by
2.3=1.6, 7.8.9=4.9.14, 8.9=6.12, 5.6=3.10, 4.5.6=1.8.15, 15.16.17= 10.17.24,
9.10=6.15, 7.8=4.14, 24.25=20.30 and 32.33.34=24.34.44. This follows by
omputations from their result that (38) with d1 = 1 and d2  k + 1 implies
that y  2 (mod 4) and d2 = 2` for some integer `  2.
6. The greatest prime fa tor of integers in arithmeti al
progression

28

Let us onsider equation (6) with t = k and P (y )  k. Then

P =: P (n(n + 1)


(n + k

1))  k:

This leads us to onsidering lower bound for the greatest prime fa tor of
the produ t of k onse utive positive integers. The rst result dates ba k to
Sylvester [105 in 1892 that

P > k if n > k:
If n < k3=2 and k is su eintly large, it follows from well-known results
on dieren e between onse utive primes that there is prime p satisfying
n  p  n + k 1. Therefore we shall onsider lower bound for P when
n  k3=2 . Then Erdos [24 proved that

P > C8 k log k

(40)

where C8 > 0 is an absolute onstant. We denote by T the number of integers

n + i with 0  i < k su h that P (n + i)  k. Then we apply a fundamental
argument of Erdos for deriving that
(k3=2 )T

(k)

 nT

(k)

 kk

and the assertion (40) follows from Prime Number theory. Rama handra [57
applied Selberg's Sieve to prove (40) with C8 = (1 ) for  > 0 and k
ex eeding a number depending only on . Rama handra [58 also obtained
partial results for (40) with C8 = (2 ). Combining these results with the
method of Roth and Halberstam on dieren e between onse utive  free
integers, Tijdeman [107 proved (40) with C8 = 2 . Further Rama handra
and Shorey [59 sharpened (40) to
(41)

P > C9 k log k (

log log log k 1=2

)
for log k > ee
log log log log k

where C9 > 0 is an absolute onstant. The next improvement follows from

the work of Jutila [34 and Shorey [81, namely,
(42)

P > C10 k log k

log log k
for log k > e
log log log k

where C10 > 0 is an absolute onstant. The best possible estimate with
log A in pla e of log A1


log An for linear forms in logarithms with i 's
29

 lose to one are ru ial for the proofs of (41) and (42). Furthermore the proof
of (42) depends on estimates for exponential sums. We shall ontinue with
the results on lower bound for P at the end of the next se tion.
For an integer d > 1, we write

Pd = P (n(n + d)


(n + (k

1)d));  = n + (k

1)d:

Improving on a result of Langevin [35, Shorey and Tijdeman [98 gave a

stronger version of Sylvester's theorem that
(43)

Pd > k if d > 1 and (n; d; k) 6= (2; 7; 3):

It is ne essary to ex lude the possibility (n; d; k) = (2; 7; 3) in the above result

sin e P (2:9:16) = 3. The proof depends on estimates from Prime Number
theory. Further Shorey and Tijdeman [99, [103 applied the theory of linear
forms in logarithms for showing that

Pd > C11 k log log  if  > k(log k)

where  > 0 and C11 > 0 is a number depending only on . It is lear that
the assertion is not valid if the assumption  > k(log k) is repla ed by
 > k(log log k) with 0 < < 1: An analogue of (42) for Pd with d > 1 is
not known.
7. Cubes and higher powers in produ ts from a blo k
of integers

Let us re all the result of Erdos and Selfridge mentioned in the beginning
of this paper. It states that a produ t of two or more onse utive positive
integers is never a ube or a higher power. This is equivalent to saying that
equation
(44)

n(n + 1)


(n + k

1) = y ` in integers n > 0; y > 0; k  2; ` > 2

has no solution. The proof of Erdos and Selfridge depends on an earlier

method due to Erdos [25 of 1955 that (44) does not hold if k ex eeds a
su iently large absolute onstant. Another proof of this assertion was given
by Erdos and Siegel (unpublished). Now we explain the method of Erdos by
giving a sket h of the proof that (44) does not hold if k is su iently large.
30

Suppose that (44) is satised and k ex eeds a su iently large absolute

onstant. As in se tion 1, we apply Bertrand's postulate and Sylvester's
theorem to on lude that n > k` . Further we write

n + i = ai x`i for 0  i < k

where ai is ` free and P (ai )  k. We see from n > k` that the elements of
S5 = fa0 ; a1 ;


; ak 1 g are distin t. Then we apply a fundamental argument
of Erdos for nding a subset S6 of S5 ontaining at least k=2 elements and
ai  6k for ai 2 S6 . Further we see from n > k` and `  3 that ai aj
with ai 2 S6 ; aj 2 S6 are distin t. This property, as mentioned in se tion 1,
implies that j S6 j 2k= log k. This is a ontradi tion.
As in se tion 1, we onsider a more general equation analogous to (6) for
ubes and higher powers, namely,
(45)

(n + d1 )


(n + dt ) = by `

in integers n > 0; y > 0; ` > 2; k  2; d1 ;


; dt and b. Equation (45) with

t = k and b = 1 is (44). We re all that d1 ;


; dt with t  2 are distin t
integers in [0; k) and P (b)  k. We always suppose that the left hand side of
(45) is divisible by a prime ex eeding k. Then Saradha [67 proved that (45)
with t = k and k  4 has no solution. This extends a result of Erdos [23 on

n + k  = y `:
k
Further Gyory [32 proved that (45) with t = k and k = 2; 3 has no solution. A theorem of Wiles [110 on the most famous exponential diophantine
equation, namely Fermat's equation, states that

xn + y n = z n in integers n > 2; x > 0; y > 0; z > 0

has no solution. This led to a striking theorem on equation
(46)

xn + y n = 2 z n :

Gyory derived his result from the theorems of Ribet [62 and Darmon and
Merel [19 that if x > 0; y > 0; z > 0; n > 2;   1 are integers satisfying
x; y; z relatively prime, n prime,  < n and (46), then x = y = z = 1.
31

Erdos [25 observed that his elementary method sket hed above yields
that for  > 0, equation (45) with t  k (1 )k logloglogk k implies that k is
bounded by a number depending only on . We put
1
2

` = (1 +

4`2 8` + 7
):
2(` 1)(2`2 5` + 4)

We observe that
45
47
; 4 = and ` < 2=3 for `  5:
56
64
Shorey [84, [87 improved onsiderably the result of Erdos by proving that
(45) with

3 =

t  ` k

(47)

implies that k is bounded by an absolute onstant. Further Shorey [84

proved that (45) with

t  k`

(48)

1 11

+  (k ) + 2

implies that min (k; `) is bounded by an absolute onstant. In fa t the

exponent 1=11 in (48) an be repla ed by (1=3) +  for  > 0, see [52. The
assumption (47) has been relaxed by Nesterenko and Shorey. For stating
their result, we introdu e the following notation

8 2
< 112`3 160`+29 if `  1 (mod 2)
0
28`
76`+29
` = : 112
`2 160`+17 if `  0 (mod 2):
3
28`
188`+129

For `  7, we observe that `0 > 3=`,

`

0
and

(4

` (1
` (1

if `  1 (mod 2)
` ) if `  0 (mod 2)

`)

1
( 875)
1
(1 412)

0  :3664;
70  :4832; 80  :4556; 90  :3878; 10
0  :3243;  0  :3076;  0  :2787;  0  :2655:
11
12
13
14

Nesterenko and Shorey [52 proved that (45) with

`  7; t   0 k
`

32

implies that k is bounded by a number depending only on `. The proofs

depend on the theory of linear forms in logarithms, irrationality measures of
Baker proved by Pade approximations and the method of Roth and Halberstam on dieren e between onse utive  free integers. Here sharp estimates
for linear forms in logarithms with i 's lose to 1 are ru ial and, as remarked
in se tion 4, they ombine well with the irrationality measures of Baker. We
suggest to examine that for  > 0, equation (45) with t  k implies that
k is bounded by a number depending only on . We have not been able to
derive this even from a b onje ture.
Let  > 0 and k ex eeds a su iently large number depending only on .
It has been onje tured that there is a prime dividing n(n + 1)


(n + k 1)
to the rst power. If n  k3=2 , the onje ture is onrmed by the wellknown results on dieren e between onse utive primes. Thus we suppose
that n > k3=2 . Let `  3 and

  if ` = 3; 4; 5; 6
00
` = `0 if `  7:
`

We derive from the above results that there exists a prime p satisfying
00

p > (1 `
and

ordp (n(n + 1)


(n + k

)k log k
1)) 6 0 (mod `)

whenever k ex eeds a number depending only on  and `. For a prime p

00
between k and (1 ` )k log k dividing n(n + 1)


(n + k 1), we omit
the unique n + i with 0  i < k su h that p divides n + i and we denote
the remaining ones from n; n + 1;


; n + k 1 by n + d1 ;


; n + dt . We
00
observe from Prime Number theory that t  ` k and we may suppose that
equation (45) is satised. If n  k` , the assertion follows from (42). Thus
we may suppose that n > k` and we see from a fundamental argument of
Erdos that the number of i with 1  i  t and P (n + di )  k is at most
k` 1 +  (k). Therefore the left hand side of (45) is divisible by a prime
ex eeding k. Finally we apply the above results of Shorey and Nesterenko to
on lude the proof. A weaker version of the assertion is ontained in Shorey
and Tijdeman [102. By a similar reasoning, the above assertion is valid with
p > (1 )k log k whenever min (k; `) ex eeds a number depending only on
.
33

8. Perfe t powers in produ ts of integers in arithmeti

progression

Fermat (see [49, p.21) proved that there are no four squares in arithmeti
progression. As stated in the pre eding se tion, Darmon and Merel [19
proved that
xn + y n = 2z n
has no solution in positive integers n > 2; x; y and z other than the ones
given by x = y = z . Thus for ` > 2 there are no three ` th powers in
arithmeti progression. For earlier results in this dire tion, see [21, [96
and [100. Now we onsider a more general situation. Let b; d and k  2 be
positive integers su h that P (b)  k. We onsider
(49)
n(n+d)


(n+(k 1)d) = by ` in integers n > 0; y > 0; k  2; `  2 with g d (n; d) = 1:
The rst result on (49) is due to Euler (see [49, p.21) that a produ t of
four positive integers in arithmeti progression is never a square. A related
question is that a produ t of four positive integers in arithmeti progression
an not be a produ t of two onse utive positive integers. The answer to
this question is negative. Here the underlying equation is (35) with m =
2; d1 = 1; k = 2 whi h, as pointed out in [77, has innitely many solutions
in positive integers x; y and d2 . Our survey of the ase d = 1 of (49) is already
omplete in se tion 7 and we assume that d  2 in this se tion. Then we see
from (43) that P (y )  k if and only if (n; d; k) = (2; 7; 3). Thus the left hand
side of (49) is divisible by a prime ex eeding k whenever (n; d; k) 6= (2; 7; 3).
There is no loss of generality in assuming that ` is a prime number in equation
(49) and the subsequent equations (50), (51). Erdos onje tured that (49)
implies that k is bounded by an absolute onstant. We shall show at the end
of this se tion that the onje ture of Erdos with l > 3 is a onsequen e of
a b onje ture. Saradha [67 proved that (49) with d  6 and k  3 has
no solution. If ` = 2, Saradha [68 showed that the assertion is valid even
when d  22 unless (n; d; k) = (2; 7; 3); (18; 7; 3); (64; 17; 3). Marszalek [43
onrmed the onje ture for xed d. If `  3, Shorey [88 proved that (49)
implies that k is bounded by a number depending only on the greatest prime
fa tor of d. Further Shorey and Tijdeman [97 proved that (49) implies that k
is bounded by a number depending only on ` and ! (d). It is an open problem
to bound k by a number depending only on ! (d) in the pre eding result. If
`  7, Shorey [92 showed that k is bounded by a number depending only
34

on n whenever (49) is satised. The proof of the former result is elementary
whereas the proof of the latter depends on ombining sharp estimates from
linear forms in logarithms with i 's lose to one and irrationality measures
proved by hypergeometri method.
Now we relax the assumption g d (n; d) = 1 in the above stated results
on (49). For this, we onsider
(50) n(n + d)


(n + (k

1)d) = by ` in integers n > 0; y > 0; k  2; `  2

where we do not subje t the solutions to restri tion g d (n; d) = 1. We

ombine the result of Saradha stated above with the results of Saradha and
Gyory of se tion 7. We derive that (50) with d 2 f2; 3; 4; 6g and k  3
does not hold unless k = 3; ` = 2 and n = 48d if the left hand side of
(50) is divisible by a prime ex eeding k. Further the assertions of Marszalek
and Shorey are also valid for (50) su h that its left hand side is divisible by a
prime ex eeding k. Finally we turn to relaxing the assumption g d (n; d) = 1
in the result of Shorey and Tijdeman. For this, we onsider an extension of
(45) and (49):
(51)

(n + d1 d)


(n + dt d) = by `

in integers n > 0; y > 0; `  2; k  2; d1 ;


; dt and b su h that g d

(n; d) = 1 and P (b)  k. We re all that d1 ;


; dt with t  2 are distin t
non-negative integers less than k. We suppose that the left hand side of (51)
is divisible by a prime ex eeding k. Let  > 0 and

 log log k

5
h(k) = log log log k ifif `` =
2; 3:

Then a onsequen e of a result of Shorey and Tijdeman [102 states that

equation (51) with
h(k)
t  k (1 )k
log k
implies that k is bounded by a number depending only on ` and ! (d). This
in ludes a result of Shorey and Tijdeman stated above on (49). In view of
Balasubramanian and Shorey [8, Theorem 2, the assumption that the left
hand side of (50) is divisible by a prime ex eeding k is ne essary.
We apply the pre eding result of Shorey and Tijdeman to show that (50)
with d6 jn implies that k is bounded by a number depending only on ` and
35

! (d). Suppose that (50) with d6 jn is satised and k ex eeds a su iently

large number depending only on ` and ! (d). There is no loss of generality in
assuming that every prime divisor of y is greater than k. We put
G = g d (n; d); G = G1 G2
where P (G1)  k and every prime divisor of G2 ex eeds k. Further we set

n0 = nG 1 ; d0 = dG 1 ; b0 = bG1 k :
We observe that g d (n0 ; d0 ) = 1 and d0  2 sin e d 6 jn. By dividing both the
sides of (50) by Gk , we see that

n0 (n0 + d0 )


(n0 + (k

1)d0 ) = b0 y `G2 k

where b0 and y `G2 k are positive integers su h that P (b0 )  k. For a prime
p dividing G2 and y `G2 k , we observe that p > k and there is pre isely one
integer F (p) in [0; k) su h that p divides n0 + F (p)d0. We write fd1 ;


; dt g
for the set obtained by deleting all F (p) with p dividing g d (G2 ; y `G2 k ). We
observe that
(52)

tk

min (! 0 (n); ! 0(d))  k

! (d)

where ! 0( ) denotes the number of prime divisors of  ex eeding k and

(53)

n0 (n0 + d1 d0 )


(n0 + dt d0 ) = b1 y1`

where b1 and y1 are positive integers su h that P (b1 )  k and all the prime
divisors of y1 are greater than k. We show that the left hand side of (53) is
divisible by a prime ex eeding k. We prove by ontradi tion. Let  = 14 and
suppose that the greatest prime fa tor of the left hand side of (53) does not
ex eed k. Then we apply a fundamental argument of Erdos for deriving that
t Y
(k )
j =0

(n0 + jd0 )  kk

whi h implies that n0  4k and d0  8. Now we apply Prime Number

Theorem for arithmeti progressions and (52) to derive that there are at
least (1 )d0 k=('(d0 ) log k) prime numbers among n0 + d1 d0 ;


; n0 + dt d0 .
Therefore there are at least (1 )d0 k=('(d0 ) log k) prime numbers p satisfying
36

This, sin e d0  2, is not possible by Prime

Number Theorem for arithmeti progressions. Now we apply the result of
Shorey and Tijdeman [102 stated above to (53) for on luding the desired
assertion.
For a result analogous to the last assertion of se tion 7, see Shorey and
Tijdeman [102. Several estimates on equation (49) have been proved. For
example, it is proved in [97, [101 and [92 that (49) implies that

 n0 (mod d0) and p  k.

d  kC12
and

log log

k;

P (d)  C12 ` log k log log k

n  kC12

log log

if `  7

where C12 > 0 is an absolute onstant. Finally we apply the above estimate
for d to on lude that a b onje ture implies the onje ture of Erdos on
(49) with l > 3: We suppose (49) with l > 3 and k ex eeding a su iently
large absolute onstant. Then we write

n + id = ai xli for 0  i < k

where P (ai )  k and every prime divisor of xi ex eeds k: By a fundamental
argument of Erdos, we nd positive integers f < g < h su h that af ; ag ; ah
do not ex eed k2 : We have
(g

f )(n + hd) + (h g )(n + fd) = (h f )(n + gd)

i.e.

f )ahxlh + (h g )af xlf = (h f )ag xlg :

We observe that xlf < k3 xlg whi h implies that xf < kxg sin e l > 3: Similarly
xh < kxg : The greatest ommon divisor  of the summands on the left hand
side in the above relation do not ex eed k3 and we divide both the sides of
the above relation by  to apply a b onje ture. We on lude from a b
onje ture with  = 1=6 that
(g

n + gd = ag xlg  k18 x7g=2 :

Therefore n + gd  k60 sin e l  5: Finally we on lude from n + gd > d >
kC12 log log k that k is bounded by an absolute onstant.
37

Referen es

[1 A. Baker, Rational approximations to 3 2 and other algebrai numbers,

Quart. Jour. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 15 (1964), 375-383.
[2 A. Baker, Simultaneous rational approximations to ertain algebrai
numbers, Pro . Cambridge Philos. So . 63 (1967), 693-702.
[3 A. Baker, Bounds for the solutions of the hyperellipti equation, Pro .
Cambridge Philos. So . 65 (1969), 439-444.
[4 A. Baker, The theory of linear forms in logarithms, Trans enden e Theory: Advan es and Appli ations, ed. by A. Baker and D.W. Masser,
A ademi Press, London and New York (1977), 1-27.
[5 R. Balasubramanian and T.N. Shorey, On the equation a(xm 1)=(x
1) = b(y n 1)=(y 1), Math. S and. 46 (1980), 177-182.
[6 R. Balasubramanian and T.N. Shorey, On the equation f (x +
1)


f (x + k) = f (y + 1)


f (y + mk), Indag. Math., N.S. 4 (1993),
257-267.
[7 R. Balasubramanian and T.N. Shorey, Squares in produ ts from a blo k
of onse utive integers, A ta Arith. 65 (1994), 213-220.
[8 R. Balasubramanian and T.N. Shorey, Perfe t powers in produ ts of
terms in an arithmeti al progression (IV), Number Theory, ed. by V.
Kumar Murty and Mi hel Walds hmidt, Contemporary Mathemati s
210 (1997), Ameri an Mathemati al So iety.
[9 M. Bennett, Rational approximation to algebrai numbers of small
height: The diophantine equation j axn by n j= 1, to appear.

[10 M. Bennett and B.M.M. de Weger, On the diophantine equation j axn

by n j= 1, Math. Comp. 67 (1998), 413-438.

[11 F. Beukers, T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Irredu ibility of polynomials and arithmeti progressions with equal produ ts of terms, Number
Theory in Progress : Pro eedings of the International Conferen e on
Number Theory in Honor of Andrej S hinzel, held in Zakopane, Poland,
June 30 - July 9, 1997, Part I : Diophantine Problems and Polynomials,
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, to appear.
38

[12 Y. Bugeaud, Linear forms in p adi logarithms and the DIophantine

n
equation xx 11 = y q ; Math. Pro . Cambridge Philos. So ., to appear.
[13 Y. Bugeaud and M. Mignotte, On integers with identi al digits, to
appear.
[14 Y.n Bugeaud, M. Mignotte and Y. Roy, On the Diophantine equation
x 1 = y q , Pa i Jour. Math., to appear.
x 1
[15 Y. Bugeaud, M. Mignotte, Y. Roy and T.N. Shorey, The equation
xn 1 = y q has no solution with x square, Math. Pro . Camb. Phix 1
los. So ., to appear.
[16 A. Choudhry, On arithmeti progressions of equal lengths and equal
produ ts of terms, A ta Arith., to appear.
[17 E. Catalan, Note extraite dune lettre adressee a l'editeur, Jour. reine
angew. Math. 27 (1844), 192.
[18 H. Darmon and A. Granville, On the equations z m = F (x; y ) and Axp +
By q = Cz r , Bull. London Math. So . 27 (1995), 513-543.
[19 H. Darmon and L. Merel, Winding quotients and some variants of
Fermat's Last Theorem, Jour. reine angew. Math. 490 (1997), 81-100.
[20 H. Davenport, D.J. Lewis and A. S hinzel, Equations of the form
f (x) = g (y ), Quart. Jour. Math. Oxford (2) 12 (1961), 304-312.

[21 P. Denes, Uber
die diophantis he Glei hung x` + y ` = z ` , A ta Math.
88 (1952), 241-251.

[22 P. Erdos, Note on the produ t of onse utive integers (1), Jour. London
Math. So . 14 (1939), 194-198.
[23 P. Erdos, On a diophantine equation, Jour. London Math. So . 26
(1951), 176-178.
[24 P. Erdos, On onse utive integers, Nieuw Ar h. Voor Wiskunde 3
(1951), 124-128.
[25 P. Erdos, On the produ t of onse utive integers III, Indag. Math. 17
(1955), 85-90.
39

[26 P. Erdos, Problems and results on number theoreti properties of onse utive integers and related questions, Pro . Fifth Manitoba Conf. Numeri al Math., Utilitas Math. (1975), 25-44.
[27 P. Erdos and J.L. Selfridge, The produ t of onse utive integers is never
a power, Illinois Jour. Math. 19 (1975), 292-301.
[28 G. Faltings, Endli hkeitssatze fur abels he Varietaten uber Zahlkorpern,
Invent. Math. 73 (1983), 349-366.
[29 Ya. Gabovi h, On arithmeti progressions with equal produ ts of terms,
Colloq. Math. 15 (1966), 45-48.
[30 R. Goormaghtigh, L' Intermediaire des Mathemati iens 24 (1917), 88.
[31 K. Gyory, On the diophantine equation
(1997), 289-295.

 
n = x` , A ta Arith. 80
k

[32 K.Gyory, On the diophantine equation n(n + 1)


(n + k

A ta Arith. 83 (1998), 87-92.
[33 K. Inkeri, On the diophantine equation a(xn
Arith. 21 (1972), 299-311.

1)=(x

1) = bx` ,

1) = y m , A ta

[34 M. Jutila, On numbers with large prime fa tor II, Jour. Indian Math.
So . 38 (1974), 125-130.
[35 M. Langevin, Plus grand fa teur premier d'entiers en progression
arithmetique, Sem. Delange - Pisot - Poitou, 18 e annee, 1976/77, No
3, 6pp.
[36 M. Laurent, M. Mignotte and Y. Nesterenko, Formes lineaires en deux
logarithmes et determinants d'interpolation, Jour. Number Theory 55
(1995), 285-321.
[37 M.H. Le, A note on the diophantine equation
64 (1993), 19-28.

xm
x

1
1

= y n, A ta Arith.

[38 M.H. Le, A note on the diophantine equation (xm 1)=(x 1) = y n +1,
Math. Pro . Cambridge Philos. So . 116 (1994), 385-389.
40

[39 W. Ljunggren, Noen Setninger om ubestemte likninger av formen (xn

1)=(x 1) = y q , Norsk. Mat. Tidsskr. 1. Hefte 25 (1943), 17-20.
[40 R.A. Ma Leod and I.Barrodale, On equal produ ts of onse utive integers, Canadian Math. Bull. 13 (1970), 255-259.
[41 K. Mahler, On some irrational de imal fra tions, Jour. Number Theory
13 (1981), 268-269.
[42 A. Makowski, problemes P543 et P545, R1, Colloq. Math. 19 (1968),
179-180.
[43 R. Marszalek, On the produ t of onse utive elements of an arithmeti
progression, Monatsh. fur. Math. 100 (1985), 215-222.
[44 M. Mignotte, A note on the equation axn
(1997), 287-295.

by n = , A ta Arith. 75

[45 M. Mignotte, A orollary to a Theorem of Laurent - Mignotte Nesterenko, A ta Arith., to appear.

[46 M. Mignotte and Y. Roy, Minorations pour l'equation de Catalan, C.
R. A ad. S i. Paris 324 (1997), 377-380.
[47 M. Mignotte and T.N. Shorey, The equations (x + 1)


(x + k) =
(y + 1)


(y + mk); m = 5; 6, Indag. Math., N.S. 7 (1996), 215-225.
[48 L.J. Mordell, On the integer solutions of y (y + 1) = x(x + 1)(x + 2),
Pa i Jour. 13 (1963), 1347-1351.
[49 L.J. Mordell, Diophantine equations, A ademi Press, 1969.
[50 T. Nagell, Note sur `0 equation indeterminee (xn 1)=(x 1) = y q ,
Norsk. Mat. Tidsskr. 2 (1920), 75-78.
[51 T. Nagell, The diophantine equation x2 + 7 = 2n , Ark. Mat. 4 (1961),
185-188.
[52 Yu.V. Nesterenko and T.N. Shorey, Perfe t powers in produ ts of integers from a blo k of onse utive integers (II), A ta Arith. 76 (1996),
191-198.
41

[53 Yu.V. Nesterenko and T.N. Shorey, On an equation of Goormaghtigh,

A ta Arith. 83 (1998), 381-389.
[54 Noriko Hirata - Kohno and T.N. Shorey, On the equation (xm 1)=(x
1) = y q with x power, Analyti Number Theory, ed. by Y. Motohashi,
London Math. So . Le ture Note Series 247 (1997), 343-351, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
[55 R. Oblath, Une propriete des puissan es parfaites, Mathesis 65 (1956),
356-364.
[56 S.S. Pillai, On the equation 2x
So . 37 (1945), 15-20.

3y = 2X + 3Y , Bull. Cal utta Math.

[57 K. Rama handra, A note on numbers with a large prime fa tor II, Jour.
Indian Math. So . 34 (1970), 39-48.
[58 K. Rama handra, A note on numbers with a large prime fa tor III,
A ta Arith. 19 (1971), 49-62.
[59 K. Rama handra and T.N. Shorey, On gaps between numbers with a
large prime fa tor, A ta Arith. 24 (1973), 99-111.
[60 S. Ramanujan, Question 464, Jour. Indian Math. So . 5 (1913), 120.
Colle ted papers, Cambridge University Press, 1927, 327.
[61 P. Ribenboim, Catalan's Conje ture, A ademi Press (1994).
[62 K.A. Ribet, On the equation ap + 2 bp + p = 0, A ta Arith. 79 (1997),
7-16.
 ein diophantis hes Problem, 9th Congress Math. S and.
[63 O. Rigge, Uber
Helsingfors, 1938, Mer ator, 1939, 155-160.

[64 C. Runge, Ueber ganzzahlige Losungen von Glei hungen zwis hen swei
Veranderli hen, Jour. reine angew. Math. 100 (1887), 425-435.
[65 J.W. Sander, Irrationality Criteria for Mahler's numbers, Jour. Number Theory 52 (1995), 145-156.
[66 N. Saradha, On blo ks of arithmeti progressions with equal produ ts,
Jour. de Theorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 9 (1997), 183-199.
42

[67 N. Saradha, On perfe t powers in produ ts with terms from arithmeti

progressions, A ta Arith. 82 (1997), 147-172.
[68 N. Saradha, Squares in produ ts with terms in an arithmeti progression, A ta Arith., to appear.
[69 N. Saradha and T.N. Shorey, On the ratio of two blo ks of onse utive
integers, Pro . Indian A ad. S i. (Math. S i.) 100 (1990), 107-132.
[70 N. Saradha and T.N. Shorey, The equations (x + 1)


(x + k) = (y +
1)


(y + mk) with m = 3; 4; Indag. Math., N.S. 2 (1991), 489-510.
[71 N. Saradha and T.N. Shorey, On the equation (x + 1)


(x + k) =
(y + 1)


(y + mk); Indag. Math., N.S. 3 (1992), 79-90.
[72 N. Saradha and T.N. Shorey, On the equation x(x+d)


(x+(k 1)d) =
y (y + d)


(y + (mk 1)d), Indag. Math., N.S. 3 (1992), 237-242.
[73 N. Saradha and T.N. Shorey, On the equation x(x + d1 )


(x + (k
1)d1 ) = y (y + d2 )


(y + (mk 1)d2 ), Pro . Indian A ad. S i. (Math.
S i.) 104 (1994), 1-12.
[74 N. Saradha and T.N. Shorey, The equation (xn 1)=(x
x square, Math. Pro . Cambridge Philos. So . (1998).

1) = y q with

[75 N. Saradha, T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On arithmeti progressions

with equal produ ts, A ta Arith. 68 (1994), 89-100.
[76 N. Saradha, T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On arithmeti progressions
of equal lengths with equal produ ts, Math. Pro . Cambridge Philos.
So . 117 (1995), 193-201.
[77 N. Saradha, T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On the equation x(x +
1)


(x + k 1) = y (y + d)


(y + (mk 1)d); m = 1; 2, A ta Arith.
71 (1995), 181-196.
[78 N. Saradha, T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On values of a polynomial
at arithmeti progressions with equal produ ts, A ta Arith. 72 (1995),
67-76.
[79 A. S hinzel and R. Tijdeman, On the equation y m = P (x), A ta Arith.
31 (1976), 199-204.
43

[80 T.N. Shorey, Linear forms in the logarithms of algebrai numbers with
small oe ients I, Jour. Indian Math. So . 38 (1974), 271-284.
[81 T.N. Shorey, On gaps between numbers with a large prime fa tor II,
A ta Arith. 25 (1974), 365-373.
[82 T.N. Shorey, On the ratio of values of a polynomial, Pro . Indian A ad.
S i. (Math. S i.) 93 (1984), 109-116.
[83 T.N. Shorey, On the equation a(xm 1)=(x
(II), Hardy Ramanujan 7 (1984), 1-10.

1) = b(y n

1)=(y

1)

[84 T.N. Shorey, Perfe t powers in values of ertain polynomials at integer

points, Math. Pro . Camb. Philos. So . 99 (1986), 195-207.
[85 T.N. Shorey, On the equation z q = (xn
(1986), 345-351.
[86 T.N. Shorey, On the equation axm
353-358.

1)=(x

1), Indag. Math. 48

by n = k, Indag. Math. 48 (1986),

[87 T.N. Shorey, Perfe t powers in produ ts of integers from a blo k of

onse utive integers, A ta Arith. 49 (1987), 71-79.
[88 T.N. Shorey, Some exponential Diophantine equations, New Advan es
in Trans enden e Theory, ed. by A.Baker, Cambridge University Press
(1988), 352-365.
[89 T.N. Shorey, Some exponential diophantine equations II, Number Theory and Related Topi s, ed. by S. Raghavan, Tata Institute of Fundamental Resear h, Bombay (1988), 217-229.
[90 T.N. Shorey, Integers with identi al digits, A ta Arith. 53 (1989), 81-99.
[91 T.N. Shorey, On a onje ture that a produ t of k onse utive positive
integers is never equal to a produ t of mk onse utive positive integers ex ept for 8.9.10 =6! and related problems, Number Theory, Paris
1992-3, ed. by S. David, London Math. So . Le ture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, 215 (1995), 231-244.
[92 T.N. Shorey, Perfe t powers in produ ts of arithmeti al progessions with
xed initial term, Indag. Math., N.S. 7 (1996), 521-525.
44

[93 T.N. Shorey, The equation a(xm 1)=(x 1) = by q with ab > 1, Number
Theory in Progress : Pro eedings of the International Conferen e on
Number Theory in Honor of Andrej S hinzel, held in Zakopane, Poland,
June 30 - July 9, 1997, Part I : Diophantine Problems and Polynomials,
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, to appear.
[94 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, New appli ations of Diophantine approximations to Diophantine equations, Math. S and. 39 (1976), 5-18.
[95 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Exponential Diophantine equations,
Cambridge Tra ts in Mathemati s 87 (1986), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
[96 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Perfe t powers in arithmeti al progression, Jour. Madras University (Se tion B) 51 (1988), 173-180.
[97 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Perfe t powers in produ ts of terms in
an arithmeti al progression, Compositio Math. 75 (1990), 307-344.
[98 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On the greatest prime fa tor of an arithmeti al progression, A Tribute to Paul Erdos, ed. by A. Baker, B. Bollobas and A. Hajnal, Cambridge University Press (1990), 385-389.
[99 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On the greatest prime fa tor of an arithmeti al progression (II), A ta Arith. 53 (1990), 499-504.
[100 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Perfe t powers in arithmeti al progression II, Compositio Math. 82 (1992), 107-117.
[101 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Perfe t powers in produ ts of terms in
an arithmeti al progression (II), Compositio Math. 82 (1992), 119-136.
[102 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Perfe t powers in produ ts of terms in
an arithmeti al progression (III), A ta Arith. 61 (1992), 391-398.
[103 T.N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, On the greatest prime fa tor of an arithmeti al progression (III), Diophantine Approximation and Trans endental Numbers, Luminy 1990, edited by Ph. Philippon, Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin (1992), 275-280.

45

[104 C.L. Siegel, Ueber einige Anwendungen diophantis her Approximationen, Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys - math. K1., No.1, (1929), 70
pp.
[105 J.J. Sylvester, On arithmeti al series, Messenger Math. 21 (1892), 1-19,
87-120.
[106 K. Szymi zek, Note on arithmeti al progressions with equal produ ts of
ve terms, Elem. Math. 27 (1972), 11-12.
[107 R. Tijdeman, On the maximal distan e of numbers with a large prime
fa tor, Jour. London Math. So . 5 (1972), 313-320.
[108 R. Tijdeman, On the equation of Catalan, A ta Arith. 29 (1976), 197209.
[109 R. Tijdeman, Exponential diophantine equations 1986-1996, Number
Theory, Diophantine, Computational and Algebrai Aspe ts, Pro eedings of the International Conferen e in Eger, Hungary, 1996, ed. by
Gyory, Petho and Sos, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1998), 523-539.
[110 A. Wiles, Modular ellipti urves and Fermat's Last Theorem, Annals
of Math. 141 (1995), 443-551.
[111 Kunrui Yu, Linear forms in p adi logarithms, A ta Arith. 53 (1989),
107-186.
[112 Kunrui Yu, Linear forms in p adi logarithms II, Compositio Math.
74 (1990), 15-113.
S hool of Mathemati s
Tata Institute of Fundamental Resear h
Homi Bhabha Road
Mumbai 400 005
INDIA.

46