Bunuel
Official Solution:
Note that:
A. The factorial of a negative number is undefined.
B. \(0!=1\).
C. Only two factorials are odd: \(0!=1\) and \(1!=1\).
D. Factorial of a number which is prime is \(2!=2\).
(1) The median of \(\{a!, \ b!, \ c!\}\) is an odd number. This implies that \(b!=odd\). Thus \(b\) is 0 or 1. But if \(b=0\), then \(a\) is a negative number, so in this case \(a!\) is not defined. Therefore \(a=0\) and \(b=1\), so the set is \(\{0!, \ 1!, \ c!\}=\{1, \ 1, \ c!\}\). Now, if \(c=2\), then the answer is YES but if \(c\) is any other number then the answer is NO. Not sufficient.
(2) \(c!\) is a prime number. This implies that \(c=2\). Not sufficient.
(1)+(2) From above we have that \(a=0\), \(b=1\) and \(c=2\), thus the answer to the question is YES. Sufficient.
Answer: C
Hi Bunuel,
From the following
Note, Point A: it was derived that in a<b<c,
'a' cannot be negative . For the Condition 1.
But if b=0, then a is a negative number, so in this case a! is not defined.
If we were to not take Point A in consideration then 'a' can very well be -17!
Note that:
A. The factorial of a negative number is undefined.B. 0!=10!=1.
C. Only two factorials are odd: 0!=10!=1 and 1!=11!=1.
D. Factorial of a number which is prime is 2!=22!=2.
Using Point A in the Note, why can't the
same('a' and 'b' cannot be negative) be derived for Condition 2?
Condition 2 states that 'c' is prime. 2! is prime. Therefore, c=2.
Since a<b<c, therefore a and b can take 0 and 1 only
iff Point A is considered here.
So why can't Point A be considered for Condition 2?
For (2) we only know that c cannot be negative but you cannot use info from (1) when considering (2).