@user2661923 An analytical attack hasn't been conjured up, but papers are available at the links provided in the duplicate post. I would ask for the user's background here ; if the user has no particular background and is taking up this question for curiosity, then the duplicate works. If this is a programming assignment, then it should be stated as such and the duplicate doesn't really work as well. I agree it is not a homework assignment as a mathematical question, though.

I would have liked it if the user replied to the assertion of whether this is a duplicate or not. We can reopen this question if the user disagrees about the duplication (based on the way they are supposed to answer their question).

The first observation in such a question is that if $A! = B!C!$ then either $B$ or $C$ must cross the largest prime smaller than $A$. Such an observation is making a programmer's life much easier.

(Note : I don't quite know what one means by an analytical attack, but if one takes logarithms then a factorial diophantine equation comes under the theory of rational linear forms in logarithms, studied by the likes of Tijdeman. The analytical step in these directions is not easy to intuit, and using arguments in Roth's and Baker's theorems, one can hope to provide explicit bounds for such equations, at least showing e.g. that they have finitely many solutions).

cv-pls complex-analysis PSQ Finding $arg(z)$ if $k+|k+z^2|=|z|^2$‭ - Kshitij Kumar‭ 2021-08-25 17:24:48Z

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Shortened url in answer (57): What is the most accurate explanation of Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise paradox? by gg70 on math.SE

I’m not sure if this has been brought up before, but there seems to be a game of cat-and-mouse being played on this question and the other (closed) question that this user has asked. The user vandalizes their question, then it gets rolled back to a previous version, then the user vandalizes again, ad infinitum.

@TeresaLisbon This question is a clear duplicate. I cannot follow the arguments and wonder why it was reopened twice.

@Peter I did think about it, the argument above is that an analytical attack on the question is not clearly known, but then I've provided the basic idea for that above (the MSE posts don't explain it for sure) and we're not sure if OP asked for an analytical attack or for just the answers or a mathematical program.

Right now, I think this question merits interest, but OP doesn't seem to have expressed enough interest in it. I might look at a nice detailed answer if the question was asking for one,

but no!

@SmokeDetector It will be a long way until deletion, but at least this nonsense should be closed.

@TeresaLisbon Instead of "reopened twice" , I mean "reopven-voted twice"

Close this PSQ.

C/D

C/D

link-only answer

Should I flag it as 'not an answer' or something else?

It's now removed.

@NikhilKumarSingh As a consequence of self-deletion of the question

C

delete 1, 2

What are the maximum comment flags one can have ?

@LalitTolani I amn not aware of a limit, but it might have consequences if too many are declined (but I am not sure)

@LalitTolani Comment flag threshold = post flag threshold

Mr/Mrs Community is talking

@XanderHenderson The new feature on major/minor edit is now live. We might need to update the meta post on editing closed question.

@ArcticChar How come????

@JitendraSingh In the new review queue system, "Reviewers are encouraged to leave comments for the post-author, but now they can also choose from a few options of canned feedback which will appear as a comment from the Community account."

...which I think is an awesome change, because I've seen many times a defensive OP say "who are you to represent the community and asking me to do this an that"

Now such canned feedback literally appear as Community♦, so one less excuse.

Yup that is an excellent feature. I am very happy with that feature too @ElliotYu

@ElliotYu I was just going to post about this to notify. Thanks for being on top of this!

@shoteyes said user is now suspended for a year.

@ArcticChar Or Ms, or they, or it.... :-)

@amWhy Has he intentionally named himself "deleted account" or is it that any feature of MSE? Maybe the first one only right?

@JitendraSingh It was an intentional renaming by the OP. When an account is deleted, it shows as (no hyperlink:userxxxxxxxx), with a gray silhouette. It may be that the user has requested deletion of their account, but that doesn't happen immediately after such a request. In any case, mods did not delete their account, they merely suspended it for a year.

Needs one delete vote

Please at least close this old , but nonsensical post.

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4233659/… PSQ

@TeresaLisbon Now gone!

@amWhy Thank you!

This can be deleted

So can this one

So can this one

math.stackexchange.com/questions/4233640/… PSQ EoQS heavily violated

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly non-latin title (81): How to prove 𝑃(𝐴′ ∩ 𝐵′ ∩ 𝐶′) = 𝑃(𝐴′)𝑃(𝐵′)𝑃(𝐶′) by Miriana Drago on math.SE

@LalitTolani Just inform all the EoQS violaters that they are breaking EoQS rules and attached EoQS link in your comment to all EoQS violaters

@JitendraSingh Can you please provide link?

You can refer the post you linked. In that I have commented to all EoQS violators about breaking EoQS and also attached the link @LalitTolani

But in any case here is the link @LalitTolani

@JitendraSingh Google knows the original name.

@user21820 I don't have words to reply now. You have made me speechless :)

@LalitTolani That PSQ is up for deletion now.

@TeresaLisbon The bounds make it quite obviously an assignment or programming problem, and there is no good reason to conceal the source.

Anyway it's up for deletion, for whoever thinks that it's a bad question.

I think this [question]( math.stackexchange.com/q/4233469/557708) is not duplicate

@jasmine You need to justify this. Presumably you didn't understand something in one of the answers to your original question, so you should have linked to the original question and then explained what you didn't understand.

okay @user1729 Next time I'll be more careful about my post

@jasmine Sure, but you should edit this question anyway. That would make it more likely to be reopened, so you can get an answer to your question and understand it all better.

ok@user1729 Let me try it again

duplicate and delete answer

Request that this question be re-opened. If I am interpreting the comments correctly (which may not be true), the question was initially judged low quality because the OP did not use MathJax. That defect has been corrected.

There were other comments that indicated flaws in the analysis of the OP's question. That is, the flaws were mistakes that the OP made while showing work. To the best of my knowledge, analytical mistakes in work shown don't (in and of themselves) merit closing the question.