% Generated from content/writing/bernoulli-denominators-multinomial-gcd.md by the benletchford.com renderer.
% Any images referenced as images/... can be downloaded from the same
% paths under https://benletchford.com/ (e.g. images/foo.png lives at
% https://benletchford.com/images/foo.png).
\documentclass[11pt]{article}

% Text and mono faces are the site's own CMU fonts (served as .woff under
% https://benletchford.com/fonts/, SIL OFL 1.1; .otf releases at
% https://cm-unicode.sourceforge.io). Without a fonts/ directory, or under
% pdflatex, this falls back to Latin Modern, which is visually near
% identical.
\usepackage{iftex}
\ifPDFTeX
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
  \usepackage{lmodern}
\else
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \IfFileExists{fonts/cmunrm.otf}{
    \setmainfont{cmunrm.otf}[
      Path=fonts/,
      BoldFont=cmunbx.otf,
      ItalicFont=cmunti.otf,
      BoldItalicFont=cmunbi.otf,
    ]
    \setmonofont{cmuntt.otf}[
      Path=fonts/,
      BoldFont=cmuntb.otf,
      ItalicFont=cmunit.otf,
      BoldItalicFont=cmuntx.otf,
    ]
  }{}
\fi

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage[a4paper,textwidth=140mm,textheight=225mm,heightrounded]{geometry}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage{hyperref}
% Let long reference URLs break after any character, as xurl does.
\expandafter\def\expandafter\UrlBreaks\expandafter{\UrlBreaks%
  \do\a\do\b\do\c\do\d\do\e\do\f\do\g\do\h\do\i\do\j\do\k\do\l\do\m
  \do\n\do\o\do\p\do\q\do\r\do\s\do\t\do\u\do\v\do\w\do\x\do\y\do\z
  \do\A\do\B\do\C\do\D\do\E\do\F\do\G\do\H\do\I\do\J\do\K\do\L\do\M
  \do\N\do\O\do\P\do\Q\do\R\do\S\do\T\do\U\do\V\do\W\do\X\do\Y\do\Z
  \do\0\do\1\do\2\do\3\do\4\do\5\do\6\do\7\do\8\do\9}

% Palette lifted from static/styles.css.
\definecolor{paper}{HTML}{FBFAF6}
\definecolor{ink}{HTML}{1B1A17}
\definecolor{muted}{HTML}{6F6B63}
\definecolor{rulecol}{HTML}{D7D6D2}
\definecolor{linkblue}{HTML}{2A4D8F}

\pagecolor{paper}
\color{ink}

\hypersetup{
  colorlinks=true,
  linkcolor=linkblue,
  urlcolor=linkblue,
  pdftitle={Bernoulli Denominators Hidden in Multinomial GCDs},
  pdfauthor={Ben Letchford},
}
\urlstyle{same}

\titleformat*{\section}{\normalsize\bfseries}
\titleformat*{\subsection}{\normalsize\bfseries}
\titleformat*{\subsubsection}{\normalsize\itshape}

\captionsetup{font={small,color=muted},labelfont={color=ink,bf},labelsep=period}

\newcolumntype{L}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}

\setlength{\parindent}{1.7em}
\linespread{1.08}
\frenchspacing
\emergencystretch=2em

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
  {\LARGE Bernoulli Denominators Hidden in Multinomial GCDs\par}
  \vskip 1.1em
  Ben Letchford\par
  \vskip 0.35em
  {\small\itshape\color{muted} 15 July 2026\par}
\end{center}

\vskip 1.6em
\begin{center}
  {\footnotesize\bfseries ABSTRACT}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.4em
\begin{center}
  \begin{minipage}{0.92\textwidth}
    \small Two candidate-original identities recover Bernoulli-number and Bernoulli-polynomial denominators from a gcd spectrum over positive multinomial coefficients.
  \end{minipage}
\end{center}

\vskip 2em

\begin{quote}
\textbf{Review status.} The two Bernoulli bridges proved here are
candidate-original consequences of established theorems. The underlying
minimum-carry formula is Proposition A.10 of Ando, Hopkins and Strickland;
the Bernoulli denominator formulas are also prior. A targeted literature
search found nearby multinomial, Stirling-number and digit-sum results, but
not the two bridge identities below. That is evidence of novelty, not proof
of it. This public research note was developed with substantial LLM
assistance and still requires independent review by a number theorist before
submission or an unconditional novelty claim.

\end{quote}

\emph{A single step between two multinomial gcds recovers the denominator of every
nonzero even Bernoulli number.}

The Bernoulli numbers and multinomial coefficients usually enter mathematics
through different doors. Bernoulli numbers control power sums,
Euler--Maclaurin summation and special values of the zeta function.
Multinomial coefficients count ordered partitions of a finite set. Their
definitions do not suggest that the denominator of one should be encoded in
the common divisors of the other.

Here is the first indication that they are connected. Take every positive
ordered composition of 12 into six parts, form its multinomial coefficient,
and take the greatest common divisor. Do the same with seven parts. The two
gcds are

\[
G_6(12)=7920,
\qquad
G_7(12)=332640.
\]

Their ratio is

\[
\frac{G_7(12)}{G_6(12)}=42,
\]

which is exactly the denominator of $B_6=1/42$. This is not a coincidence.

\section{The two bridge identities}

For $1\leq r\leq n$, define the fixed-part multinomial gcd

\[
G_r(n)=\gcd\left\lbrace
\frac{n!}{k_1!\cdots k_r!}:
k_i\geq1,\quad k_1+\cdots+k_r=n
\right\rbrace.
\]

Write $\operatorname{den}(q)$ for the positive denominator of a rational
number in lowest terms. The first bridge is the exact identity

\[
\boxed{
\operatorname{den}(B_{2m})
=\frac{G_{2m+1}(4m)}{G_{2m}(4m)}
}
\qquad(m\geq1).
\tag{1}
\]

Thus the denominators

\[
6,30,42,30,66,2730,\ldots
\]

of $B_2,B_4,B_6,B_8,B_{10},B_{12},\ldots$ are consecutive ratios along a
single diagonal of the multinomial-gcd array.

There is a second bridge for Bernoulli polynomials. Let

\[
\mathcal D_n
=\operatorname{den}\bigl(B_n(x)-B_n\bigr)
\]

mean the least positive integer that makes every coefficient of the
constant-free Bernoulli polynomial integral. Also put

\[
\mathcal P(n)=\prod_{p\leq n}p,
\]

the product of all primes at most $n$. Then

\[
\boxed{
\mathcal D_n
\prod_{p\leq n}\gcd\bigl(p,G_p(n)\bigr)
=\mathcal P(n),
}
\tag{2}
\]

and the two factors on the left are coprime. Every prime up to $n$ therefore
goes to exactly one side: either it appears in the Bernoulli-polynomial
denominator, or it divides the multinomial gcd whose number of parts equals
that prime, but never both.

Both identities follow from a common object: the complete prime spectrum of
$G_r(n)$.

\section{The known minimum-carry spectrum}

Let $s_p(n)$ be the sum of the base-$p$ digits of $n$, and let $\nu_p(a)$ be
the exponent of the prime $p$ in $a$. Ando, Hopkins and Strickland proved the
minimum-carry formula below as Proposition A.10 in an appendix on additive
cocycles (\hyperlink{ref-ando-hopkins-strickland-2001}{Ando et al., 2001}). In the present notation it says

\[
\boxed{
\nu_p(G_r(n))=
\max\left\lbrace
0,
\left\lceil\frac{r-s_p(n)}{p-1}\right\rceil
\right\rbrace.
}
\tag{3}
\]

Equivalently,

\[
G_r(n)=
\prod_{p\leq n}
p^{
\max\left\lbrace
0,
\left\lceil\frac{r-s_p(n)}{p-1}\right\rceil
\right\rbrace}.
\tag{4}
\]

In particular,

\[
p\mid G_r(n)
\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
s_p(n)<r.
\]

Bergman previously used this zero-versus-positive condition in the language
of $p$-acceptable decompositions (\hyperlink{ref-bergman-2011}{Bergman, 2011}). Rowland's multinomial form
of Kummer's theorem counts weak compositions at every valuation rather than
minimizing over positive ones (\hyperlink{ref-rowland-2018}{Rowland, 2018}).

\section{A self-contained proof of the spectrum}

The bridge proofs only need (3), but the minimum is subtle enough to justify a
complete proof. A lower divisibility bound does not determine a gcd unless a
coefficient attaining it can also be constructed.

Legendre's factorial formula is

\[
\nu_p(a!)=\frac{a-s_p(a)}{p-1}.
\]

Applied to a multinomial coefficient, it gives

\[
\nu_p!\left(\frac{n!}{k_1!\cdots k_r!}\right)
=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^r s_p(k_i)-s_p(n)}{p-1}.
\tag{5}
\]

This is the digit-sum form of the carry principle behind Kummer's theorem
(\hyperlink{ref-kummer-1852}{Kummer, 1852}). Put

\[
S=\sum_{i=1}^r s_p(k_i).
\]

Every part is positive, so $S\geq r$. Digit sums preserve residue modulo
$p-1$, hence

\[
S\equiv n\equiv s_p(n)\pmod{p-1}.
\]

Equation (5) is nonnegative, so $S\geq s_p(n)$ as well. The smallest number
compatible with these restrictions is

\[
M=s_p(n)+(p-1)
\max\left\lbrace
0,
\left\lceil\frac{r-s_p(n)}{p-1}\right\rceil
\right\rbrace.
\tag{6}
\]

This proves the lower bound in (3). It remains to attain it.

Write the base-$p$ expansion of $n$ as

\[
n=\sum_{j\geq0}a_jp^j,
\qquad 0\leq a_j\leq p-1.
\]

Regard this as a multiset containing $a_j$ copies of $p^j$. It begins with
exactly $s_p(n)$ elements. An element $p^j$ with $j\geq1$ may be replaced by
$p$ copies of $p^{j-1}$. Each split preserves the sum and increases the
number of elements by $p-1$.

The value $M$ in (6) has the required residue and satisfies $M\leq n$: the
integer $n$ itself is at least $r$ and is congruent to $s_p(n)$ modulo
$p-1$, so it is an eligible upper bound for the least such $M$. Whenever
fewer than $n$ elements remain, at least one is larger than 1 and can be
split. Repeated splitting therefore reaches exactly $M$ elements.

Now group the elements into $r$ nonempty blocks. If $r\leq s_p(n)$, group
the original base-$p$ elements arbitrarily. At every digit position the
whole multiset contains at most $p-1$ elements, so no block creates a carry.
If $r>s_p(n)$, the definition of $M$ gives

\[
0\leq M-r\leq p-2.
\]

Place $M-r+1$ elements in one block and leave all others as singletons. The
non-singleton block contains at most $p-1$ elements, so it also creates no
carry. In either case, the resulting positive composition satisfies

\[
\sum_{i=1}^r s_p(k_i)=M.
\]

Substitution in (5) attains the lower bound. The valuation of a gcd is the
minimum valuation of its members, so (3) follows for this prime. Repeating
for every prime proves (4). $\square$

\section{Adjacent gcds form square-free layers}

The exponents in (3) never decrease with $r$. Therefore
$G_{r-1}(n)\mid G_r(n)$, and the adjacent layer

\[
L_r(n)=\frac{G_r(n)}{G_{r-1}(n)}
\]

is an integer. A ceiling can rise by at most one in a single step, so every
layer is square-free. More precisely,

\[
\boxed{
L_r(n)=
\prod_{\substack{p\leq n\\
s_p(n)<r\\
p-1\mid n-r+1}}
p.
}
\tag{7}
\]

Indeed, the exponent for $p$ rises at step $r$ exactly when

\[
r>s_p(n)
\quad\text{and}\quad
r-s_p(n)\equiv1\pmod{p-1}.
\]

Since $s_p(n)\equiv n\pmod{p-1}$, the congruence is the last condition in
(7). This known-spectrum corollary is the mechanism behind both bridges.

\section{First bridge: the Bernoulli-number rung}

For any positive integer $d$, define the square-free product

\[
C_d=\prod_{p-1\mid d}p.
\]

The product is over primes. The key new rung identity is

\[
\boxed{
L_{d+1}(2d)=C_d.
}
\tag{8}
\]

To prove it, put $n=2d$ and $r=d+1$ in (7). A prime in the layer must satisfy
$p-1\mid d$, so the support of the left side is contained in that of $C_d$.

For the reverse inclusion, suppose $p-1\mid d$ and write $d=t(p-1)$. Then

\[
\nu_p((2d)!)
\geq\left\lfloor\frac{2d}{p}\right\rfloor
=\left\lfloor\frac{2t(p-1)}p\right\rfloor
\geq t.
\]

Legendre's formula now yields

\[
2d-s_p(2d)
=(p-1)\nu_p((2d)!)
\geq t(p-1)=d.
\]

Thus $s_p(2d)\leq d<d+1$, and $p$ satisfies every condition in (7).
Every prime in $C_d$ occurs in the layer. Both sides are square-free, proving
(8).

For positive even $d$, the von Staudt--Clausen theorem states

\[
\operatorname{den}(B_d)=\prod_{p-1\mid d}p=C_d
\]

(\hyperlink{ref-clausen-1840}{Clausen, 1840}; \hyperlink{ref-von-staudt-1840}{von Staudt, 1840}). Substituting $d=2m$ into (8) gives
the headline identity (1). Notice what the proof does and does not use: it
uses only the denominator theorem for Bernoulli numbers, not a recurrence or
an approximation to their values.

The first cases are

\[
\begin{array}{c|rrrrrr}
d&2&4&6&8&10&12\\
\hline
G_{d+1}(2d)/G_d(2d)&6&30&42&30&66&2730\\
\operatorname{den}(B_d)&6&30&42&30&66&2730.
\end{array}
\]

\section{The whole tail stabilizes}

Equation (8) is one point on an infinite constant tail. Fix $d\geq1$ and
let $n\geq d+1$. Reading the layer whose distance from the top is $d$ gives

\[
\boxed{
L_{n-d+1}(n)=
\prod_{\substack{p-1\mid d\\
p^{d/(p-1)}\mid n!}}p.
}
\tag{9}
\]

To see this, set $r=n-d+1$ in (7). Once $p-1\mid d$, the remaining digit
condition is

\[
s_p(n)<n-d+1.
\]

Both $n-s_p(n)$ and $d$ are multiples of $p-1$, so this strict inequality is
equivalent to

\[
n-s_p(n)\geq d,
\]

or, by Legendre's formula,

\[
\nu_p(n!)\geq\frac d{p-1}.
\]

That is precisely the factorial-divisibility test in (9).

If $n\geq2d$, every prime with $p-1\mid d$ passes the test by the same floor
estimate used above. Consequently

\[
L_{n-d+1}(n)=C_d
\qquad(n\geq2d).
\tag{10}
\]

For even $d$, every sufficiently high multinomial-gcd ladder therefore has
the denominator of $B_d$ on its $d$th reverse rung.

The exact start of stabilization also has a closed description. If

\[
S(a)=\min\left\lbrace N:a\mid N!\right\rbrace,
\]

then the first $n$ from which the reverse rung remains equal to $C_d$ is

\[
N_d=
\max_{p-1\mid d}
S\left(p^{d/(p-1)}\right).
\tag{11}
\]

The prime 2 ensures $N_d>d$, so the required layer always exists. The bound
$N_d\leq2d$ follows from the proof of (10). For example, the $d=6$ tail is
$7,14,42,42,\ldots$ at $n=7,8,9,10,\ldots$: it stabilizes to
$\operatorname{den}(B_6)=42$ already at $N_6=9$, before the universal bound
$2d=12$.

\section{Second bridge: the Bernoulli-polynomial diagonal}

The Bernoulli polynomials are defined by

\[
B_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk B_k x^{n-k}.
\]

Kellner and Sondow proved a square-free digit-sum formula for the denominator
of the constant-free polynomial (\hyperlink{ref-kellner-sondow-2017}{Kellner \& Sondow, 2017}). Kellner subsequently
gave a short $p$-adic proof and studied the prime product in its own right
(\hyperlink{ref-kellner-2017}{Kellner, 2017}):

\[
\mathcal D_n
=\operatorname{den}\bigl(B_n(x)-B_n\bigr)
=\prod_{s_p(n)\geq p}p.
\tag{12}
\]

The product is finite, and every prime in it is at most $n$. Meanwhile, the
multinomial support criterion at the diagonal value $r=p$ says

\[
p\mid G_p(n)
\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
s_p(n)<p.
\tag{13}
\]

For each prime $p\leq n$, the inequalities in (12) and (13) are exact
complements. Therefore

\[
\mathcal D_n
=\prod_{\substack{p\leq n\\p\nmid G_p(n)}}p,
\qquad
\prod_{p\leq n}\gcd\bigl(p,G_p(n)\bigr)
=\prod_{\substack{p\leq n\\p\mid G_p(n)}}p.
\]

The prime supports are disjoint and cover all primes up to $n$. Multiplying
proves (2), including coprimality.

There is a geometric way to read the same result. Prime $p$ first enters the
$n$th gcd ladder at rung

\[
r=s_p(n)+1.
\]

If that rung lies at or below the diagonal $r=p$, then $p$ goes to the
multinomial factor in (2). If it lies above the diagonal, then $p$ goes to the
Bernoulli-polynomial denominator. The diagonal cuts the primorial into two
complementary square-free pieces.

At $n=20$, for example,

\[
\mathcal D_{20}=42=2\cdot3\cdot7,
\]

while the diagonal multinomial factor contains

\[
5\cdot11\cdot13\cdot17\cdot19.
\]

Their product is

\[
2\cdot3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot11\cdot13\cdot17\cdot19
=\mathcal P(20).
\]

Bordellès, Luca, Moree and Shparlinski established detailed results about the
size and distribution of the prime factors in $\mathcal D_n$
(\hyperlink{ref-bordelles-etal-2018}{Bordellès et al., 2018}). Identity (2) transfers those results into statements
about which prime-indexed gcds fail the diagonal divisibility test.

\section{The full Bernoulli polynomial is also encoded}

The constant term of $B_n(x)$ is $B_n$, so its denominator is

\[
\operatorname{den}(B_n(x))
=\operatorname{lcm}\left(
\mathcal D_n,
\operatorname{den}(B_n)
\right).
\]

For even $n\geq2$, the first bridge gives

\[
\operatorname{den}(B_n)
=\frac{G_{n+1}(2n)}{G_n(2n)},
\]

and the second bridge gives

\[
\mathcal D_n
=\frac{\mathcal P(n)}{
\prod_{p\leq n}\gcd\bigl(p,G_p(n)\bigr)}.
\]

For odd $n>1$, $B_n=0$, so only the second factor is needed. The gcd spectrum
therefore determines the denominators of the Bernoulli numbers, their
constant-free polynomials, and the complete Bernoulli polynomials.

\section{Where the bridge sits in the literature}

None of the ingredients should be mistaken for new. Kummer's carry theorem
is classical (\hyperlink{ref-kummer-1852}{Kummer, 1852}). The exact positive-composition minimum in (3) is
Ando, Hopkins and Strickland's Proposition A.10
(\hyperlink{ref-ando-hopkins-strickland-2001}{Ando et al., 2001}). Bergman's criterion already identifies when
a prime divides every proper fixed-part multinomial coefficient
(\hyperlink{ref-bergman-2011}{Bergman, 2011}). The prime products in the Bernoulli-number and
Bernoulli-polynomial denominators are respectively the von Staudt--Clausen
theorem (\hyperlink{ref-clausen-1840}{Clausen, 1840}; \hyperlink{ref-von-staudt-1840}{von Staudt, 1840}) and the Kellner--Sondow formula
(\hyperlink{ref-kellner-sondow-2017}{Kellner \& Sondow, 2017}; \hyperlink{ref-kellner-2017}{Kellner, 2017}).

There is also a close prior gcd representation of the Bernoulli-number
denominator. If $S(N,k)$ is a Stirling number of the second kind, then
$k!S(N,k)$ counts surjections from an $N$-element set onto a $k$-element set.
Komatsu, Luca and Pita Ruiz proved

\[
\gcd_{2\leq k\leq2m+1}
\bigl(k!S(2m+1,k)\bigr)
=\operatorname{den}(B_{2m})
\]

(\hyperlink{ref-komatsu-etal-2014}{Komatsu et al., 2014}). A surjection count is a sum of positive-part
multinomial coefficients. Their theorem takes a gcd across those sums. In
contrast, (1) takes two gcds across the individual coefficients and divides
the consecutive gcds. The constructions, indices and proofs are different,
but the Stirling theorem is the closest known neighbour and an important
warning against presenting every combinatorial representation of the same
classical prime product as unprecedented.

That neighbour belongs to an older line of work on tail gcds of the same
surjection counts. Lundell studied the prime-power divisibility of

\[
\Delta_{N,j}
=\gcd\left\lbrace k!S(N,k):j\leq k\leq N\right\rbrace
\]

(\hyperlink{ref-lundell-1978}{Lundell, 1978}). Nishimura later proved recurrence and divisibility results
relating individual $k!S(N,k)$ to these tail gcds (\hyperlink{ref-nishimura-2022}{Nishimura, 2022}). Both
remain on the Stirling side: they take gcds of sums of positive-part
multinomial coefficients, rather than gcds of the individual coefficients
with a fixed number of parts.

The candidate-original contribution of this note is limited to the bridge:

\begin{enumerate}
\item the exact rung identity (8), and hence the Bernoulli denominator ratio
(1);
\item the factorial-filtered tail formula (9), its stabilization (10), and the
exact threshold (11);
\item the diagonal complement identity (2); and
\item the resulting reconstruction of full Bernoulli-polynomial denominators
from the multinomial-gcd spectrum.
\end{enumerate}

The literature audit searched combinations of ``Bernoulli denominator,''
``multinomial gcd,'' ``minimum carries,'' ``positive compositions,'' ``consecutive
gcd ratios,'' ``Stirling gcd,'' ``primorial complement,'' ``digit sum'' and
``von Staudt--Clausen,'' then inspected the closest papers, citation graphs and
reference chains. Full-text checks found no mention of Bernoulli objects in
Bergman's multinomial paper, no multinomial-gcd construction in the
Kellner--Sondow denominator papers, and no fixed-part multinomial-gcd bridge
in the Lundell--Komatsu--Nishimura Stirling line. This makes the bridge a
serious novelty candidate, not a certified first publication.

\section{Computational verification}

The proofs above are symbolic. Exact arithmetic was nevertheless used to
test the indices, strict inequalities and boundary cases independently.

First, the defining multinomial coefficients were enumerated directly for
$m=1,\ldots,5$. For each $m$, both gcds in (1) were computed without using
the spectrum formula. This covered 198,626 positive compositions in total and
returned the ratios $6,30,42,30,66$, matching exact Bernoulli denominators
computed from their rational recurrence.

Second, the coefficients of $B_n(x)-B_n$ were constructed as exact rational
numbers for every $1\leq n\leq200$. Their least common denominators matched
(12), and the two factors in (2) were coprime and multiplied to
$\mathcal P(n)$ in all 200 cases.

Third, (9) was checked for every even $2\leq d\leq120$ and every
$d+1\leq n\leq\min(4d,200)$: 5,940 tail positions. The factorial filter and
the layer support agreed in every case. Among them, all 2,550 positions with
$n\geq2d$ equalled the corresponding Bernoulli denominator.

Finally, an independent Python/SymPy implementation targeted scale and edge
cases rather than direct composition enumeration. It verified (8) for every
$1\leq d\leq5000$, including the $d=1$, $p=2$ and $p=d+1$ boundaries;
matched (1) to the exact denominators of $B_2$ through $B_{400}$; verified
the exact threshold (11), both before and after stabilization, for every
$1\leq d\leq500$; and checked the prime-by-prime complement in (2) for every
$1\leq n\leq5000$. No counterexample was found.

These checks do not prove novelty, and they are not substitutes for the
proofs. Their role is narrower: to make an off-by-one error or a failed edge
case much less likely to survive into the claim.

\section{What has been found}

The new object is not a primality test or a method for computing Bernoulli
numbers efficiently. Formula (1) replaces a simple classical prime product
with gcds of much larger integers, so it is computationally perverse if the
only objective is a denominator.

Its value is structural. A theorem about carries in base $p$, a theorem about
the fractional parts of Bernoulli numbers, and a theorem about denominators of
power-sum polynomials meet inside one two-dimensional gcd spectrum. Reading a
fixed distance from the top produces Bernoulli-number denominators. Cutting
the spectrum along the prime diagonal produces the complementary factor of a
primorial and hence the Bernoulli-polynomial denominator.

That is a clean bridge between three subjects that were previously adjacent
through digit sums but not, in the literature located here, joined by these
identities. The algebra is complete. Whether the bridge is genuinely new in
the historical record remains the one claim that proof alone cannot settle.


\vskip 2.2em
\pdfbookmark[1]{References}{references}%
{\centering\normalsize\bfseries References\par}
\vskip 0.2em
\begingroup\small
\setlength{\parindent}{-1.75em}\setlength{\leftskip}{1.75em}\setlength{\parskip}{0.45em}
\hypertarget{ref-ando-hopkins-strickland-2001}{}Ando, M., Hopkins, M. J., \& Strickland, N. P. (2001). Elliptic spectra, the Witten genus and the theorem of the cube. \emph{Inventiones Mathematicae, 146}(3), 595-687. \url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s002220100175}\par
\hypertarget{ref-bergman-2011}{}Bergman, G. M. (2011). On common divisors of multinomial coefficients. \emph{Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 83}(1), 138-157. \url{https://doi.org/10.1017/S0004972710001723}\par
\hypertarget{ref-bordelles-etal-2018}{}Bordellès, O., Luca, F., Moree, P., \& Shparlinski, I. E. (2018). Denominators of Bernoulli polynomials. \emph{Mathematika, 64}(2), 519-541. \url{https://doi.org/10.1112/S0025579318000153}\par
\hypertarget{ref-clausen-1840}{}Clausen, T. (1840). Lehrsatz aus einer Abhandlung über die Bernoullischen Zahlen. \emph{Astronomische Nachrichten, 17}(22), 351-352. \url{https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.18400172205}\par
\hypertarget{ref-kellner-2017}{}Kellner, B. C. (2017). On a product of certain primes. \emph{Journal of Number Theory, 179}, 126-141. \url{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2017.03.020}\par
\hypertarget{ref-kellner-sondow-2017}{}Kellner, B. C., \& Sondow, J. (2017). Power-sum denominators. \emph{The American Mathematical Monthly, 124}(8), 695-709. \url{https://doi.org/10.4169/amer.math.monthly.124.8.695}\par
\hypertarget{ref-komatsu-etal-2014}{}Komatsu, T., Luca, F., \& Pita Ruiz V., C. de J. (2014). A note on the denominators of Bernoulli numbers. \emph{Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series A, Mathematical Sciences, 90}(5), 71-72. \url{https://doi.org/10.3792/pjaa.90.71}\par
\hypertarget{ref-kummer-1852}{}Kummer, E. E. (1852). Über die Ergänzungssätze zu den allgemeinen Reciprocitätsgesetzen. \emph{Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 44}, 93-146. \url{https://doi.org/10.1515/crll.1852.44.93}\par
\hypertarget{ref-lundell-1978}{}Lundell, A. T. (1978). A divisibility property for Stirling numbers. \emph{Journal of Number Theory, 10}(1), 35-54. \url{https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-314X(78)90005-7}\par
\hypertarget{ref-nishimura-2022}{}Nishimura, O. (2022). A formula on Stirling numbers of the second kind and its application to the unstable K-theory of stunted complex projective spaces. \emph{Kyoto Journal of Mathematics, 62}(4). \url{https://doi.org/10.1215/21562261-2022-0026}\par
\hypertarget{ref-rowland-2018}{}Rowland, E. (2018). A matrix generalization of a theorem of Fine. \emph{Integers, 18A}, Article A18. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05872}\par
\hypertarget{ref-von-staudt-1840}{}von Staudt, K. G. C. (1840). Beweis eines Lehrsatzes, die Bernoullischen Zahlen betreffend. \emph{Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 21}, 372-374. \url{https://eudml.org/doc/147124}\par
\endgroup

\end{document}
