Josephus problem
mathematical counting-out question
In computer science and mathematics, the Josephus problem (or Josephus permutation) is a theoretical problem related to a certain counting-out game. Such games are used to pick out a person from a group, e.g. eeny, meeny, miny, moe.
In the particular counting-out game that gives rise to the Josephus problem, a number of people are standing in a circle waiting to be executed. Counting begins at a specified point in the circle and proceeds around the circle in a specified direction. After a specified number of people are skipped, the next person is executed. The procedure is repeated with the remaining people, starting with the next person, going in the same direction and skipping the same number of people, until only one person remains, and is freed.
The problem— given the number of people, starting point, direction, and number to be skipped— is to choose the position in the initial circle to avoid execution.
History
The problem is named after Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian and leader who lived in the 1st century. According to Josephus's firsthand account of the siege of Yodfat, he and his 40 soldiers were trapped in a cave by Roman soldiers.
The public source identifies “Josephus problem” as mathematical counting-out question. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Josephus, problem and mathematical.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Josephus problem”, the useful work is to connect “mathematical counting-out question” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1064357. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Josephus problem”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Josephus problem primary sources, Josephus problem archive and Josephus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Josephus problem”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Josephus problem” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.