Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: odd perfect number

Expand Messages
  • leavemsg1
    ... If my grandmother were alive... she would say, Pourquoi quelqu un ne soigne pas? ... roughly translated ... Why doesn t anyone care? Phil? Chris? ...
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@...>
      wrote:
      >
      If my grandmother were alive...
      she would say, "Pourquoi quelqu'un ne soigne pas?" ...
      roughly translated ... "Why doesn't anyone care?" Phil? Chris?

      > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I posted it, but it didn't go.
      > >
      > > Look at the formula...
      > > sigma(abundant#) = 2*sigma(perfect#) + associated Mp + 1
      > > 28 = sigma(12) = 2*sigma(6) + 3 + 1 = 28
      > > 120 = sigma(56) = 2*sigma(28) + 7 + 1 = 120
      > > and 2016 = sigma(992) = 2*sigma(496) + 31 + 1
      > > etc.
      > >
      > > If an infinite list of abundant numbers was somehow connected to
      an
      > > infinite list of perfect numbers or at least one odd perfect
      > number,
      > > then the list or singular odd perfect number would have to occur
      > > before 1/2 of the abundant number by the above formula. All the
      > odd
      > > abundant numbers are a multiple of 945, and the first one doesn't
      > > generate a perfect number before 1/2 of its value. So it won't
      > ever
      > > happen. Are you convinced?
      > >
      > > Bill
      > >
      > Another... 32640 = sigma(16256) = 2*sigma(8128) + 127 + 1 = 32640.
      > I'm confident. Ramon... do you like the argument? It took me a
      > while to believe it, but once I saw the formula... whoa! Bill
      >
    • jbrennen
      ... When you start out with an assumption like this, the rest of your argument is suspect. You don t even have to look much further to find that the second
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Bill wrote (in part):
        >
        > roughly translated ... "Why doesn't anyone care?" Phil? Chris?
        >
        > > > All the odd abundant numbers are a multiple of 945...

        When you start out with an assumption like this, the rest of your
        argument is suspect. You don't even have to look much further to
        find that the second odd abundant number is 1575, which is
        certainly not a multiple of 945.

        In fact, there are odd abundant numbers not divisible by 3, 5, or 7.

        Try the product of the primes from 11 to 149:

        7105630242567996762185122555313528897845637444413640621
      • leavemsg1
        ... You are right... I thought about the multiples of 945... and it s absurd... look at the connection between abundant and perfect numbers when I use the
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "jbrennen" <jb@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- Bill wrote (in part):
          > >
          > > roughly translated ... "Why doesn't anyone care?" Phil? Chris?
          > >
          > > > > All the odd abundant numbers are a multiple of 945...
          >
          You are right... I thought about the multiples of 945... and it's
          absurd...

          look at the connection between abundant and perfect numbers when I
          use the sigma function and the odd perfect number idea will disappear
          ...
          sigma(abundant#) = 2*sigma(perfect#) + assoc. Mp + 1
          sigma(4n) = 2*sigma(2n) + associated Mp + 1
          sigma(2n) = 2*sigma(n) + associated Mp + 1
          sigma(n) = 2*sigma(n/2) + associated Mp + 1

          even if the form of an odd abundant# is not known... the odd perfect
          number before it is...

          typically when someone would investigates the abundant# linked to the
          well known list of perfect numbers, they would see the first
          equation... and then believe the last one and notice that an odd
          perfect number was not possible... the odd perfect# couldn't be a
          whole number. Look at the it's form. Also, the associated Mp is
          derived by dividing out 2's from the perfect# until the prime is left
          over... kinda like a modulo function or a new 'multilo' function.

          the sigma function is tricky. I'm convinced implicitly. Bill

          > When you start out with an assumption like this, the rest of your
          > argument is suspect. You don't even have to look much further to
          > find that the second odd abundant number is 1575, which is
          > certainly not a multiple of 945.
          >
          > In fact, there are odd abundant numbers not divisible by 3, 5, or 7.
          >
          > Try the product of the primes from 11 to 149:
          >
          > 7105630242567996762185122555313528897845637444413640621
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.