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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: odd-perfect number don't exist

Expand Messages
  • Jack Brennen
    Right. I suspect Bill might have the basic outline of a proof that no square-free odd number can be perfect. But even there, he makes it way too complicated;
    Message 1 of 33 , Jul 12, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Right. I suspect Bill might have the basic outline of a proof that
      no square-free odd number can be perfect. But even there, he
      makes it way too complicated; it's basically trivial to see that
      if N is a square-free odd composite, sigma(N) is divisible by 4,
      while 2*N is not divisible by 4, therefore sigma(N) != 2*N.





      On 7/12/2011 8:29 PM, Peter Kosinar wrote:
      > Bill,
      >
      > You seem to have missed Jack's point -- he wasn't talking
      > about 22021 as being the odd-prime "candidate". It was the
      > number N defined as
      >
      >> N = 3^2*7^2*11^2*13^2*22021
      >
      > which your alleged "proof" might get fooled by. There are
      > two main sources of confusion. Before getting to the "hard"
      > one which Jack had in mind; would you care to explain how
      > your proof deals with number which are not square-free (e.g. 9,
      > 25, 45, ...)?
      >
      > Following your line of reasoning, when looking at number 9,
      > one could either use f1 = 1 and f2 = 9, or f1 = f2 = 3.
      > The problem is that in neither case, the LHS (1 + f1 + f2)
      > manages to express the sum of divisors of number 9 -- in
      > the first case, it equals 1+1+9 = 11, in the other, it's
      > 1+3+3 = 7. So yes, the proof can correctly conclude that
      > LHS cannot be equal to RHS... but it since LHS wasn't equal
      > to the sum of divisors of the product f1*f2 in the first
      > place, this inequality says nothing about the perfect-ness
      > of the number f1*f2.
      >
      > Peter
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Mathieu Therrien
      Thx, I will rework it. ________________________________ From: Tom Hadley To: Mathieu Therrien Cc:
      Message 33 of 33 , Jul 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Thx, I will rework it.



        ________________________________
        From: Tom Hadley <kctom99@...>
        To: Mathieu Therrien <mathieu344@...>
        Cc: "primenumbers@yahoogroups.com" <primenumbers@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:41:26 PM
        Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Post-Cartesian Puzzle





         Mathieu Therrien <mathieu344@...> wrote:



        >If I understood the purpose of Sigma(N/M) = N/P_1 = M*P_2   for P = P_1 * P_2 correctly,
        >
        >then Many solution are possibles as long as (M+1) is divided by 2 only once 
        >
        >for example u have m=5 ; N = P_2 * m * 3 = 15*P_2  and as long that P_2 is odd
        >
        >So m=5 and N=45 is 1 solution
        >
        >
        I think you have misunderstood the sigma() function.  In Pari-GP, sigma(x) is the sum of the divisors of x.  So sigma(9) = 1+3+9 = 13.
         
        The puzzle is: Find a pair of odd integers (N,m) with m|N,
        sigma(N/m)*(1+m) = 2*N, and bigomega(m) = 1.
         
        The proposed solution, N=45, m=5 doesn't work, since
        sigma(45/5)*(1+5) = sigma(9)*6 = 13*6 = 78, which is not 2*N=2*45=90.
         
        Tom Hadley

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.