- "David Broadhurst" wrote:
> Maybe you might like to update yours,

I sent in an update today.

> in the light of the above?

I said I would get around to it, but that was awhile ago.

It is a familiar form to some of our record holding factors:

L(2^n * p^m) / L(2^k)

What are, the bounds for record holding factors?

During trial division of L(2^n * p^m) if q cannot be record holding

then abort. This abort should be less than the square root, if the

given bounds of q are large enough. This is pure speculation,

without information.

Shane F. - Interesting, Jack. Thanks.

--- In primenumbers@y..., "Max B" <zen_ghost_floating@h...> wrote:

>

> "A positive integer n is called unitary nonrepetitive,

> if, excluding the divisors 1 and n, it is possible to

> express n-1 as a sum of some or all of the remaining

> divisors of n using each divisor once and only once. For

> example, 6 and 20 are unitary nonrepetitive since

> 5=2+3 and 19=10+5+4. In fact, every perfect number

> is unitary nonrepetitive." --p.147

>

> Are these numbers the same as the pseudoperfects?

>

A subset of the pseudoperfects...

For example, take the number 66.

66 is pseudoperfect because it can be expressed:

66 = 11+22+33

66 = 2+3+6+22+33

66 is not unitary nonrepetitive because none of the ways of

expressing 66 as a sum of its distinct divisors include the

number 1.

Numbers which are pseudoperfect but not unitary nonrepetitive

include: 66, 78, 102, 114, 138, 174, 186, 222, 246, 258, 282,

318, 348, 354, 366, 372, 402, 414, 426, 438, 444, 474, 490,

492, 498, 516, 522, 534, 564, 580, 582, 606, 618, 636, 642,

644, 654, 678, 708, 726, 732, 738, 748, 762, 774, 786.

It is easy to see that any number of the form 6*p, with

prime p>=11, is pseudoperfect but not unitary nonrepetitive.

Similarly for any number of the form 12*p, with prime p>=29.