A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
Empty
 one year ago
Interesting observation I wanted to share about perfect numbers.
Empty
 one year ago
Interesting observation I wanted to share about perfect numbers.

This Question is Closed

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4\(\phi(n)\) is the Euler totient function, \(\tau(n)\) is the divisor counting function, and the notation at the bottom of the sum \(cn\) means sum over all the composite divisors, c, of the number n. \[\phi (n) = \sum_{cn}\phi(\frac{n}{c})[ \tau(c)2]\] This is true for all perfect numbers, whether they're even or odd.

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4Quick example: \[\phi(6) = \phi(\frac{6}{6}) [\tau(6) 2] = 1*(42)=2\] Ok so the only composite divisor of 6 is 6 itself, so not a very exciting sum, so how about a different perfect number: \[\phi(28) = \phi(\frac{28}{4}) [\tau(4)2] + \phi(\frac{28}{14}) [\tau(14)2] + \phi(\frac{28}{28}) [\tau(28)2] = 12\]

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4Ok examples done (shoddily I'll admit and poorly explained but no one's asking and just sorta pushing this out for other people who might be interested before I type this up in latex for myself, but feel free to ask anything about any aspect about this) Proof: Perfect numbers obey this relationship: \[\sigma(n)=2n\] \[\sigma(n)2n=0\] Two Dirichlet convolution identities: \[\sigma = \phi \star \tau\]\[n = \phi \star u\] Combining these with the perfect number relationship: \[0 = \sigma2n = \phi \star \tau  2 \phi \star u = \phi \star (\tau 2 u)\] Expanding it out the summation implied by the Dirichlet convolution: \[0 = \sum_{dn} \phi(\frac{n}{d})[\tau(d)2] \] Since \(\tau(1)=1\) and for any prime p = d, \(\tau(p)=2\) then we see al the prime divisors will leave this expression and the only negative one will be when \(\tau(1)2=1\), so I pull this term out and then relabel the divisors to be c instead of d to indicate they are only the composite divisors. \[0 =\phi(\frac{n}{1})[\tau(1)2]+ \sum_{cn} \phi(\frac{n}{c})[\tau(c)2] \] \[\phi(n)= \sum_{cn} \phi(\frac{n}{c})[\tau(c)2] \] So there it is. Maybe there's more that can be done with this, just playing around this afternoon.

abb0t
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1what about the relationship shared between the two numbers 27 and 37? Eh?

ganeshie8
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0dw:1439628528383:dw

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4@ganeshie8 Kind of, u is standing in for the unit function, \(u(n)=1\). I'm trying to work something out but I can't seem to find my error. I'm trying to show that this is true for all the even perfect numbers by plugging in the formula for Mersenne primes.

ganeshie8
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0lol okay, i mistook it for mobius \(\mu\) initially

ganeshie8
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0you don't believe above statement works in general ?

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4Also in a sense I kind of am writing the formulas in an opposite order, since we start here: \[n = \phi \star u\] Now we can convolve both sides of this with \(u\) to get: \[n \star u = \phi \star u \star u\] We recognize that: \[u \star u = \tau\] and \[n \star u = \sigma\] so we have derived this one: \[\sigma = \phi \star \tau\]

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4The formula I've derived specifically only works for perfect numbers and should fail for all others. Why? Because I have used this fact to derive everything: \[\sigma(n)=2n\] So really I've used Dirichlet convolutions to algebraically manipulate this into a different form, but has the same content.

ganeshie8
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0right, all perfect numbers must satisfy above relation

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4For example, it's clear there are no perfect numbers that are prime numbers from this formula since it's a summation over composite numbers we would get this: \[\phi(p) = 0\] When in fact we know for primes \[\phi(p)=p1\]

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.4Of course we knew this anyways since \(\sigma(p)=1+p \ne 2p\) so whatever haha.
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.