Perfect number: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
no need for the proof -- especially since it doesn't match the article's terminology; I will drop the McDaniel result (while difficult to prove, it doesn't show much) but keep Cohen's
(28 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 53: Line 53:


Any odd perfect number ''N'' must satisfy the following conditions:
Any odd perfect number ''N'' must satisfy the following conditions:
* ''N'' > 10<sup>300</sup>. A search is currently on to prove that ''N'' > 10<sup>500</sup>.<ref>[http://www.oddperfect.org Oddperfect.org]</ref>
* ''N'' > 10<sup>300</sup>. A search has tentatively shown that ''N'' > 10<sup>500</sup>, but this result is of yet unpublished.<ref>[http://www.oddperfect.org Oddperfect.org]</ref>
* ''N'' is of the form
* ''N'' is of the form
::<math>N=q^{\alpha} p_1^{2e_1} \ldots p_k^{2e_k}, </math>
::<math>N=q^{\alpha} p_1^{2e_1} \ldots p_k^{2e_k}, </math>
Line 60: Line 60:
:* ''q'' ≡ α ≡ 1 ([[Modular arithmetic|mod]] 4) (Euler).
:* ''q'' ≡ α ≡ 1 ([[Modular arithmetic|mod]] 4) (Euler).
:* The smallest prime factor of ''N'' is less than (2''k'' + 8) / 3 (Grün 1952).
:* The smallest prime factor of ''N'' is less than (2''k'' + 8) / 3 (Grün 1952).
:* The relation <math>e_1</math>≡<math>e_2</math>≡...≡<math>e_k</math> ≡ 1 ([[Modular arithmetic|mod]] 3) is not satisfied (McDaniel 1970).
:* Either ''q''<sup>α</sup> > 10<sup>20</sup>, or <math>p_j^{2e_j}</math> > 10<sup>20</sup> for some ''j'' (Cohen 1987).
:* Either ''q''<sup>α</sup> > 10<sup>20</sup>, or <math>p_j^{2e_j}</math> > 10<sup>20</sup> for some ''j'' (Cohen 1987).
:* <math>N<2^{4^{k+1}}</math> (Nielsen 2003).
:* <math>N<2^{4^{k+1}}</math> (Nielsen 2003).
* The largest prime factor of ''N'' is greater than 10<sup>8</sup> (Takeshi Goto and Yasuo Ohno, 2006).
* The largest prime factor of ''N'' is greater than 10<sup>8</sup> (Takeshi Goto and Yasuo Ohno, 2006).
* The second largest prime factor is greater than 10<sup>4</sup>, and the third largest prime factor is greater than 100 (Iannucci 1999, 2000).
* The second largest prime factor is greater than 10<sup>4</sup>, and the third largest prime factor is greater than 100 ([[Douglas Iannucci|Iannucci]] 1999, 2000).
* ''N'' has at least 75 prime factors and at least 9 distinct prime factors. If 3 is not one of the factors of ''N'', then ''N'' has at least 12 distinct prime factors (Nielsen 2006; [[Kevin Hare]] 2005).
* ''N'' has at least 75 prime factors and at least 9 distinct prime factors. If 3 is not one of the factors of ''N'', then ''N'' has at least 12 distinct prime factors (Nielsen 2006; [[Kevin Hare]] 2005).
* When <math>e_i</math> ≤ 2 for every ''i''
** The smallest prime factor of ''N'' is at least 739 (Cohen 1987).
** α ≡ 1 ([[Modular arithmetic|mod]] 12) or α ≡ 9 (mod 12) (McDaniel 1970).


In 1888, [[James Joseph Sylvester|Sylvester]] stated:<ref>The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester p. 590, tr. from "Sur les nombres dits de Hamilton", ''Compte Rendu de l'Assoiation Française'' (Toulouse, 1887), pp. 164–168.</ref>
In 1888, [[James Joseph Sylvester|Sylvester]] stated:<ref>The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester p. 590, tr. from "Sur les nombres dits de Hamilton", ''Compte Rendu de l'Assoiation Française'' (Toulouse, 1887), pp. 164–168.</ref>
Line 76: Line 72:
All even perfect numbers have a very precise form; odd perfect numbers are rare, if indeed they do exist. There are a number of results on perfect numbers that are actually quite easy to prove but nevertheless superficially impressive; some of them also come under [[Richard Guy]]'s [[strong law of small numbers]]:
All even perfect numbers have a very precise form; odd perfect numbers are rare, if indeed they do exist. There are a number of results on perfect numbers that are actually quite easy to prove but nevertheless superficially impressive; some of them also come under [[Richard Guy]]'s [[strong law of small numbers]]:
* An odd perfect number is not divisible by 105 (Kühnel 1949).
* An odd perfect number is not divisible by 105 (Kühnel 1949).
* Every odd perfect number is of the form 12''m'' + 1 or 36''m'' + 9 (Touchard 1953; Holdener 2002).
*Every odd perfect number is of the form 12''m'' + 1 or 324''m'' + 81 or 468''m'' + 117 (Roberts 2008).
* The only even perfect number of the form <math>x^3+1</math> is 28 (Makowski 1962).
* The only even perfect number of the form <math>x^3+1</math> is 28 (Makowski 1962).
* A [[Fermat number]] cannot be a perfect number (Luca 2000).
* The [[multiplicative inverse|reciprocals]] of the divisors of a perfect number ''N'' must add up to 2:
* The [[multiplicative inverse|reciprocals]] of the divisors of a perfect number ''N'' must add up to 2:
** For 6, we have <math>1/6 + 1/3 + 1/2+ 1/1 = 2</math>;
** For 6, we have <math>1/6 + 1/3 + 1/2+ 1/1 = 2</math>;
Line 93: Line 88:
==See also==
==See also==
* [[Perfection#Perfect numbers|Perfection]]
* [[Perfection#Perfect numbers|Perfection]]
* [[Jan Brożek#Life|Jan Brożek]]
* [[Jan Brożek]]


==Notes==
==Notes==
Line 105: Line 100:
* Otto Grün, "Über ungerade vollkommene Zahlen", ''Mathematische Zeitschrift'', 55 (1952), pp. 353–354.
* Otto Grün, "Über ungerade vollkommene Zahlen", ''Mathematische Zeitschrift'', 55 (1952), pp. 353–354.
* Kevin Hare, [http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kghare/Preprints/PDF/P20_OPN.pdf ''New techniques for bounds on the total number of prime factors of an odd perfect number.''] Preprint, 2005. Available from [http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kghare/Preprints/ his webpage].
* Kevin Hare, [http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kghare/Preprints/PDF/P20_OPN.pdf ''New techniques for bounds on the total number of prime factors of an odd perfect number.''] Preprint, 2005. Available from [http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kghare/Preprints/ his webpage].
* J.A. Holdener, "A theorem of Touchard and the form of odd perfect numbers", ''American Mathematical Monthly'', 109 (2002), pp. 661–663.
* Douglas E. Iannucci, "The second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds ten thousand", ''Mathematics of Computation'', 68:228 (1999), pp. 1749–1760.
* Douglas E. Iannucci, "The second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds ten thousand", ''Mathematics of Computation'', 68:228 (1999), pp. 1749–1760.
* Douglas E. Iannucci, "The third largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds one hundred", ''Mathematics of Computation'', 69:230 (2000), pp. 867–879.
* Douglas E. Iannucci, "The third largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds one hundred", ''Mathematics of Computation'', 69:230 (2000), pp. 867–879.
* H.-J. Kanold, "Untersuchungen über ungerade vollkommene Zahlen", ''Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik'', 183 (1941), pp. 98–109.
* H.-J. Kanold, "Untersuchungen über ungerade vollkommene Zahlen", ''Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik'', 183 (1941), pp. 98–109.
* Ullrich Kühnel, "Verschärfung der notwendigen Bedingungen für die Existenz von ungeraden vollkommenen Zahlen", ''Mathematische Zeitschrift'', 52 (1949), pp. 201–211.
* Ullrich Kühnel, "Verschärfung der notwendigen Bedingungen für die Existenz von ungeraden vollkommenen Zahlen", ''Mathematische Zeitschrift'', 52 (1949), pp. 201–211.
* Florian Luca, "The anti-social Fermat number", ''Amer. Math. Monthly'', 107 (2000), pp. 171–173.
* W. L. McDaniel, "The non-existence of odd perfect numbers of a certain form", ''Archiv der Mathematik'' (Basel), 21 (1970), pp. 52–53.
* Pace P. Nielsen, "[http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/vol3.html An upper bound for odd perfect numbers]," ''[http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/ Integers]'', 3 (2003), A14, 9 pp.
* Pace P. Nielsen, "[http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/vol3.html An upper bound for odd perfect numbers]," ''[http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/ Integers]'', 3 (2003), A14, 9 pp.
* Pace P. Nielsen, "Odd perfect numbers have at least nine different prime factors", ''Mathematics of Computation'', in press, 2006. {{arxiv|archive=math.NT|id=0602485}}.
* Pace P. Nielsen, "Odd perfect numbers have at least nine different prime factors", ''Mathematics of Computation'', in press, 2006. {{arxiv|archive=math.NT|id=0602485}}.
* T. Roberts, "On the Form of an Odd Perfect Number", ''Australian Mathematical Gazette'', 35:4 (2008), p244.
* R. Steuerwald, "Verschärfung einer notwendigen Bedingung für die Existenz einer ungeraden vollkommenen Zahl", ''S.-B. Bayer. Akad. Wiss.'', 1937, pp. 69–72.
* R. Steuerwald, "Verschärfung einer notwendigen Bedingung für die Existenz einer ungeraden vollkommenen Zahl", ''S.-B. Bayer. Akad. Wiss.'', 1937, pp. 69–72.
* J. Touchard, "On prime numbers and perfect numbers", ''[[Scripta Mathematica]]'', 19 (1953), pp. 35–39.
* Tomohiro Yamada, "Odd perfect numbers of a special form", ''Colloq. Math.'', 103 (2005), pp. 303–307.
</div>
</div>



Revision as of 13:32, 7 August 2009

In mathematics, a perfect number is defined as a positive integer which is the sum of its proper positive divisors, that is, the sum of the positive divisors excluding the number itself. Equivalently, a perfect number is a number that is half the sum of all of its positive divisors (including itself), or σ(n) = 2n.

The first perfect number is 6, because 1, 2, and 3 are its proper positive divisors, and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. Equivalently, the number 6 is equal to half the sum of all its positive divisors: ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 ) / 2 = 6.

The next perfect number is 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14. This is followed by the perfect numbers 496 and 8128 (sequence A000396 in the OEIS).

These first four perfect numbers were the only ones known to early Greek mathematics.

Even perfect numbers

Euclid discovered that the first four perfect numbers are generated by the formula 2n−1(2n − 1):

for n = 2:   21(22 − 1) = 6
for n = 3:   22(23 − 1) = 28
for n = 5:   24(25 − 1) = 496
for n = 7:   26(27 − 1) = 8128.

Noticing that 2n − 1 is a prime number in each instance, Euclid proved that the formula 2n−1(2n − 1) gives an even perfect number whenever 2n − 1 is prime (Euclid, Prop. IX.36).

Ancient mathematicians made many assumptions about perfect numbers based on the four they knew, but most of those assumptions would later prove to be incorrect. One of these assumptions was that since 2, 3, 5, and 7 are precisely the first four primes, the fifth perfect number would be obtained when n = 11, the fifth prime. However, 211 − 1 = 2047 = 23 × 89 is not prime and therefore n = 11 does not yield a perfect number. Two other wrong assumptions were:

  • The fifth perfect number would have five digits in base 10 since the first four had 1, 2, 3, and 4 digits respectively.
  • The perfect numbers' final digits would go 6, 8, 6, 8, alternately.

The fifth perfect number () has 8 digits, thus refuting the first assumption. For the second assumption, the fifth perfect number indeed ends with a 6. However, the sixth (8 589 869 056) also ends in a 6. It is straightforward to show that the last digit of any even perfect number must be 6 or 8.

In order for to be prime, it is necessary but not sufficient that should be prime. Prime numbers of the form 2n − 1 are known as Mersenne primes, after the seventeenth-century monk Marin Mersenne, who studied number theory and perfect numbers.

Over a millennium after Euclid, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) circa 1000 AD realized that every even perfect number is of the form 2n−1(2n − 1) where 2n − 1 is prime, but he was not able to prove this result.[1] It was not until the 18th century that Leonhard Euler proved that the formula 2n−1(2n − 1) will yield all the even perfect numbers. Thus, there is a concrete one-to-one association between even perfect numbers and Mersenne primes. This result is often referred to as the Euclid-Euler Theorem. As of June 2009, only 47 Mersenne primes are known,[2] which means there are 47 perfect numbers known, the largest being 243,112,608 × (243,112,609 − 1) with 25,956,377 digits.

The first 39 even perfect numbers are 2n−1(2n − 1) for

n = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 61, 89, 107, 127, 521, 607, 1279, 2203, 2281, 3217, 4253, 4423, 9689, 9941, 11213, 19937, 21701, 23209, 44497, 86243, 110503, 132049, 216091, 756839, 859433, 1257787, 1398269, 2976221, 3021377, 6972593, 13466917 (sequence A000043 in the OEIS).

The other 8 known are for n = 20996011, 24036583, 25964951, 30402457, 32582657, 37156667, 42643801, 43112609. It is not known whether there are others between them.

It is still uncertain whether there are infinitely many Mersenne primes and perfect numbers. The search for new Mersenne primes is the goal of the GIMPS distributed computing project.

Since any even perfect number has the form 2n−1(2n − 1), it is a triangular number, and, like all triangular numbers, it is the sum of all natural numbers up to a certain point; in this case: 2n − 1. Furthermore, any even perfect number except the first one is the sum of the first 2(n−1)/2 odd cubes:

Even perfect numbers (except 6) give remainder 1 when divided by 9. This can be reformulated as follows. Adding the digits of any even perfect number (except 6), then adding the digits of the resulting number, and repeating this process until a single digit is obtained — the resulting number is called the digital root — produces the number 1. For example, the digital root of 8128 = 1, since 8 + 1 + 2 + 8 = 19, 1 + 9 = 10, and 1 + 0 = 1.

Owing to their form, 2n−1(2n − 1), every perfect number is represented in binary as n 1s followed by n-1 0s:

610 = 1102
2810 = 111002
49610 = 1111100002

Odd perfect numbers

Unsolved problem in mathematics:

Are there any odd perfect numbers?

It is unknown whether there are any odd perfect numbers. Various results have been obtained, but none that has helped to locate one or otherwise resolve the question of their existence. Carl Pomerance has presented a heuristic argument which suggests that no odd perfect numbers exist.[3] Also, it has been conjectured that there are no odd Ore's harmonic numbers (except for 1). If true, this would imply that there are no odd perfect numbers.

Any odd perfect number N must satisfy the following conditions:

  • N > 10300. A search has tentatively shown that N > 10500, but this result is of yet unpublished.[4]
  • N is of the form
where:
  • q, p1, ..., pk are distinct primes (Euler).
  • q ≡ α ≡ 1 (mod 4) (Euler).
  • The smallest prime factor of N is less than (2k + 8) / 3 (Grün 1952).
  • Either qα > 1020, or > 1020 for some j (Cohen 1987).
  • (Nielsen 2003).
  • The largest prime factor of N is greater than 108 (Takeshi Goto and Yasuo Ohno, 2006).
  • The second largest prime factor is greater than 104, and the third largest prime factor is greater than 100 (Iannucci 1999, 2000).
  • N has at least 75 prime factors and at least 9 distinct prime factors. If 3 is not one of the factors of N, then N has at least 12 distinct prime factors (Nielsen 2006; Kevin Hare 2005).

In 1888, Sylvester stated:[5]

...a prolonged meditation on the subject has satisfied me that the existence of any one such [odd perfect number] — its escape, so to say, from the complex web of conditions which hem it in on all sides — would be little short of a miracle.

Minor results

All even perfect numbers have a very precise form; odd perfect numbers are rare, if indeed they do exist. There are a number of results on perfect numbers that are actually quite easy to prove but nevertheless superficially impressive; some of them also come under Richard Guy's strong law of small numbers:

  • An odd perfect number is not divisible by 105 (Kühnel 1949).
  • Every odd perfect number is of the form 12m + 1 or 324m + 81 or 468m + 117 (Roberts 2008).
  • The only even perfect number of the form is 28 (Makowski 1962).
  • The reciprocals of the divisors of a perfect number N must add up to 2:
    • For 6, we have ;
    • For 28, we have , etc.
  • The number of divisors of a perfect number (whether even or odd) must be even, since N cannot be a perfect square.
  • The even perfect numbers are not trapezoidal numbers; that is, they cannot be represented as the difference of two positive non-consecutive triangular numbers. There are only three types of non-trapezoidal numbers: even perfect numbers, powers of two, and a class of numbers formed from Fermat primes in a similar way to the construction of even perfect numbers from Mersenne primes. [clarification needed] [6]

Related concepts

The sum of proper divisors gives various other kinds of numbers. Numbers where the sum is less than the number itself are called deficient, and where it is greater than the number, abundant. These terms, together with perfect itself, come from Greek numerology. A pair of numbers which are the sum of each other's proper divisors are called amicable, and larger cycles of numbers are called sociable. A positive integer such that every smaller positive integer is a sum of distinct divisors of it is a practical number.

By definition, a perfect number is a fixed point of the restricted divisor function s(n) = σ(n) − n, and the aliquot sequence associated with a perfect number is a constant sequence.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham", MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews
  2. ^ http://www.mersenne.org/
  3. ^ Oddperfect.org
  4. ^ Oddperfect.org
  5. ^ The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester p. 590, tr. from "Sur les nombres dits de Hamilton", Compte Rendu de l'Assoiation Française (Toulouse, 1887), pp. 164–168.
  6. ^ Jones, Chris; Lord, Nick (1999), "Characterising non-trapezoidal numbers", The Mathematical Gazette, 83 (497): 262–263, doi:10.2307/3619053

References

  • Graeme L. Cohen, "On the largest component of an odd perfect number", Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, 42:2 (1987), pp. 280–286.
  • Euclid, Elements, Book IX, Proposition 36. See D.E. Joyce's website for a translation and discussion of this proposition and its proof.
  • Takeshi Goto and Yasuo Ohno, "Odd perfect numbers have a prime factor exceeding 108", Mathematics of Computation, in press, 2008. doi:10.1090/S0025-5718-08-02050-9.
  • Otto Grün, "Über ungerade vollkommene Zahlen", Mathematische Zeitschrift, 55 (1952), pp. 353–354.
  • Kevin Hare, New techniques for bounds on the total number of prime factors of an odd perfect number. Preprint, 2005. Available from his webpage.
  • Douglas E. Iannucci, "The second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds ten thousand", Mathematics of Computation, 68:228 (1999), pp. 1749–1760.
  • Douglas E. Iannucci, "The third largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds one hundred", Mathematics of Computation, 69:230 (2000), pp. 867–879.
  • H.-J. Kanold, "Untersuchungen über ungerade vollkommene Zahlen", Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 183 (1941), pp. 98–109.
  • Ullrich Kühnel, "Verschärfung der notwendigen Bedingungen für die Existenz von ungeraden vollkommenen Zahlen", Mathematische Zeitschrift, 52 (1949), pp. 201–211.
  • Pace P. Nielsen, "An upper bound for odd perfect numbers," Integers, 3 (2003), A14, 9 pp.
  • Pace P. Nielsen, "Odd perfect numbers have at least nine different prime factors", Mathematics of Computation, in press, 2006. arXiv:math.NT/0602485.
  • T. Roberts, "On the Form of an Odd Perfect Number", Australian Mathematical Gazette, 35:4 (2008), p244.
  • R. Steuerwald, "Verschärfung einer notwendigen Bedingung für die Existenz einer ungeraden vollkommenen Zahl", S.-B. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., 1937, pp. 69–72.

External links