arXiv:2106.08994v2 [math.GM] 1 Aug 2021 efc ubr n30B.H rvdta f2 if that and proved properties He studied BC. Euclid 300 theory. in number numbers in perfect topic studied well a is bu efc ubr eanusle.Tofmu conjecture famous Two are unsolved. st numbers remain But perfect numbers. numbers perfect perfect of mathem properties Later about the IX.36). study to Prop. years number(Elements, spent perfect even an is eoetesmo iiosof divisors of sum the denote ento 1.1. Definition Introduction 1 ∗ † .Teeeitifiieymn efc ubr.Elr[]poe th proved [1] Euler numbers. perfect many infinitely exist There 1. esrn bnac ihAudnyIndex Abundancy with Abundance Measuring h rtfwpretnmesae6 are numbers perfect few first The mi address: Email mi address: Email eeecso hstpcae[] 3,[4]. [3], Some [2], are primes. topic Mersenne this many on equivalen infinitely references is exist conjecture there this that Therefore conjecture primes. Mersenne as known 2 e sa vnpretnmesi tcnb rte s2 as written be can it iff numbers perfect even an is ber h u fdvsr of divisors of sum the bnac ne.Uigti ucinw en e ls fn of class Hypothesis. new Riemann super with a study connection we define their Finally we and numbers. numbers function superabundant as this discuss known and Using bers Index Abundancy Index. of Abundancy properties different study we n h ucinAudnyIndex Abundancy function the fine p − oiieinteger positive A sas rm ubr rmsnmeso h om2 form the of numbers Primes number. prime a also is 1 ninIsiueo ehooyKaapr India Kharagpur, Technology of Institute Indian [email protected] [email protected] oiieinteger positive A rsdnyUiest,Kolkata University, Presidency n n scle efc if perfect called is nti ae esuyteratio the study we paper this In . ornsuGhosh Sourangshu n . apkGuha Kalpok Abstract n orsodn author Corresponding ; scle efc if perfect called is 1 , I 28 : , N 496 → σ p ( , − ∗ n Q 8128 2 = ) sapie hn2 then prime, a is 1 with † ... , n where , I σ OI 009) This A000396), (OEIS ( n ( = ) n 2 = ) l ayquestions many ill σ σ ( n σ n p ( − ( ) n n h e of set the abundant n ede- We . n 1 denote ) ) tcashave aticians (2 where , Then . eae to related s p p − tanum- a at um- p − aueof nature 1 − othe to t (2 )and 1) p are 1 good σ − ( n 1) ) 1 INTRODUCTION 2
2. There do not exist exist any odd perfect numbers. Computation of Lower Bounds for the smallest perfect numbers have been done by many mathe- maticians. Kanold (1957) [5] found the bound 1020, Tuckerman (1973) [6] found the bound 1036, Hagis (1973) [7]found the bound 1050, Brent and Cohen (1989) [8] found the bound 10160, Brent et al. (1991) [9] found the bound 10300. The best bound till today is 101500 by Ochem and Rao (2012) [10]. The odd perfect numbers if exist must be of the form p4λ+1Q2, where p is a prime of the form 4n + 1 as proven by Euler [11] [12].Touchard [13] and Holdener [14] proved that the odd perfect numbers if exist must be of the form 12k +1 or 36k + 1. Stuyvaert [15] proved that the odd perfect numbers if exist must be must be a sum of two squares. Greathouse and Weisstein [16] alternatively writes that any odd perfect number must be of the form α 2β1 2βr N = p q1 ...qr where all the primes are odd. Also p ≡ α ≡ 1( mod 4). Steuerwald [17] and Yamada [18] proved that all the βis cannot be 1. Odd perfect numbers have a large number of distinct prime factors. The odd perfect number if exist must have at least 6 distinct prime factors, as proved by Gradshtein [19]. This was extended to 8 by Haggis [20]. If there are 8 the number must be divisible by 15, as proved by Voight [21]. Norton [22] proved that odd perfect numbers must have at least 15 and 27 distinct prime factors if the number is not divisible by 3 or 5 and 3, 5, or 7 respectively. Neilsen [23] extended the bound by showing that odd perfect numbers should have at least 9 distinct prime factors and if it is not divisible by 3 it should have at least 12 distinct prime factors. Hare [24] shown that any odd perfect number must have at least 75 prime factors. The method used by Hare involves factorization of several large numbers [12] [24].The best lower bound is by Ochem and Rao (2012) [10], who prove that any odd perfect number must have at least 101 prime factors. Odd perfect numbers must have the largest prime factor very large. The first such lower bound was proved by Haggis [25], who proved every Odd Perfect Number has a Prime Factor which exceeds 106. Iannucci [26] [27], Jenkins [28], Goto and Ohno [29] proved that the largest three factors must be at least 100000007, 10007, and 101 [12]. Two other related concepts are abundant numbers and deficient numbers. Definition 1.2. A positive integer n is called an abundant number if σ(n) > 2n. Definition 1.3. A positive integer n is called a deficient number if σ(n) < 2n. To study these interesting properties of these beautiful numbers we define Abundancy Index. That was defined by Laatsch [30]. Definition 1.4. For a positive integer n, the Abundancy index I(n) is defined σ(n) as I(n)= n . 2 PROPERTIES 3
More generally Abundancy Index can be considered as a measure of per- fection of an integer. We can easily observe a positive integer is perfect when I(n) = 2 and n is abundant or deficient when I(n) > 2 or I(n) < 2 respectively. Positive integers with integer valued Abundancy indices are called multiper- fect numbers. In this article we study different properties about Abundancy Index and to try generalize the Abundancy index of any positive integer n.
2 Properties
Theorem 2.1. The abundancy index function I(n) is a multiplicative function. Proof. Let m,n be any two co-prime positive integers. Using the multiplicativity of σ function [11]. σ(mn) σ(m)σ(n) σ(m) σ(n) I(mn)= = = = I(m)I(n) mn mn m n
Theorem 2.2. (Laatsch [30]): I(kn) ≥ I(n) for all k ∈ N. The equality condition holds iff k =1. Corollary 2.1. Every proper multiple of a perfect number is abundant and every proper divisor of a perfect number is deficient. Corollary 2.2. There are infinitely many abundant numbers. Remark 2.1. It is easy to see that there are infinitely many deficient numbers. Indeed, all prime numbers are deficient, as σ(p)= p +1 < 2p.
1 σ(n) 1 1 n 1 I(n)= , I(n)= = d = = (1) X d n n X n X d X d d|n d|n d|n d|n Theorem 2.3. (Laatsch [30]): The I(n) is function is unbounded. Proof. We discuss two proofs of this theorem. The first proof goes like this
∞ 1 Let m be any real number. We know the series Pi=1 i is divergent. Hence N N 1 for given m ∃N ∈ Pi=1 i > m. Let us take n0 = lcm(1, 2, ··· ,N). Hence we get I(n ) = 1 ≥ N 1 . Thus for any real m∃n ∈ N I(n ) > m. 0 Pd|n0 d Pi=1 i 0 0 Therefore I(n) is not bounded above.
The second proof goes like this
k For n0 =2 · 3 ··· pk = Qi=1 pi i.e the product of first k primes. Therefore k k 1 1 I(n0)= Y(1 + ) > X pi pi i=1 i=1 2 PROPERTIES 4
k 1 1 . Or, I(n0) > . Now the series is divergent, as proven by Pi=1 pi Pprime p Euler [31]. Hence we can say I(n) is not bounded above. Theorem 2.4. For any r ∈ R there are infinitely many n such that I(n) > r.
Proof. By Theorem 3 we see for any r ∈ R∃n0 ∈ N such that I(n0) > r. By using Theorem 2 we get I(kn0) ≥ I(n0) for any positive integer k. Therefore I(kn0) > r∀k ∈ N. As there are infinitely many choices for k, there are infinitely many n such that I(n) > r.
k αi k pi+1 Theorem 2.5. If n = p where the pi are distinct primes, then ≤ Qi=1 i Qi=1 pi I(n) ≤ k pi Qi=1 pi−1 Proof. Consider p to be a prime and α any positive integer. Now as proven earlier in (1), we have 1 1 1 1 I(pα)= =1+ + + ··· + X d p p2 pα d|pα By using the inequality
∞ 1 1 1 1 1 1+ ≤ 1+ + + ··· + ≤ p p p2 pα X pi i=1 We get p +1 p ≤ I(pα) ≤ (2) p p − 1 Now since I is multiplicative function(Theorem 1)
k k αi αi I(n)= I(Y pi )= Y I(pi ) (3) i=1 i=1
Using the inequality (1) we get
k k k pi +1 αi pi Y ≤ Y I(pi ) ≤ Y pi pi − 1 i=1 i=1 i=1
Using the identity mentioned in (3)
k k pi +1 pi Y ≤ I(n) ≤ Y pi pi − 1 i=1 i=1 So we get our desired result. 3 SET OF ABUNDANCY INDICES 5
3 Set of Abundancy Indices
As we study the function I : N → Q, many questions arise. For example, is every rational q ≥ 1 the Abundancy index of some integer? Many Mathematicians have tried to study the set of Abundancy indices, Laatsch [30] shown the set D = {I(n): n ≥ 2} is dense in (1, ∞). Later Weiner [32] showed there exists rationals which are not the Abundancy index of any integer. In 2007 Stanon and Holdener [34] defined Abundancy Outlaw. An Abundancy outlaw is a rational greater than 1 that not an Abundancy index of integer, in other words it is not in the image map of the map I. Theorem 3.1. (Laatsch [30]): D = {I(n): n ≥ 2} is dense in (1, ∞). Definition 3.1. A rational number q > 1 is said to be an Abundancy outlaw if I(n)= q has no solution in N. Theorem 3.2. (Wein [32]): If k is relatively prime to m and m 5/4, 7/6, 9/8, 10/9, 11/6, 11/8, 11/9, 11/10, 13/8, 13/10, 13/12, 15/14, 16/15, ... The previous theorem was also proven by Anderson [33]. The theorem implies k+1 k+2 that k is an Abundancy index if and only if k is prime,also k is an Abun- dancy outlaw whenever k is an odd composite number. This is a very important result shown by Weiner, which concludes that there are rationals in (1, ∞) which are not Abundancy index of any integer. This can be proven using Theorem 3.2. Theorem 3.3. (Wein [32]): The set of Abundacy outlaws is dense in (1, ∞). In the next three theorems we are giving few general forms of abundancy outlaw, which were studied by Holdener and Stanton [34]. These are some particular cases of proven results by Holdener [35]. For the original general results someone may look into the original paper of Holdener [35]. Theorem 3.4 is really just the special case of Theorem 3.5 with p = 2. Theorem 3.4. For all primes p> 3, σ(2p)+1 2p σ(2p)+1 is an Abundancy outlaw. If p =2 or p =3 then 2p is an Abundancy index. σ(2p)+1 For p =2or p = 3, it is easy to see that 2p is an Abundancy index since σ(4)+1 σ(6)+1 I(6) = 4 and I(18) = 6 . By substituting σ(p)=3+3p we can get an σ(2p)+1 3p+4 explicit expression. Note that 2p = 2p is in lowest terms. Therefore if 3 SET OF ABUNDANCY INDICES 6 σ(2p)+1 I(n)= 2p , then 2p|n. Now since p> 3, we have I(4p) > (σ(2p)+1)/2p, so 4 6 |N. Hence we have, σ(2)|σ(N). Also note that since σ(2p) + 1 is not divisible by σ(2) = 3, 3 divides N. Therefore we can write I(n) > I(6p) > 2 > I(4p) > σ(2p)+1)/2p We hence arrive at a contradiction. Hence (σ(2p) +1)/2p is an Abundancy outlaw. Example of such outlaws given by Holdener and Stanton [34] are 19 25 37 43 55 61 73 91 97 115 127 133 145 163 181 187 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ... 10 14 22 26 34 38 46 58 62 74 82 86 94 106 118 122 Theorem 3.5. For primes p, q with q> 3, q>p and gcd(p, q +2) = gcd(q,p + 2)=1, σ(pq)+1 pq is an Abundancy outlaw. Note that if p and q = p + 2 are twin primes then Theorem 3.5 does not hold true. We get σ(p(p +2))+1 σ(p)+1 p +2 = = p(p + 2) p p p+2 Abundancy index satisfying I(x)= p has been studied by Ryan [36]. It is still not known whether any such example exist. The existence of such a solution 5 3+2 is important since if 3 = 3 is an Abundancy index then there must exist an odd perfect number. A similar example can be made about Theorem 3.5 as we have done earlier for Theorem 3.4. For this we assume that the two odd primes p, q, satisfying q ≡ 1(modp). Then p 6 |q + 2 and q 6 |p+2 .Now by Dirichlet’s theorem on arithmetic progressions of primes, we know that there are infinitely many such pairs of odd primes p, q. Example of such outlaws given by Holdener and Stanton [34] are For p =5 73 193 253 373 433 613 793 913 1093 1153 1273 1513 1633 , , , , , , , , , , , , 55 155 205 305 355 505 655 755 905 955 1055 1255 1355 1693 1873 1993 2413 2533 , , , , , .. 1405 1555 1655 2005 2105 For p =7 241 353 577 913 1025 1585 1697 1921 2257 2705 3041 3377 3601 , , , , , , , , , , , , 203 301 497 791 889 1379 1477 1673 1967 2359 2653 2947 3143 3713 3937 4385 4945 , , , .. 3241 3437 3829 4319 For p = 11 289 817 1081 2401 3985 4249 4777 5041 5569 7417 7945 8209 8737 , , , , , , , , , , , , 253 737 979 2189 3641 3883 4367 4609 5093 6787 7271 7513 7997 10321 10585 11377 , , , ... 9449 9691 10417 4 SUPERABUNDANT NUMBERS 7 σ(2N)+1 Theorem 3.6. If N is an even perfect number, then 2N is an abundancy outlaw. 4 Superabundant Numbers Definition 4.1. A positive integer n is called superabundant if I(m) < I(n) ∀m Proof. Let us assume there are finitely many superabundant numbers and n is the largest superabundant number. So (I(m) < I(n) for all m>n. Now let us consider the integer 2n. By Theorem 2 we know I(2n) > I(n). So I(m) < I(2n). But 2n cannot be a superabundant number. So ∃n0 I(n0) > I(2n) and n I(n0) > I(2n) > I(n) > I(m) for all m ∞ 1 1 1 1 1 ζ(s)= = + + + + ... X ns 1s 2s 3s 4s n=1 1 has non-trivial zeros only at the complex numbers with real part 2 . This conjecture is of significant interest to number theorists since this result has direct consequences in the distribution of prime numbers. In 1984 Robin [49] proved a surprising result. He showed an equivalence between Riemann Hypothesis and an bound to the Abundancy Index. γ 0.6483 Theorem 4.2. (Robin [49]): For n ≥ 3 we have I(n) Theorem 4.3. (Robin [49]): The Riemann Hypothesis is true if and only if I(n) log x log log x Theorem 4.5. (Alaoglu [37]): S(x) >c (log log log x)2 Erd˝os and Nicholas [47] proved a more stronger inequality. 1+δ Theorem 4.6. (Nicholas [47]): S(x) > (log x) (x > x0) for every δ < 5/48. So we finally see that abundancy index and superabundant numbers have a very close connection with Riemann Hypothesis. One may try to prove or disprove Riemann Hypothesis with the help of Theorem 4.3. To disprove Riemann’s Hypothesis it enough to get a counterexample to Robin’s inequality, one might try to find it computationally and Theorem 4.4 will definitely make his or her job easier. References [1] Euler, Leonhard (1849), ”De numeris amicibilibus” [On amicable numbers], Commentationes arithmeticae (in Latin), 2, pp. 627–636. [2] Gerstein, Larry (2012), Introduction to Mathematical Structures and Proofs, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, Theorem 6.94, p. 339, ISBN 9781461442653. [3] Caldwell, Chris K., ”A proof that all even perfect numbers are a power of two times a Mersenne prime”, Prime Pages, retrieved 2014-12-02. [4] Travaglini, Giancarlo (2014), Number Theory, Fourier Analysis and Geomet- ric Discrepancy, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 81, Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–27, ISBN 9781107044036. [5] Kanold, H.-J. ”Uber¨ mehrfach vollkommene Zahlen. II.” J. reine angew. Math. 197, 82-96, 1957. [6] Tuckerman, B. ”Odd Perfect Numbers: A Search Procedure, and a New Lower Bound of 10(36).” Not. Amer. Math. Soc. 15, 226, 1968. [7] Hagis, P. Jr. ”A Lower Bound for the Set of Odd Perfect Numbers.” Math. Comput. 27, 951-953, 1973. [8] Brent, R. P. and Cohen, G. L. ”A New Bound for Odd Perfect Numbers.” Math. Comput. 53, 431-437 and S7-S24, 1989. [9] Brent, R. P.; Cohen, G. L.; te Riele, H. J. J. ”Improved Techniques for Lower Bounds for Odd Perfect Numbers.” Math. Comput. 57, 857-868, 1991. [10] Ochem, P. and Rao, M. ”Odd Perfect Numbers Are Greater than 10(15000).” Math. Comput. 81, 1869-1877, 2012. [11] Burton, D. M. Elementary Number Theory, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. REFERENCES 10 [12] Weisstein, Eric W. ”Fermat’s 4n+1 Theo- rem.” From MathWorld–A Wolfram Web Resource. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fermats4nPlus1Theorem.html [13] Touchard, J. ”On Prime Numbers and Perfect Numbers.” Scripta Math. 19, 35-39, 1953. [14] Holdener, J. A. ”A Theorem of Touchard and the Form of Odd Perfect Numbers.” Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 661-663, 2002. [15] Dickson, L. E. History of the Theory of Numbers, Vol. 1: Divisibility and Primality. New York: Dover, pp. 3-33, 2005. [16] Greathouse, Charles and Weisstein, Eric W. ”Odd Per- fect Number.” From MathWorld–A Wolfram Web Resource. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/OddPerfectNumber.html [17] Steuerwald, R. ”Verscharfung einen notwendigen Bedingung fur die Exis- tenz einen ungeraden vollkommenen Zahl.” Sitzungsber. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., 69-72, 1937. [18] Yamada, T. ”On the Divisibility of Odd Perfect Numbers by a High Power of a Prime.” 16 Nov 2005. https://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0511410. [19] Ball, W. W. R. and Coxeter, H. S. M. Mathematical Recreations and Es- says, 13th ed. New York: Dover, 1987. [20] Hagis, P. Jr. ”An Outline of a Proof that Every Odd Perfect Number has at Least Eight Prime Factors.” Math. Comput. 34, 1027-1032, 1980. [21] Voight, J. ”On the Nonexistence of Odd Perfect Numbers.” MASS Selecta. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 293-300, 2003. [22] Norton, K. K. ”Remarks on the Number of Factors of an Odd Perfect Number.” Acta Arith. 6, 365-374, 1960. [23] Nielsen, P. P. ”Odd Perfect Numbers Have at Least Nine Distinct Prime Factors.” 22 Feb 2006. https://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0602485. [24] Hare, K. ”New Techniques for Bounds on the Total Number of Prime Fac- tors of an Odd Perfect Number.” Math. Comput. 74, 1003-1008, 2005. [25] Hagis, P. Jr.; and Cohen, G. L. ”Every Odd Perfect Number Has a Prime Factor Which Exceeds 106.” Math. Comput. 67, 1323-1330, 1998. [26] Iannucci, D. E. ”The Second Largest Prime Divisor of an Odd Perfect Number Exceeds Ten Thousand.” Math. Comput. 68, 1749-1760, 1999. [27] Iannucci, D. E. ”The Third Largest Prime Divisor of an Odd Perfect Num- ber Exceeds One Hundred.” Math. Comput. 69, 867-879, 2000. REFERENCES 11 [28] Jenkins, P. M. ”Odd Perfect Numbers Have a Prime Factor Exceeding 107.” Math. Comput. 72, 1549-1554, 2003. [29] Goto, T. and Ohno, Y. ”Odd Perfect Numbers Have a Prime Factor Exceeding 108” Preprint, Mar. 2006. https://www.ma.noda.tus.ac.jp/u/tg/perfect.html. [30] Laatsch, R. (1986). Measuring the Abundancy of Integers. Mathematics Magazine, 59(2), 84-92. [31] Euler, Leonhard (1737). ”Variae observationes circa series infinitas” [Var- ious observations concerning infinite series]. Commentarii Academiae Scien- tiarum Petropolitanae. 9: 160–188. [32] Weiner, P. (2000). The Abundancy Ratio, a Measure of Perfection. Math- ematics Magazine, 73(4), 307-310. [33] C. W. Anderson, The solution of P(n)= σ(n)/n = a/b, Φ(n)= φ(n)/n = a/b and some related considerations, unpublished manuscript, 1974 [34] Stanton, William and Holdener, Judy. (2007). Abundancy “outlaws” of the σ(N)+t form N . Journal of Integer Sequences [electronic only]. [35] J. Holdener, Conditions equivalent to the existence of oddperfect num- bers,Math. Mag.79(2006), 389–391 [36] R. Ryan, Results concerning uniqueness for σ(x)/x = σ(pn ∗ qm)/(pn ∗ qm) and related topics, Int. Math. J. 2 (2002), 497–514. [37] Alaoglu, L., and Erdos, P. (1944). On Highly Composite and Similar Num- bers. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 56(3), 448-469. [38] S. Ramanujan, Highly composite numbers, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 14 (1915), 347–407. [39] S. Ramanujan, Collected Papers, Chelsea, 1962. [40] S. Ramanujan (annotated by J.-L. Nicolas and G. Robin), Highly composite numbers, Ramanujan J. 1 (1997), 119–153. [41] Sloane, N. J. A. (ed.). ”Sequence A001620 (Decimal expansion of Euler’s constant (or the Euler-Mascheroni constant), gamma)”. The On-Line Ency- clopedia of Integer Sequences. OEIS Foundation. [42] T. H. Gronwall, Some asymptotic expressions in the theory of numbers, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1913), 113–122. [43] Wojtowicz, Marek. (2007). Robin’s inequality and the Riemann hypothesis. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series A, Mathematical Sciences. 83. 10.3792/pjaa.83.47. REFERENCES 12 [44] J. C. Lagarias, An elementary problem equivalent to the Riemann hypoth- esis, American Mathematical Monthly 109 (2002), pp. 534–543. [45] Y. Choie, N. Lichiardopol, P. Moree, and P. Sol´e, On Robin’s criterion for the Riemann hypothesis, J. Th´eor. Nombres Bordeaux 19 (2007), 357–372. [46] Akbary, A., and Friggstad, Z. (2009). Superabundant Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis. The American Mathematical Monthly, 116(3), 273-275. [47] Erd˝os, P. and Nicolas, J.-L. R´epartition des nombres superabondants, Bull. Soc. Math. France 103 (1975) 65–90. [48] Riemann, Bernhard (1859), ”Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Gr¨osse”, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie. In Gesammelte Werke, Teubner, Leipzig (1892) [49] Robin, G . Grandes valeurs de la fonction somme de diviseurs et hypoth‘ese de Riemann,J. Math. Pure Appl. (9) 63 (1984) 187–213. [50] Briggs,K. Abundant numbers and the Riemann hypothesis. Experiment. Math. 15 (2006),251–256.