Chapter 1

PERFECT NUMBERS: OLD AND NEW ISSUES; PERSPECTIVES

1.1

Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to survey the most important and interesting notions, results, extensions, generalizations related to perfect numbers. Many old, as well as new open problems will be stated, which will motivate - we do hope - many further research. This is one of the oldest subjects of Mathematics, with a considerable history. Some basic historical facts will be presented, as this will underline too our strong opinion on the role of perfect numbers in the development of Mathematics. It is sufficient to only mention here Fermat’s ”little theorem” of considerable importance in Number theory, Algebra, and more recently in Criptography. This theorem states that for all primes p and all positive integers a, p divides a p − a. Fermat discovered this result by studying perfect numbers, and trying to elaborate a theory of these numbers. One more example is the theory of primes in special sequences, and generally the classical theory of primes. Even perfect numbers involve the so called ”Mersenne primes”, of great importance in many parts of Number theory. Currently, about 39 such primes are known (39 as of 14-XI-2001, see e.g. http://www.stormloader.com/ajy/perfect/html), giving 39 known perfect numbers, all even. Recently (at the end of 2003) the 40th perfect number has been discovered. No odd perfect numbers are known, but we shall see on the part containing this theme, the most important and up-to-date results obtained along the centuries. An extension 15

CHAPTER 1

of perfect numbers are the ”amicable numbers” having a same old history, with considerable interest for many mathematicians. Many results, more generalizations, connections, analogies will be pointed out. Here the theory is filled again by a lot of unsolved problems. Along with the extensions of the notion of divisibility, there appeared many new notions of perfect numbers. These are e.g. the unitary perfect-, nonunitary perfect, biunitary perfect-, exponential perfect-, infinitary perfect-, hyperperfect-, integer perfect-, etc., numbers. On the other hand, there appeared also the necessity of studying, by analogy with the classical case, such notions as: superperfect-, almost perfect-, quasiperfect-, pseudoperfect (or semi-perfect), multiplicatively perfect, etc., numbers. Some authors use different terminologies, so one aim is also to fix in the literature the exact terminologies and notations. Our aim is also to include results and references from papers published in certain little known journals (or unpublished results, obtained by personal communication to the authors).

1.2

Some historical facts

It is not exactly known when perfect numbers were first introduced, but it is quite possible that the Egypteans would have come across such numbers, given the way their methods of calculation worked (”unit fractions”, ”Egyptean fractions”). These numbers were studied by their mystical properties by Pythagoras, and his followers. For the Pythagorean school the ”parts” of a number are their divisors. A number which can be built up from their parts (i.e. summing their divisors) should be indeed wonderful, perfectly made by the God. God created the world in six days, and the number of days it takes the Moon to travel round the Earth is nothing else than 28. (For the number mysticism by Pythagoras’ school see U. Dudley [85]). These are the first two perfect numbers. The four perfect numbers 6, 28, 496 and 8128 seem to have been known from ancient times, and there is no record of these discoveries. The first recorded result concerning perfect numbers which is known occurs in Euclid’s ”Elements” (written around 300BC), namely in Proposition 36 of Book IX: ”If as many numbers as we please beginning from a unit be set out continuously in double proportion, until the sum of all becomes a prime, and if the sum multiplied into the last make some number, the product will be perfect.” Here ”double proportion” means that each number of the sequence is twice the preceding number. Since 1 + 2 + 4 + · · · + 2k−1 = 2k − 1, the proposition states that: If, for some k > 1, 2k − 1 is prime, then 2k−1 (2k − 1) is perfect. 16

(1)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Here we wish to mention another source for perfect numbers (usually overlooked by the Historians of mathematics) in ancient times, namely Plato’s Republic, where the so-called periodic perfect numbers were introduced. It is remarkable that 2000 years later when Euler proves the converse of (1) (published posthumously, see [97]) he makes no references to Euclid. However, Euler makes reference to Plato’s periodic perfect numbers. M. A. Popov [243] says that Euler’s proof was probably inspired by Plato. Another early reference seems to be at Euphorion (see J. L. Lightfoot [191]) a poet of the third century, B.C. The following significant study of perfect numbers was made by Nichomachus of Gerasa. Around 100 AD he wrote his famous ”Introductio Arithmetica” [227], which gives a classification of numbers into three classes: abundant numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is greater than the number, deficient numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is less than the number, and perfect numbers. Nicomachus used this classification also in moral terms, or biological analogies: ”... in the case of too much, is produced excess, superfluity, exaggerations and abuse; in the case of too little, is produced wanting, defaults, privations and insufficiencies...” ”... abundant numbers are like an animal with ten mouths, or nine lips, and provided with three lines of teeth; or with a hundred arms...” ”... deficient numbers are like animals with a single eye,... one armed or one of his hands, less than five fingers, or if he does not have a tongue.” In the book by Nicomachus there appear five unproved results concerning perfect numbers: (a) the n-th perfect number has n digits; (b) all perfect numbers are even; (c) all perfect numbers end in 6 and 8 alternately; (d) every perfect number is of the form 2k−1 (2k − 1), for some k > 1, with 2k − 1 = prime; (e) there are infinitely many perfect numbers. Despite the fact that Nicomachus offered no justification of his assertions, they were taken as fact for many years. The discovery of other perfect numbers disproved immediately assertions (a) and (c). On the other hand, assertions (b), (d), (e) remain unproved practically even in our days. The Arab mathematicians were also fascinated by perfect numbers and Thabit ibn Quarra wrote ”Treatise on amicable numbers” in which he examined when numbers of the form 2n p ( p prime) can be perfect. He proved also ”Thabit’s rule” (see the section with amicable numbers). Ibn al-Haytham proved a partial converse to Euclid’s proposition (1), in the unpublished work ”Treatise on analysis and synthesis” (see [247]).

17

CHAPTER 1

Among the Arab mathematicians who take up the Greek investigation of perfect numbers with great enthusiasm was Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn Fallus (1194-1239) who wrote a treatise based on Nicomachus’ above mentioned text. He gave also a table of ten numbers claiming to be perfect. The first seven are correct, and in fact these are indeed the first seven perfect numbers. For details of this work see the papers by S. Brentjes [36], [37]. The fifth perfect number was rediscovered by Regiomontanus during his stay at the University of Vienna, which he left in 1461 (see [235]). It has also been found in a manuscript written by an anonymous author around 1458, while the fifth and sixth perfect numbers have been found in another manuscript by the some author, shortly after 1460. The fifth perfect number is 33550336, and the sixth is 8589869056. These show that Nicomachus’ first claims (a) and (c) are false, since the fifth perfect number has 8 digits, and the fifth and sixth perfect numbers both ended in 6. In 1536 Hudalrichus Regius published ”Utriusque Arithmetices” in which he found the first prime p ( p = 11) such that 2 p−1 (2 p − 1) = 2047 = 23 · 89 is not perfect. In 1603 Cataldi found the factors of all numbers up to 800 and also a table of all primes up to 750. He used his list of primes to check that 219 − 1 = 524287 was prime, so he had found the seventh perfect number 137438691328. Among the many mathematicians interested in perfect numbers one should mention Descartes, who in 1638 in a letter to Mersenne wrote ([72]): ”... Perfect numbers are very few... as few are the perfect men...” In this sense see also a Persian manuscript [331]. ”I think I am able to prove there are no even numbers which are perfect apart from those of Euclid; and that there are no odd perfect numbers, unless they are composed of a single prime number, multiplied by a square whose root is composed of several other prime number. But I can see nothing which would prevent one from finding numbers of this sort... But, whatever method one might use, it would require a great deal of time to look for these numbers...” The next major contribution was made by Fermat [225], [313]. He told Roberval in 1636 that he was working on the topic and, although the problems were very difficult, he intended to publish a treatise on the topic. The treatise would never been written, perhaps because Fermat didn’t achieve the substantial results he had hoped. In June 1640 Fermat wrote a letter to Mersenne telling him about his discoveries on perfect numbers. Shortly after writing to Mersenne, Fermat wrote to Frenicle de Bessy, by generalizing the results in the earlier letter. In his investigations Fermat used three theorems: (a) if n is composite, then 2n − 1 is composite; (b) if n is prime, a n − a is multiple of n; (c) if n is prime, p is a divisor of 2n − 1, then p − 1 is a multiple of n.

18

PERFECT NUMBERS

Using his ”Little theorem”, Fermat showed that 223 − 1 was composite and also 237 − 1 is composite, too. Mersenne was very interested in the results that Fermat sent him on perfect numbers. In 1644 he published ”Cogitata physica mathematica”, in which he claimed that 2 p−1 (2 p − 1) is perfect for p = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127, 257 and for no other value of p up to 257. It is remarkable that among the 47 primes p between 19 and 258 for which 2 p − 1 is prime, for 42 cases Mersenne was right. Primes of the form 2 p − 1 are called Mersenne primes. (For a recent table of known Mersenne primes, see the site http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/mersenne/index.html). The next mathematician who made important contributions was Euler. In 1732 he proved that the eighth perfect number was 230 (231 − 1). It was the first seen perfect number discovered for 125 years. But the major contributions by Euler were obtained in two unpublished manuscripts during his life. In one of them he proved the converse of Euclid’s statement: All even perfect number are of the form 2 p−1 (2 p − 1).

(2)

By quoting R. C. Vaughan [314]: ”we have an example of a theorem that took 2000 years to prove... But pure mathematicians are used to working on a vast time scale...” Euler’s results on odd perfect numbers and amicable numbers will be considered later. After Euler’s discovery of primality of 231 − 1, the search for perfect numbers had now become an attempt to check whether Mersenne was right with his claims. The first error in Mersenne’s list was discovered in 1876 by Lucas, who showed that 267 − 1 is composite. But 2127 − 1 is a Mersenne prime, so he obtained a new perfect number (but not the nineth, but as later will be obvious the twelfth). Lucas made also a theoretical discovery too, which later modifed by Lehmer will be the basis of a computer search for Mersenne primes. In 1883 Pervusin showed that 261 − 1 is prime, thus giving the nineth perfect number. In 1911, resp. 1914 Powers proved that 289 − 1 resp. 2101 − 1 are primes. 288 (289 − 1) was in fact the last perfect number discovered by hand calculations, all others being found using theoretical elements or a computer. In fact computers have led to a revival of interest in the discovery of Mersenne primes, and therefore of perfect numbers. The first significant results on odd perfect numbers were obtained by Sylvester. In his opinion (see e.g. [317]): ”... the existence of an 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...” 19

CHAPTER 1

In 1888 he proved that any odd perfect number must have at least 4 distinct prime factors. Later, in the same year he improved his result for five factors. The developments, as well as recent results will be studied separately. Finally, we shall include here for the sake of completeness all known perfect numbers along with the year of discovery and the discoverer (s). Let Pk be the kth perfect number. Then Pk = 2 p−1 (2 p − 1) = A p , where 2 p − 1 is a Mersenne prime. P1 = A2 = 6, P2 = A3 = 28, P3 = A5 = 496, P4 = A7 = 8128, P5 = A13 (1456, anonymous), P6 = A17 (1588 Cataldi), P7 = A19 (1588, Cataldi), P8 = A31 (1772, Euler), P9 = A61 (1883, Pervushin), P10 = A89 (1911, Powers), P11 = A107 (1914, Powers), P12 = A127 (1876, Lucas), P13 = A521 (1952, Robinson), P14 = A607 (1952, Robinson), P15 = A1279 (1952, Robinson), P16 = A2203 (1952, Robinson), P17 = A2281 (1952, Robinson), P18 = A3217 (1957, Riesel), P19 = A4253 (1961, Hurwitz), P20 = A4423 (1961, Hurwitz), P21 = A9689 (1963, Gillies), P22 = A9941 (1963, Gillies), P23 = A11213 (1963, Gillies), P24 = A19937 (1971, Tuckerman), P25 = A21701 (1978, Noll and Nickel), P26 = A23209 (1979, Noll), P27 = A44497 (1979, Nelson and Slowinski), P28 = A86243 (1982, Slowinski), P29 = A110503 (1988, Colquitt and Welsh), P30 = A132049 (1983, Slowinski), P31 = A216091 (1985, Slowinski), P32 = A756839 (1992, Slowinski and Gage), P33 = A859433 (1994, Slowinski and Gage), P34 = A1257787 (1996, Slowinski and Gage), P35 = A1398269 (1996, Armengaud, Woltman, et al. (GIMPS)), P36 = A2976221 (1997, Spence, Woltman, et al. (GIMPS)), P37 = A3021377 (1998, Clarkson, Woltman, Kurowski et al. (GIMPS, Primenet)), P38 = A6972593 (1999, Hajratwala, Woltman, Kurowki et al. (GIMPS, Primenet)), P?? = A13466917 (2001, Cameron, Woltman, Kurowski, et al.). Recently, M. Shafer (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com) has announced the discovery of the 40th Mersenne prime, giving A20996011 . The full values of the first seventeen perfect numbers are written also in the note by H. S. Uhler [312] from 1954. For a quick perfect number analyzer by Brendan McCarthy see the applet at http://ccirs.camosun.bc.ca/∼jbritton/jbperfect/htm. The 39th Mersenne prime is of course, a very large prime, having a number of 4053946 digits (it seems that it is the largest known prime). There have been discovered also very large primes of other forms. For example, in 2002, Muischnek and Gallot discovered the prime number 105747665536 + 1. For the largest known primes of various forms see the site: http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/largest.html.

1.3

Even perfect numbers

Let σ (n) denote the sum of all positive divisors of n. Then n is perfect if σ (n) = 2n 20

(1)

PERFECT NUMBERS

As we have seen in the Introduction, all known perfect numbers are even, and by the Euclid-Euler theorem n can be written as n = 2k−1 (2k − 1),

(2)

where 2k − 1 is a prime (called also as ”Mersenne prime”). Actually k must be prime. The first two perfect numbers, namely 6 and 28 are perhaps the most ”human” since are closely related to our life (number of days of a week, of a month, of a woman cycle, etc.). The famous mathematician and computer scientist D. Knuth in his interesting homepage (http://www-csfaculty.stanford.edu/∼knuth/retd.htm) on the occasion of his retirement says: ”... I’m proud of the 28 students for whom I was a dissertation advisor (see vita); and I know that 28 is a perfect number...” 28 is in fact the single even perfect number of the form x3 + 1

(3)

(x positive integer), proved by A. Makowski [205]. As corollaries of this fact Makowski deduces that the single even perfect number (4) of the form n n + 1 is 28; and that there is no even perfect number of the form nn

...n

+ 1,

(5)

where the number of n’s is ≥ 3. By generalization, A. Rotkiewicz [263] proves that 28 is the single even perfect number of the form a n + bn , where (a, b) = 1 and n > 1.

(6)

If n > 2 and (a, b) = 1, he proves also that there is no even perfect number of the form a n − bn . (7) Not being aware of Rotkiewicz’s result (6), T. N. Sinha [288] has rediscovered it in 1974. The numbers 6 and 28 are the only couple of perfect numbers of the form n − 1 n(n + 1) , where n > 1; and this is obtained for n = 7. This is a result of L. and 2 Jones [157]. (8) We note that this result applies the Euclid-Euler theorem (representation of even perfect numbers), as well as a theorem by Euler on the form of odd perfect numbers (see the next section). 21

CHAPTER 1

As for the digits of even perfect numbers, as already Nicomachus (see section 2) remarked, the last digits are always 6 or 8 (but not in alternate order, as he thought), proved rigorously by E. Lucas in 1891 (see [84], p. 27, and also [138]). (9) Let us now sum the digits of any even perfect number (except 6), then sum the digits of the resulting number,..., etc., repeating this process until we get a single digit. Then this single digit will be one. (10) See [332] for this result, with a proof. Let A(n) be the set of prime divisors of n > 1. If n is an even perfect number, then it is immediate that A(n) = A(σ (n)). (11) Now, an interesting fact, due to C. Pomerance [240] states that, reciprocally, if (11) holds true for a number n, then n must be even perfect. For the additive representation of even perfect numbers, by an interesting result by R. L. Francis [103] any even perfect number > 28 can be represented as the sum of at least two perfect numbers. (12) For the values of other arithmetic functions at even perfect numbers we quote the following result of S. M. Ruiz [264]: Let S(n) be the Smarandache function, defined by S(n) = min{k ∈ N : n|k!}.

(13)

Then if n is even perfect, then one has S(n) = M p

(14)

where M p = 2 p − 1 is the Mersenne prime in the known form of n. For a simple proof, see J. S´andor [272]. In [272] there is proved also that S(M p ) ≡ 1 (mod p), and that if 22 p + 1 is prime too, then S(24 p − 1) = 22 p + 1 ≡ 1 (mod 4 p). For the values of Euler’s function on even perfect numbers, see S. Asadulla [8]. For perfect numbers concerning a Fibonacci sequence, see [234]. F. Luca [197] proved also that there are no perfect Fibonacci or Lucas numbers. In [198] he proved that there are only finitely many multiply perfect numbers in these sequences. K. Ford [102] considered numbers n such that d(n) and σ (n) are both perfect numbers (called ”sublime numbers”). There are only two known such numbers, namely n = 12 and n = 2126 (261 − 1)(231 − 1)(219 − 1)(27 − 1)(25 − 1)(23 − 1). It is not known if any odd sublime number exists. D. Iannucci (see his electronic paper ”The Kaprekar numbers”, J. Integer Sequences, 3(2000), article 00.1.2) proved that every even perfect number is a Kaprekar number in the binary base, e.g. (28)2 = 11100 and 11002 = 1100010000 with 100 + 010000 = 11100 (703 in base 10 is Kaprekar means that 7032 = 494209 where 494 + 209 = 703). 22

PERFECT NUMBERS

We wish to mention also some new proofs of the Euler theorem on the form of an even perfect number. In standard textbooks, usually it is given Euler’s proof, in a slightly simplified form given by L. E. Dickson in 1913 ([82], [80]). An earlier proof was given by R. D. Carmichael [43]. A new proof has been published by Gy. Kisgergely [174] in a paper written in Hungarian. Another proof, due to J. S´andor ([271], [273]) is based on the simple inequality σ (ab) ≥ aσ (b)

(15)

with equality only for a = 1. This method enabled him also to obtain a new proof on the form of even superperfect numbers (see later). For even perfect numbers see a paper by S. J. Bezuska and M. J. Kenney [24] (where 36 perfect numbers are mentioned (up to 1997!)). See also G. L. Cohen [56].

1.4

Odd perfect numbers

There is a good account of results until 1957 in the paper by P. J. McCarthy [46]. The first important result on odd perfect numbers was obtained by Euler [98] when he proved that such a number n should have the representation n = p α q1 1 . . . qr2βr 2β

(1)

where p, qi (i = 1, r ) are distinct odd primes and p ≡ 1 (mod 4), α ≡ 1 (mod 4). Here p α is called the Euler factor of n. Another noteworthy result, mentioned also in the Introduction is due to J. J. Sylvester [310] who proved that we must have r ≥ 4 and that r ≥ 5 if n ≡ 0 (mod 3). (2) The modern revival of interest in the problem of odd perfect numbers seems to have been begun by R. Steurwald [296] who proved that n cannot be perfect if β1 = · · · = βr = 1.

(3)

A. Brauer [33] and H.-J. Kanold [159] proved the same if β1 = 2 and β2 = · · · = βr = 1

(4)

In [158] Kanold proved that n is not perfect if β1 = · · · = βr = 2

(5)

2βi + 1 (i = 1, r ) have as a common factor 9, 15, 21, or 33.

(6)

and also if the

23

CHAPTER 1

Similarly, he proved [165] that n cannot be perfect if β1 = β2 = 2, β3 = · · · = βr = 1; and if α = 5 and βi = 1 or 2 (i = 1, r ). (7) He obtained similar results in [161]. P. J. McCarthy [47] proved that if n is perfect and prime to 3, and β2 = · · · = βr = 1, then q1 ≡ 1

(mod 3)

(8)

In 1971 W. L. McDaniel [76] improved result (6) by proving that 3 cannot be a common divisor of 2βi + 1 (i = 1, r ). (9) A year later, P. Hagis, Jr. and W. L. McDaniel [133] showed that n cannot be perfect if β1 = · · · = βr = 3. (10) We note here that in the above papers the theory of cyclotomic polynomials, as well as diophantine equations are widely used. Some computations use modern computers, too. It is of interest to note that in the proof of (10) the following results due to U. K¨uhnel [184], resp. H.-J. Kanold [158] are used: If n is odd perfect, then 105 n; (11) If n is odd perfect, and if in (1) s is a common factor of 2βi + 1 (i = 1, r ), then (12) s 4 |n. Another refinement of Euler’s theorem is due to J. A. Ewell [99]. If the prime q1 , . . . , qr (together with their corresponding exponents) are relabeled as p1 , p2 , . . . , pk , h 1 , h 2 , . . . , h t so that pi (i = 1, k) are of the form ≡ 1 (mod 4) and each h j ( j = 1, t) are of the form ≡ −1 (mod 4), say n = pα

k

pi2αi

i=1

t

2β j

hj

(13)

j=1

then: (i) the ordered set A(k) = {α1 , . . . , αk } contains an even number of odd numbers, provided α and p belong to the same residue class (mod 8); (ii) A(k) contains an odd number of odd numbers, provided that α and p belong to different classes (mod 8). (14) Of a similar nature are also the following theorems due to G. L. Cohen and R. J. Williams [67]: If n is an odd perfect number, then in (1) if we assume that β1 = · · · = βr = β, then we must have β ∈ {6, 8, 11, 14, 18}; (15) If n is as above and β1 = · · · = βr = 1, then β1 ∈ {5, 6}; 24

(16)

PERFECT NUMBERS

They obtain also (independently) a simpler proof of result (14). The theorem of Sylvester on the lower bounds for r in (1) has been improved by several authors. I. S. Gradstein [110], U. K¨uhnel [184] and G. C. Webber [324] proved that in (2) r ≥ 5 holds without any condition. (17) Recall, that r = ω(n) − 1. The result r ≥6 (18) has been discovered by N. Robbins [259] and C. Pomerance [237]; while the strongest result known today, namely r ≥7 (19) is due to P. Hagis, Jr. [120] and J. E. Z. Chein [51]. For a new, algorithmic approach, see G. L. Cohen and R. M. Sorli [On the number of distinct prime factors of an odd perfect number, J. Discr. Algorithms 1(2003), 2135]. Result (2) of Sylvester has been sharpened to r ≥ 8 if n ≡ 0

(mod 3)

(20)

r ≥ 10 if n ≡ 0

(mod 3)

(21)

by H.-J. Kanold [160] and to

by M. Kishore [179]. P. Hagis, Jr. [123] proved the same for (n, 3) = 1. For a survey of earlier results, see D. S. Mitrinovi´c - J. S´andor [218] (see p. 100-102). E. Catalan proved in 1888 (see [84]) that if an odd perfect number is not divisible by 3, 5 or 7, it has at least 26 distinct prime factors, and thus has at least 45 digits. T. Pepin showed in 1897 (see [84]) that an odd perfect number relatively prime to 3 · 7, 3 · 5 or 3 · 5 · 7 contains at least 11, 14, or 19 distinct prime factors, respectively; and cannot have the form 5(mod6). In the above mentioned paper [160] Kanold proved also that an odd perfect number must have at least a prime divisor greater than or equal to 61. (22) J. B. Muskat [223] in 1966 proved that an odd perfect number n is divisible by a prime power > 1012 . (23) C. Pomerance [238] proved that the second largest prime divisor of n must be at least 139. (24) and in 1980 P. Hagis, Jr. [121], improved this to 1000. (25) Related to the largest prime factor of an odd perfect number n, this is greater than 100129 25

(26)

CHAPTER 1

as shown by P. Hagis, Jr. and W. J. Daniel [134]; and improved to 300000

(27)

by J. T. Condict [68]. Result (25) on the second largest prime factor has been recently improved to 10000

(28)

by D. E. Iannucci [150]. Ianucci further [151] obtained for the third largest prime factor the lower bound 100 (29) Iannucci and Sorli [153] proved that if n is odd perfect, then (n) ≥ 37, (n) being the total number of prime factors of n. Kanold’s result (22) was subsequently improved. As a corollary of a general result (which we shall state later) N. Robbins [260] proved that if an odd perfect number n is divisible by 17, then n must have a prime factor not smaller than 577. (30) The strongest result was due to P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen [132] who obtained, without any condition the lower bound 106

(31)

Very recently, this has been improved to 107 by P. M. Jenkins [155]. See also A. Grytczuk and M. W´ojtowicz [113] on the magnitude of perfect numbers. Related to the lower bounds of odd perfect numbers, a substantial result was obtained in 1973 by P. Hagis, Jr. [119], giving the lower bound 1050 . This was subsequently improved to 10160 by R. P. Brent and G. L. Cohen [34], to 10300 by Brent, Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele [35]. In a recent paper by S. Davis [79] a rationality condition for the existence of odd perfect numbers is used to derive an upper bound for the density of odd integers such that σ (n) could be equal to 2n, where n belongs to a fixed interval with a lower limit greater than 10300. Bounds of a general nature were first considered by Kanold. In [158] he proved that if n given by (1) is odd perfect, then the largest prime divisor of n is greater then 2 · max{α + 1, 2βi + 1 : i = 1, r }

(32)

In [160] he proved that if n is odd perfect and p is a Gaussian prime, then α < a(a − 1) ≤ r (r − 1)

(33)

where a is the number of qi such that qi ≡ 1 (mod p). In [165] a similar result runs as follows: 26

PERFECT NUMBERS

Suppose n is odd perfect and that ( p − 1, 2βi + 1) = 1, i = 1, r . Let a be as 3a(a − 1) 2β , when pa−1 σ (qi i ) above. Then 1 < a < r and α ≤ min a(a − 2), 4 (a − 1)(3a − 2) for any i = 1, r ; and α ≤ , otherwise. (34) 4 A complicated lower bound has been given by N. Robbins [260]. Suppose u is an odd prime. Let a1 (u) < a2 (u) < . . . be those primes p such that (i) p ≡ 2u 2k − 1 (mod 4u 2k ) for some integer k; (ii) 105 ( p + 1); (iii) 165 ( p + 1). Let V (u) be the set of all primes v such that v ≡ 1 (mod u). For each v ∈ V (u), let v = max{v ∗ : v ∗ ∈ V (u), v ∗ |φu (v)}, where φn (t) denotes the n-th cyclotomic polynomial evaluated at t. Let w(v) = max{v, v }. Let b1 (u) < b2 (u) < . . . be all the distinct w(v) such that v ∈ V (u). Finally, let X (u) be the set of all primes x such that (i) x ≡ 2u 2k−1 (mod 4u 2k−1 ) for some integer k; (ii) 105 (x 2u − 1)/(x − 1); (iii) 165 (x 2u − 1)/(x − 1). For each x ∈ X (u), let v = max{v ∗ : v ∗ ∈ V (u), v ∗ |φu (x)}, v = max{v ∗ : ∗ v ∈ V (u), v ∗ |φu (−x)}. Let y(x) = max{x, v, v }. Let c1 (u) < c2 (u) < . . . be all the distinct y(x) such that x ∈ X (u). Put L(u) = min{a1 (u), b1 (u), c1 (u)}.

(35)

Now, if n given by (1) is an odd perfect number and u is a Fermat prime such that u ||n, then m

M(n) ≥ L(u)

(36)

M(n) = max{ p, q1 , . . . , qr }

(37)

where

For an example, the values of an (3), an (5), an (17), bn (3), bn (5), bn (17), cn (3), cn (5), cn (17), consider the tables: n 1 2 3 4 5 6 an (3) 17 89 197 233 449 521 an (5) 149 349 449 1249 1549 1949 an (17) 577 1733 8669 14449 19073 22541 27

CHAPTER 1

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 bn (3) 19 61 67 79 97 127 bn (5) 1381 2221 3221 bn (17) < 1031

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 cn (3) 271 821 919 1021 1087 1093 cn (5) 400291 cn (17) < 1031 Various bounds for the prime factors of an odd perfect number have been deduced. Let p1 be the least prime factor of n given by (1). Then Cl. Servais [283] proved first that p1 ≤ r + 1 = ω(n) = A (38) where ω(n) = A denotes the number of distinct prime factors of n. For a recent extension of the Servais result see [23]. In 1952 O. Gr¨un [112] improved this to 2 A+2 3

p1

1

(55)

Some words on the density of odd perfect numbers: In 1954 Kanold [166] proved that this density is 0. This follows also from a result by B. Volkmann [315]. Stronger results have been obtained in the following years by B. Hornfeck [146] who showed that for V (x) = car d{n ≤ x : n perfect} (56) one has V (x) < x 1/2

(57)

A year later [147] he showed that V (x) 1 lim sup √ ≤ √ x x→∞ 2 5 30

(58)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Kanold [169] improved these to V (x) < c

x 1/4 log x log log x

(59)

while Hornfeck and E. Wirsing [148], resp. Wirsing [328] proved that c log x log log log x V (x) < exp log log x and

c log x V (x) < exp log log x

(60)

(61)

It follows from this result that even if some odd perfect numbers do exist, at least they are less numerous than, for example, the primes. In particular, the sum of the reciprocals of the perfect numbers is a convergent series. Finally, we wish to point out some new issues on odd perfect number, along with some open problems. By writing n = p α M 2 , where p ≡ α ≡ 1 (mod 4), clearly if one has

σ (M 2 ) = p α ,

σ ( p α ) = 2M 2 ,

(62) (63)

then n is odd perfect. In 1977 D. Suryanarayana [309] raised the question, that should every odd perfect number (which necessarily has the form (62)) also necessarily satisfy the relations (63)? This was answered in the negative by G. G. Dandapat, J. L. Hunsucker and C. Pomerance [74], and also later by E. Z. Chen utilizing a deep result of Ljunggern. D. Suryanarayana [309] raised also the following problem. If n = p α M 2 is an odd perfect number so that p ≡ α ≡ 1 (mod 4) and ( p, M) = 1, does it necessarily follow that there exist a divisor d|M such that σ (d 2 ) = p α M 2 /d 2 and σ ( p α M 2 /d 2 ) = 2d 2 ?

(64)

This problem is still open. Another open problem by Suryanarayana is that: is it true that every odd perfect number is of the form mσ (m) for some odd integer m; if so, is (m, σ (m)) = 1 necessarily? (65)

31

CHAPTER 1

M. V. Subbarao [301] raises the problem: Does every odd perfect number n (if such exist) have the representation 1 n = mσ (m)? 2

(66)

Another question: whenever n given by (66) is perfect, does it follow that n is odd and (m, σ (m)) = 1? (67) C. W. Anderson (see [239]) has conjectured that the set of rational numbers that arise as σ (n)/n for some n, is a recursive set. (68)

1.5

Perfect, multiperfect and multiply perfect numbers

First we wish to mention that the notion of a perfect number has been extended to Gaussian integers (see R. Spira [292], W. L. McDaniel [77], M. Hausman [141], D. S. Mitrinovi´c – J. S´andor [218]) to real quadratic fields (see E. Bedocchi [15]), or generally to unique factorization domains (see W. L. McDaniel [78]). A number n is called multiperfect, if there exist a positive integer k ≥ 1 such that σ (n) = kn (1) In this case n is called also as k-perfect number. The union of all k-perfect numbers when k ∈ N is the set of multiply perfect numbers. Thus n is called multiply perfect when n|σ (n) (2) In the sections with perfect numbers (when k = 2 in (1)) we sometimes mentioned that some results which were true for perfect numbers do hold also for multiperfect numbers. (For the history of multiply perfect and multiperfect numbers up to 1907, see Dickson [84].) For example, the famous Dickson theorem 4.(50) holds true also for k-perfect number, as proved by H.-J. Kanold [168]. A positive integer n is called primitive if cannot be written in the form m = st, where s is an even perfect number and (s, t) = 1. Kanold proved that for any k there are only a finitely many primitive k-perfect numbers with a fixed number of distinct prime factors. (3) C. Pomerance [239] proved that for every k ≥ 1 (even rational number) and every non-negative integer K , there is an effectively computable number N (k, K ) such that if ω(n) = K and n is primitive k-perfect, then n ≤ N (k, K ). 32

(4)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Here ω(n) denotes, as usual, the number of distinct prime divisors of n. Let A(n) be the set of all prime divisors of n. In 1998 W. Carlip, E. Jacobson and L. Somer [42] proved the following theorem: For fixed integers k and t, there exist at most finitely many squarefree integers n such that car d A(N ) ≤ t and n is k − perfect.

(5)

P. J. McCarthy [48] has shown that if n is k-perfect, then ω(n) ≥ k 2 − 1

(6)

For some improvements, see W. L. McDaniel [75]. McDaniel shows also that there exists no odd k-perfect numbers with k odd of the form m α , where m is an integer, and α + 1 is a prime, the square of a prime, or the cube of a prime. (7) It is not known if there exist odd k-perfect numbers, but actually up to recently (February 2002) we have a total of 5040 known k-perfect numbers. There are 39 2-perfect (i.e. classical perfect), 6 3-perfect, 36 4-perfect, 65 5-perfect, 245 6-perfect, 516 7-perfect, 1134 8-perfect, 923 10-perfect and 1 11-perfect numbers. For details regarding the discoverers see the site http://www.homes/unibielefeld.de/achim/mpn.html by A. Flammenkamp. P. Hagis Jr. and G. L. Cohen [130] have shown that the largest prime factor of a k-perfect number is at least 100129, (8) while the second largest prime factor is ≥ 1009.

(9)

Later, Hagis Jr. [125] proved that the third largest divisor is ≥ 101

(10)

The density of k-perfect numbers is 0, as first was shown by Kanold, but in 1957 Hornfeck and Wirsing proved that P(x) = o(x ε )

(11)

for any ε > 0, where P(x) denotes the number of k-perfect numbers not exceeding x. In fact in the book by Erd¨os and Graham [92] one can read that Wirsing can show that P(x) < cx c log log x log x/ log log x (12) with c, c > 0 constants. (Here k > 0 can be even rational number.) 1 in the case of an odd perfect number have been Various bounds for S = p p/n included in section 4 (see 4.44). G. L. Cohen [55] in 1980 proved the following: 33

CHAPTER 1

Let n be k-perfect. Then

if k is odd log k, log k log k 1050 34

PERFECT NUMBERS

This was improved to n > 1060

(21)

n > 1070

(22)

by L. B. Alexander [4], and to by Cohen and Hagis, Jr. [130]. As we mentioned, an odd triperfect number must be a square: D. Iannucci [152] proves that the square root of an odd triperfect number cannot be squarefree number. (23) The important theorem by Touchard (see 4.48) can be extended in some cases also to multiperfect numbers. J. A. Holdener [145] proves that if n is odd k-perfect, where k is not divisible by 3 or 4, then n≡1

(mod 12) or n ≡ 9 (mod 36).

(24)

Now certain facts on multiply perfect numbers. (Remark that many authors confuse the words ”multiperfect” and ”multiply perfect”. Clearly if n is k-perfect, then it is multiply perfect. But the converse is not true.) R. D. Carmichael [44] found all multiply perfect numbers less than 109 . These are: 1, 6, 28, 120, 496, 672, 8128, 30240, 32760, 523776, 2178540, 23569920, 33550336, 45532800, 142990848, 459818240 (this corrected list appears in [9]). (25) Since, as we mentioned before, there are more than 5040 multiperfect numbers, and these are also multiply perfect numbers, today (in the computer era) we know multiply perfect numbers having about 10000 digits. However, it is not known whether or not there are infinitely many such numbers. See also R. K. Guy [114]. The estimate 4.(60) for the number of perfect numbers ≤ x holds true essentially also for multiply perfect numbers, so for these numbers m(x) one has c log x log log x log x m(x) = O exp (26) log log x due to Hornfeck and Wirsing [148]. We now study some miscellaneous results related to multiply perfect numbers. H. Harboth [140] takes in place of σ (n) the value S(n) = the sum of all possible sums of distinct divisors of n (in fact one obtains S(n) = σ (n) · 2d(n)−1 , where d(n) is the number of divisors of n). She proves that n|S(n) for infinitely many n

(27)

thus the open question above is solved in the case considered here. In a difficult proposed problem, C. Pomerance [242] considers multiply perfect numbers of the form n!, and shows that this is possible only for n ∈ {1, 3, 5}. (28) 35

CHAPTER 1

L. Cheng [52] has proved that n = 23 · 3 · 5, 25 · 3 · 7 and 25 · 33 · 5 · 7 are the only integers satisfying σ (n) = ω(n) · n. (29) For multiply perfect numbers in Lucas sequences see [194]. Finally, let us stop at certain problems relating complexity theory of algorithms. Gill’s complexity class ([107]) BPP is the class of languages recognized in polynomial time by a probabilistic Turing machine, with two-sided error probability bounded by a constant away from 1/2. Now Theorem 8 of [9] states that the set of multiply perfect numbers is in BPP. (30) Bach, Miller and Shallit prove the similar result for perfect numbers, as well as amicable numbers. (31) For algorithmic number theory, see [10].

1.6

Quasiperfect, almost perfect, and pseudoperfect numbers

A number n is called quasiperfect, if σ (n) = 2n + 1

(1)

No such numbers are known, but necessary conditions have been obtained by various authors. P. Cattaneo [50] proved that if n is quasiperfect and r |σ (n), then r ≡ 1 or 3

(mod 8)

(2)

If p 2α ||n and q|(2α + 1), then (q − 1)( p + 1) ≡ 0 or 4

(mod 16)

(3)

Cattaneo proved also that an odd quasiperfect number must be a perfect square. (4) H. L. Abbott, C. E. Aull, E. Brown and D. Suryanarayana [1] as well as G. L. Cohen [57] deduced other conditions. For example, in [57] it is shown that there is no quasiperfect number of the forms m 4 or m 6 (in this last case one suppose also (m, 3) = 1) (5) It is shown also that there are no quasiperfect numbers of the form 32a m 2b where 3 m, a ≡ 2

(mod 8) and b ≡ 0

If a number of the form

r

6qi +2

pi

(mod 5) or b ≡ 0

(mod 11)

(6)

( pi primes) is quasiperfect, then

i=1

r ≥ 230876 36

(7)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Abbott, Aull, Brown and Suryanarayana [1] showed that a quasiperfect number n must have at least five distinct divisors and n > 1020

(8)

M. Kishore [175] improved this to ω(n) ≥ 6 and n > 1030

(9)

while Cohen and Hagis, Jr. [61] obtained the refinement ω(n) ≥ 7 and n > 1035

(10)

When 3 n, this has been earlier obtained by Jerrard and Temperley [156]. Kanold [172] proved that there are only finitely many quasiperfect numbers n for which ω(n) < K (11) where K is a fixed constant. 1 2M + log . For a positive integer M, let λ(M) = p σ (M) p/M 1 . If n is quasiperfect, then Let S = p p/n (i) if p1 = 5, then S < λ(56 ) (12) (ii) if p1 ≥ 7, then S < log 2 (13) (iii) if p1 = 3, p2 = 5, then S < λ(34 · 56 ) (14) (iv) if p1 = 3, p2 ≥ 7, then S < λ(34 ) (15) Here p1 < p2 are the least two prime divisors of n. These results are due to Cohen [55]. Let n be quasiperfect and let p1 < · · · < pr be its prime divisors. Kishore [178] proves that i−1 (16) pi < 22 (r − i + 1) for 2 ≤ i ≤ 6 A. Makowski [203] has investigated the solutions of the equation σ (n) = 2n + 2 If 2k − 3 = prime, then n = 2k−1 (2k − 3) is a solution. We note that 2k − 3 are primes e.g. for k = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, etc. A solution of other type is n = 650. We now introduce almost perfect numbers. A number n is called so, if one has σ (n) = 2n − 1 37

(17)

CHAPTER 1

Again, we should note that in the literature ”almost perfect” sometimes means quasiperfect in the sense of (1), or almost perfect, in the sense of (17) (see e.g. [156], [71]). S. Singh [287] calls almost perfect numbers ”slightly defective” while quasiperfect numbers ”slightly excessive”. It is easy to check that powers of 2 satisfy (17); no other almost perfect numbers are known. An infinite class of numbers which are not almost perfect is given by J. T. Cross [71] as follows: Let p denote an odd prime. If 2m+1 > p, then no multiple (18) of 2m p is almost perfect. In 1978 M. Kishore [176] proved that if n is an odd almost perfect number, then ω(n) ≥ 6

(19)

Cross [71] notes that the argument by Jerrard and Temperley [156] can be modified to show that if 3 n, then ω(n) ≥ 7 (20) for such numbers. An analogous result to (16) in case of almost perfect numbers is i−1

pi < 22 (r − i + 1), 2 ≤ i ≤ 5

(21)

p6 < 23775427335(r − 5)

(22)

and due to Kishore [178]. An odd almost perfect number n should be a perfect square, and if p1a1 ||n, where p1 = 3 is the least prime divisor of n, then a1 ≥ 12. (23) For this result, see also [176].

1.7

Superperfect and related numbers

A number n is called superperfect (after D. Suryanarayana [307]) if σ (σ (n)) = 2n

(1)

Suryanarayana and Kanold [171] have determined the general form of even superperfect numbers. These can be written as n = 2k (k ≥ 1), where 2k+1 − 1 is prime

(2)

New proofs of (2) have been obtained by G. Lord [193] and J. S´andor ([271], [273]). The odd superperfect numbers are not known, but they must be perfect squares (3) 38

PERFECT NUMBERS

as proved by Kanold [307]. According to Guy [114] (p. 65), Dandepat et al. proved that if n is odd superperfect, then n or σ (n) is divisible by at least three distinct primes. (4) Suryanarayana [308] shows that odd numbers of this type cannot have the form p 2α ( p prime). (5) Hunsucker and Pomerance [149] give the lower bound 7 · 1024

(6)

for the odd superperfect numbers. D. Bode [26] obtained that the number of even superperfect numbers less than x is o(log x/ log log x)

(7)

By iterating the composition of σ , Bode [26] showed also that there are no even m-superperfect numbers for m ≥ 3, in the sense that σ (m) (n) = 2n

(8)

where σ (m) (n) = σ (. . . σ (n) . . .). m times

For a new proof, see Lord [193]. J. McCranie [70] has shown that there are no m-superperfect numbers less than 4.29 × 109 for any m ≥ 3. S´andor [270] considered the perfect number analogue for the composition of some arithmetic functions. He reproved (2) by showing that σ (σ (n)) ≥ 2n for all even n

(9)

with equality only for n = 2k , with 2k+1 − 1 prime. Let ψ be the Dedekind arithmetic function, defined by 1 ψ(n) = n (n > 1), ψ(1) = 1. 1+ p p/n Then, an improvement of (9) is the inequality σ (σ (n)) ≥ ψ(σ (n)) ≥ 2n for even n,

(10)

where the last equality holds only for n = 2k , with 2k+1 − 1 prime. Superperfect number are called σ ◦ σ -perfect numbers, while numbers with property ψ(σ (n)) = 2n 39

(11)

CHAPTER 1

are called ψ ◦ σ -perfect numbers. All even perfect numbers of this type are determined. Equation (11) has at least an odd solution n = 3. Let n be an odd solution of (11). Then (see [270]) (a) n ≡ −1 (mod 3), (b) n ≡ 7 (mod 12) (c) n ≡ −4 (mod 21), n ≡ 10 (mod 21) (d) 2α · 3β σ (n) for all α, β ≥ 1. (12) Related to σ ◦ ψ-perfect numbers, i.e. satisfying σ (ψ(n)) = 2n

(13)

S´andor proves that the only even solution is n = 2. One has σ (ψ(n)) ≥ 2n

m+1 for n even, m

(14)

with n = 2a , where m denotes the greatest odd divisor of n. If n is an odd σ ◦ ψperfect number, and p is an odd prime having the property σ ( p + 1) > 2 p, then p n (particularly 3, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19 n). (15) It is conjectured that (13) doesn’t have odd solutions. In connection to Bode’s result, S´andor [270] proves that for any m ≥ 3, there are no ψ ◦ ψ ◦ · · · ◦ ψ −perfect numbers (16) m

The problem of ”ψ-superperfect” numbers is completely settled as followed: The only solution of equation ψ(ψ(n)) = 2n

(17)

is n = 3. But there are many ”ψ-triperfect” numbers as the even solutions of ψ(ψ(n)) = 3n

(18)

are n = 2k , where k > 1. Let ϕ be the Euler totient. S´andor [270] proves that there are no ψ ◦ ϕ-perfect numbers which are odd. (19) If n is even, and the greatest odd divisor of n is ψ ◦ ϕ-deficient, then n is also ψ ◦ ϕ-deficient (i.e. (ψ ◦ ϕ)(n) < 2n). Here it is conjectured also that ψ(ϕ(m)) ≥ m for any odd m 40

(20)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Related to ψ-multiperfect numbers the following result is true (S´andor [269]). We say that n is ω-multiple of m (see Ch. Wall [318]) if m|n and the sets of prime factors of m resp. n are identical. Let us now suppose that the least solution of equation ψ(n) = kn (21) is a squarefree number n k . Then all solutions of (21) are the ω-multiples of n. Let us call n quasi-superperfect if σ (σ (n)) = 2n + 1

(22) (23)

Clearly the Mersenne primes are such; it is not known if there are others. Subbarao [301] proves that if a prime p satisfies (23) then p is a Mersenne prime, otherwise (24) σ ( p) = 2r M 2 , where M has at leat two prime divisors. Generally, if n satisfies (23), then n must be odd, and σ (a) must be of the form σ (n) = 2r M 2 , where M is an odd integer.

(25)

Subbarao proves also that there is no odd perfect number of the form n = 1 mσ (m) for which σ (m) is a power of n and with m quasi-superperfect (i.e. m 2 satisfying (23)). (26) He raises the following open problem: if m is quasi-superperfect, is the number 1 (27) n given by n = mσ (m) a perfect number? 2 The almost superperfect numbers are defined by σ (σ (n)) = 2n − 1

(28)

We cannot decide if there exist such numbers, in fact no reference to this question we were able to find in the literature. (The analogous question, however, for unitary divisors, as we will see in a further section, is much easier). Another generalization of superperfect numbers has been considered by G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele [64]. They call a number n (m, k)-perfect if σ (m) (n) = kn

(29)

The classical perfect numbers are then the (1,2)-perfect, the k-multiperfect numbers are (1, k)-perfect, the superperfect numbers are (2,2)-perfect, the m-superperfect numbers are (m, 2)-perfect. They give a table of all (2, k)-perfect numbers up to 109 . They gave a table for all (3, k)-perfect and (4, k)-perfect numbers up to 2 · 108 in 41

CHAPTER 1

1995 [63]. It is interesting to note that no new (1,3)-perfect numbers have been found in the last 350 years, nor any new (1,4)-perfect numbers in the last 70 years. For (2, k)-perfect numbers they prove the following general result: suppose l is an odd (2, k)-perfect number. For any a such that 2a |kσ (σ (2a )) and such that σ (2a ) and σ (l) are relative prime, the number 2a l is (2, 2−a kσ (σ (2a )))-perfect. (30) For example, for p > 2, 2 p−1 · 3 · 5 · 7 · 132 · 31 is (2,12)-perfect. They conjecture that all numbers n are (m, k)-perfect for some m, k; and verified it for all n ≤ 1000. (31) There are also some theoretical results supporting conjecture (31). Here one has to do with the properties relating to the iteration of σ . P. Erd¨os [90] asked if (σ (m) (n))1/m has a limit as m → ∞. He conjectures that it is infinite for each n > 1. (32) Erd¨os, Granville, Pomerance and Spiro [93] poses five new open problems, as follows: (i) For any n > 1, σ (m+1) (n)/σ (m) (n) → 1 as m → ∞ (33) (ii) For any n > 1, σ (m+1) (n)/σ (m) (n) → ∞ as m → ∞ (34) (iii) For any n > 1, there is m with n|σ (m) (n) (35) (iv) For any n, l > 1 there is m with l|σ (m) (n) (36) (v) For any n 1 , n 2 > 1, there are m 1 , m 2 with σ (m 1 ) (n 1 ) = σ (m 2 ) (n 2 ). (37) Cohen and te Riele [64] give some computational evidence to indicate that statements (32), (34), (35), (36) are true, while (33) and (36) are false. A. Schinzel [281] asks if lim inf σ (m) (n)/n < ∞ n→∞

(38)

for each m, and observe that it follows for m = 2 from a deep theorem of A. R´enyi. A. Makowski and A. Schinzel [207] gave an elementary proof that for m = 2 the limit is 1. The result is also true for m = 3, proved by H. Maier [202]. (39) Makowski [206] showed earlier this result by assuming the infinitude of Mersenne primes. He proves also that (38) is true if one assumes a general hypothesis H due to Schinzel [282]. (40) For the iteration properties of s(n) = σ (n) − n, as well as divisibility and congruence properties of σ (m) (n), see the surveys in Mitrinovi´c-S´andor [218] (pp. 92-94). We will return later on the iteration of s(n) when studying sociable numbers.

1.8

Pseudoperfect, weird and harmonic numbers

W. Sierpinski [286] called a number pseudoperfect if it was the sum of the some its distinct divisors. E.g. 20 = 1+4+5+10 is pseudoperfect but 8 not. Some authors use the ”semiperfect” terminology (see e.g. A. and E. Zachariou [330]). 42

PERFECT NUMBERS

Numbers n with the property σ (n) > 2n are called abundant (for their properties, see Mitrinovi´c-S´andor [218], and for a recent survey, see S´andor [274]. In [218] and [274] one can find results also on deficient numbers, defined by σ (n) < 2n). A number is called primitive abundant if it is abundant, but all its proper divisors are deficient; and primitive pseudoperfect if it is pseudoperfect, but none of its proper divisors are. C. Pomerance [236] called n a harmonic number, if the harmonic mean of all the divisors of n is an integer (equivalently, σ (n) divides nd(n); where d(n) is the number of divisors of n). These numbers were considered first by O. Ore [228], and some author call them ”Ore numbers”. Finally, S. J. Benkovski [21] called a number weird, if it is abundant but not pseudoperfect. Now some results on these numbers. Erd¨os (see [114], p. 46) has shown that the density of pseudoperfect numbers exists, (1) and says that probably there are integers n which are not pseudoperfect, but for which n = ab, with a abundant and b having many prime factors. (2) H. Abbott (see [114], p. 46) lets l = l(n) (where n ≥ 3) be the least integer for which there are n integers 1 ≤ a1 < a2 < · · · < an = l such that each ai divides s= ai (so that s is pseudoperfect). Then

for all n ≥ 3; and

l(n) > n c1 log log n (c1 > 0 constant),

(3)

l(n) < n c2 log log n (c2 > 0, constant),

(4)

for infinitely many n. A. and E. Zachariou [330] note that every multiple of a pseudoperfect number is pseudoperfect. (5) All numbers 2m p with m ≥ 1 and p a prime between 2m and 2m+1 are primitive pseudoperfect, but there are such numbers not of this form, e.g. 770. (6) There are infinitely many primitive pseudoperfect numbers that are not harmonic numbers. The smallest odd primitive pseudoperfect number is 945. (7) P. Erd¨os (see [114], p. 47) can show that the number of odd primitive pseudoperfect numbers is infinite. (8) Benkovski and Erd¨os [22] showed that the density of weird numbers is positive. (9) Some very large weird numbers were found by S. Kravitz [182]. There are 24 primitive weird numbers less than a million (70, 836, 4030, 5830,...). Nonprimitive weird numbers include numbers of form 70 p, where p > 144 is a prime, or 836 p with p = 421, 487, 491 or ≥ 577; also 7192 · 31. (10) Benkovski and Erd¨os [22] posed some open problems on weird numbers: are there infinitely many primitive abundant numbers which are weird? (11) 43

CHAPTER 1

Is every odd abundant number pseudoperfect (thus not weird)? (12) Can σ (n) be arbitrarily large for weird n? (13) They conjecture ”no”. For primitive weird numbers, see also [230]. Clearly, a pseudoperfect number is a perfect one, too. The similar statement for harmonic numbers is due to Ore [228]: n perfect ⇒ n harmonic. (14) Ore proved that a harmonic number has at least two distinct prime factors, (15) and Pomerance [236] (see also D. Callan [41]) proved that the only harmonic numbers with two distinct prime factors are the even perfect numbers. (16) M. Garcia [105] extended the list of harmonic numbers to include all 45 which are < 107 , and he found more than 200 larger ones. The least one, apart from 1 and the perfect numbers, is 140. (17) 9 All 130 harmonic numbers up to 2 · 10 are listed in G. L. Cohen [59], (18) and R. M. Sorli (see Cohen and Sorli [66]) has continued the list to 1010 . (19) Kanold [170] has shown that the density of harmonic numbers is 0. (20) Ore [228] conjectured that every harmonic number is even, but this probably is very difficult. Indeed, this result, if true, would imply that there are no odd perfect numbers. See also W. H. Mills [215], who proved that if there exists an odd harmonic number n, then n has a prime-power factor greater than 107 . Related to Pomerance’s result (16) one can ask: if a harmonic number has three distinct divisors, is it even? (21) In 1998 G. L. Cohen and D. Moujie [62] have introduced a generalization of harmonic numbers. A number n > 1 is called k-harmonic if Hk =

n k d(n) σk (n)

is an integer. Here k ≥ 1 denotes a positive integer, and σk (n) =

(22)

d k denotes

d/n

the sum of kth powers of divisors of n. The number n is called power-harmonic if it is k-harmonic for some k ≥ 1. A power-harmonic number is proper, it if is kharmonic for some k ≥ 2. No k-harmonic number with k ≥ 2 is known. However, Cohen and Moujie are able to prove some necessary conditions. For example, if n is power-harmonic, then has at least two distinct prime factors. (23) This generalizes Ore’s result (15). If n is k-harmonic, then Hk (n) ≤ d(n) − 1

(24)

For even k-harmonic numbers the following is true: Let n = 2a p b ( p odd prime) be a proper k-harmonic number. If k is even, then b ≡ 7 (mod 8); if k is odd then b is odd and ( p + 1)(b + 1) ≡ 0 (mod 16) (25) 44

PERFECT NUMBERS

If n is a proper k-harmonic number, then d(n) > 1 +

k−1 k ·2 , k+1

(26)

and if n is a proper power-harmonic number, then d(n) ≥ 60

(27)

Also, if n is a proper power-harmonic number, then n > 1010

(28)

Finally, we note that W. Butske et al. [40] have considered primary pseudoperfect number n which is a product of distinct primes and which satisfies 1 1 + = 1. The first few such numbers are 2, 6, 42, 1806, 47058,... n p p/n

1.9

Unitary, bi-unitary, infinitary-perfect and related numbers

n = 1. Let σ ∗ (n) denote A divisor d of n is called a unitary divisor, if d, d the sum of unitary divisors of n. It is known that (see E. Cohen [53], and see also [279] for various divisibility notions, convolutions and arithmetic functions) σ ∗ is multiplicative and σ ∗ ( p α ) = p α + 1 for any prime power α. Also σ ∗ (1) = 1. In 1966 M. V. Subbarao and L. J. Warren [303] introduced the unitary perfect numbers n satisfying σ ∗ (n) = 2n (1) They found the first four unitary perfect numbers, namely 6, 60, 90, 87360,

(2)

and in 1975 Ch. Wall [319], [321] discovered the fifth, namely 218 · 3 · 54 · 7 · 11 · 13 · 19 · 37 · 79 · 109 · 157 · 313

(3)

Subbarao and Warren proved that there are no odd solutions of (1). This was shown independently also by K. Nageswara Rao [224]. No other unitary perfect numbers than the five given by (2) and (3) are known, but if n = 2a m (m odd ) would be a new one, then Subbarao et al. [302] showed that one must have a > 10 and ω(m) > 6 (4) 45

CHAPTER 1

Later, Wall [323] improved this to ω(m) > 8,

(5)

while in [322] he proved that any new unitary perfect number has a prime power unitary divisor larger than 215 (6) H. A. M. Frei [104] has shown that if n = 2m p1a1 . . . prar is unitary perfect with (n, 3) = 1, then m > 144, r > 144, and n > 10440 (6 ) It is not known if there are infinitely many unitary perfect numbers. Subbarao (see [300]) has conjectured that there are only finitely many. It is also not known whether there exists at least a unitary perfect number not divisible by 3. (7) (see [303]), or a k-unitary perfect number for k ≥ 3, where σ ∗ (n) = kn, (8) see [289]. P. Hagis [124] proved that if (8) holds and n contains t distinct odd divisors, then k = 4 or 6 implies n > 10110 , t ≥ 51 and 249 |n. (9) (10) If k ≥ 8, then n > 10663 and t ≥ 247, while k ≥ 5, odd, imply n > 10461 and t ≥ 166, 2166 |n. (11) a In 1989 S. W. Graham [111] proved the following result: If n = 2 m is a unitary perfect number, where m is an odd squarefree number, then either a = 1 and m = 3, a = 2 and m = 3 · 5, or a = 6 and m = 3 · 5 · 7 · 13 (thus there are only three such numbers). (12) J. De Boer [129] proved that if n = 29 · 32 m is unitary perfect, with (m, 6) = 1 and squarefree, then a = 1 and m = 5. On unitary abundant numbers, see [274]. A divisor d of n is called a bi-unitary divisor if the greatest common unitary n divisor of d and is 1. Let σ ∗∗ (n) be the sum of bi-unitary divisors of n. Wall [320] d call n bi-unitary perfect, if σ ∗∗ (n) = 2n (13) It is not difficult to verify that σ ∗∗ is multiplicative and σ ∗∗ ( p α ) = σ ( p α ) = and σ ∗∗ ( p α ) =

p α+1 − 1 if α is odd, p−1

p α+1 − 1 − p α/2 , if α is even p−1 46

(14)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Hence

σ ∗∗ (n) ≤ σ (n)

(15)

with equality only if every prime which divides n does so an odd number of times. Wall proves that there are only three bi-unitary perfect numbers, namely 6, 60, 90. (16) Hagis [126] introduced bi-unitary multiply perfect numbers by n|σ ∗∗ (n)

(13 )

and proved that there are no odd numbers of this type. There are 17 numbers n < 107 satisfying (13’) (three of them are the numbers from (16)). W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar [13] essentially have determined all unitary quasiperfect numbers satisfying σ ∗ (n) = 2n + 1

(17)

as well as all unitary almost perfect numbers such that σ ∗ (n) = 2n − 1 They proved that there are no unitary quasiperfect numbers, and that n = 1 and n = 2 are the all possible unitary almost perfect numbers.

(18) (19)

(20) A. Bege [16] has proved that there are no bi-unitary quasiperfect numbers, i.e. numbers n satisfying σ ∗∗ (n) = 2n + 1. J. S´andor [270] (see pp. 11-12) showed there are no unitary quasi superperfect numbers n satisfying σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n + 1 (21) and that the only unitary almost superperfect number n, i.e. such that σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n − 1

(22)

are n = 1 and n = 3. Sitaramaiah and Subbarao [290] rediscovered this result. They study more profoundly the unitary superperfect numbers n with σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n

(23)

The first ten such numbers are 2, 9, 165, 238, 1640, 4320, 10250, 10824, 13500 and 23760. There are not known odd unitary superperfect numbers other than 9 and 165, and Sitaramaiah and Subbarao conjecture that the set of such numbers is finite. (24) 47

CHAPTER 1

In fact 165 is the single such number, having three distinct prime factors. (25) 238 is the only even unitary superperfect number such that n has three prime factors, while σ ∗ (n) two. (26) ∗ If n is an odd unitary superperfect number not divisible by 3, then 3|σ (n); in such a case n must be squarefree, ω(n) even, and ω(n) ≥ 52. (27) We quote one more result: All n ≤ 108 such that n|σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) (28) (which could be called as ”unitary multiply superperfect numbers”) are determined; there are 29 such numbers. S. Ligh and Ch. R. Wall [190] have introduced ”nonunitary divisors” and nonunitary perfect numbers. d is a nonunitary divisor of n, if n = cd, with (c, d) > 1. Let σ # (n) be the sum of nonunitary divisors of n. It is immediate that σ # (n) = σ (n) − σ ∗ (n),

(29)

and that σ # is not multiplicative. A number n is called nonunitary perfect, if σ # (n) = n

(30)

All known nonunitary perfect numbers are even. P. Hagis, Jr. [129] prove that σ # (n) is odd iff n = 2α M 2 , where M > 1 is odd and α ≥ 0. (31) As a corollary we get that an odd nonunitary perfect number must be a perfect square. (32) Another result by Hagis says that an odd nonunitary perfect number n must have at least four distinct prime factors, and n > 1015 . If 3 n, then ω(n) ≥ 7. (33) 2 4 4 If 2 · 5 · 7|n, then for such numbers one has also 3 ||n and 5 · 7 |n. Also p n if 11 ≤ p ≤ 271. (34) G. L. Cohen [58] calls a unitary divisor d of n as 1-ary divisor, and he calls d a k-ary divisor of n (for k > 1), and writes d|k n, if the greatest (k − 1)-ary divisor of d n n = 1 for 1-ary divisors d. He also calls p x an infinitary and is 1. Note that d, d d (35) divisor of p y (y > 0, p prime) if p x | y−1 p y , and writes p x |∞ p y . r y p j j , for distinct primes p1 , . . . , pr , and Let d be a divisor of n and write n = d=

r

j=1 x

p j j (where 0 ≤ x j ≤ y j , j = 1, r ). Then d is an infinitary divisor of n if

j=1 x

y

p j j |∞ p j j for each k = 1, r . 48

(36)

PERFECT NUMBERS

It is interesting to note that, by writing the binary representations x = xj2j and y − x = z j 2 j (where the sums are finite, j ≥ 0, each x j and z j is 0 or 1, and trailing zeros are allowed where required), then xjzj = 0 (37) p x |∞ p y iff Another interesting characterization (see [58]) is the following: y x y is odd, (38) p |∞ p iff x y = C yx denotes a binomial coefficient. where x Let σ∞ (n) be the sum of all infinitary divisors of n. Then σ∞ is a multiplicative function, and j σ∞ ( p α ) = (1 + p 2 ), where y = yj2j (39) y j =1

The number n is called infinitary perfect, resp. infinitary k-perfect if σ∞ (n) = 2n,

(40)

σ∞ (n) = kn (k ≥ 2)

(41)

resp. There are no odd infinitary perfect or k-perfect numbers, and Cohen conjectures that there are no infinitary perfect or k-perfect numbers not divisible by 3. (42) Cohen gives a number of 14 infinitary perfect, 13 infinitary 3-perfect, 7 infinitary 4-perfect, 2 infinitary 5-perfect numbers. Pedersen [231] found 139 new infinitary (43) perfect numbers. Cohen proves also that the only infinitary perfect numbers not divisible by 8 are 6, 60 and 90. (44) We note that D. Suryanarayana [306] and K. Alladi [6] have given different generalizations from above for unitary divisors, thus obtaining other notions of k-ary divisors. (45) ∗ ∗ A number n is called unitary harmonic if σ (n)|nd (n) (46) i.e. if the unitary harmonic mean H ∗ (n) = nd ∗ (n)/σ ∗ (n) is an integer. The main properties of unitary harmonic numbers were studied by Hagis and Lord [135], but it was earlier introduced also by N. Nageswara Rao [224] who showed that if n is unitary perfect, then it is also unitary harmonic. (47) Ch. R. Wall [Unitary harmonic numbers, Fib. Quart. 21(1983), 18-25] has proved that there are 23 unitary harmonic numbers n with ω(n) ≤ 4, and 43 unitary harmonic numbers n ≤ 106 . 49

CHAPTER 1

Let H ∗ (x) be the counting function of unitary harmonic numbers. Then for ε > 0 and large x one has (48) H ∗ (x) < 2.2x 1/2 · 2(1+ε) log x/ log log x a result due to Hagis and Lord [135]. Hagis and Cohen [131] study infinitary harmonic numbers, i.e. those numbers n for which (49) σ∞ (n)|nd∞ (n) where d∞ (n) and σ∞ (n) denote the number, resp., sum of infinitary divisors of n. Let H∞ (n) = nd∞ (n)/σ∞ (n). They show that if n is infinitary perfect, then it is also infinitary harmonic. (50) If Sc is the set of all positive integers such that H∞ (n) = c, then Sc is finite (or empty) for every real number c. (51) For the counting function H∞ (x) of infinitary harmonic function exactly the same estimate as (48) holds: H∞ (x) < 2.2x 1/2 · 2(1+ε) log x log log x

1.10

(52)

Hyperperfect, exponentially perfect, integer-perfect and γ -perfect numbers

In 1975 D. Minoli and R. Bear [217] have generalized the concept of perfect number, by introducing the hyperperfect numbers. An integer n > 1 is k-hyperperfect if n = 1 + k[σ (n) − n − 1] (1) When k = 1, this gives the perfect numbers. It easily follows that for k ≥ 2 all k-hyperperfect numbers are odd. For example 21, 2133, 19521 are 2-hyperperfect, 325 is 3-hyperperfect, 301 and 16513 are 6hyperperfect, 697 is 12-hyperperfect (see [217]). (2) Minoli [216] gave a table for all hyperperfect numbers less than 1500000. All these numbers have two distinct prime factors. But hyperperfect numbers can have more than two prime factors, for example (see te Riele [254]) 13·269·449 = 1570153 is a 5-hyperperfect number, having three distinct prime factors. (3) Minoli and Bear prove that a hyperperfect number cannot be a power of a prime. (4) If n = pq with p, q primes is k-hyperperfect, then k < p < 2k < q. (5) m m+1 m+1 If n = 3 (3 − 2), where 3 − 2 is a prime, then n is 2-hyperperfect. (6) 50

PERFECT NUMBERS

Recently, J. C. M. Nash [226] extended this to any prime p in place of 3, as follows: If n = p m ( p m+1 − ( p − 1)) and p m+1 − ( p − 1) is prime, then n is ( p − 1)hyperperfect. (7) Minoli [216] proves that if n = p1α1 p22 is k-hyperperfect, then k + 2 ≤ p1 ≤ (8) (k + 1)2 ( p1 , p2 distinct primes); and if n = p1α1 p2α2 is k-hyperperfect, then α2 ≤

log[k( p1α1 + · · · + 1) + ( p2 − 1)(k − 1)] log p2

(9)

Finally, a conjecture by Minoli and Bear [217] states that there are k-hyperperfect numbers for every k. (10) Another conjecture by them affirms that the converse of theorem (6) is true, namely if n = 3m (3m+1 − 2) is 2-hyperperfect, then 3m+1 − 2 is prime. (11) 3k + 1 , q = 3k + 4 are prime, then it If k > 1 is an odd integer, and p = 2 is immediate that p 2 q is k-hyperperfect. J. S. McCranie [69] conjectures that all khyperperfect numbers for odd k > 1 are of this form. McCranie has tabulated all hyperperfect numbers less than 1011 . For unitary hyperperfect numbers, see [122]. Here one replaces in (1) σ (n) with σ ∗ (n). It is easy to see that if n is unitary hyperperfect, and 3 n, then n ≡ 1 (mod 3). Also, if 3 nk, then n has an odd number of distinct prime factors. n cannot be a prime power, and if n has the form n = pa q b , then pa − k = 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, 25, 26, 29, 34, . . . There are in total 36 unitary hyperfect numbers n ≤ 106 . Four of these numbers are unitary perfect, found by Subbarao and Warren, twenty are hyperperfect numbers given by Minoli. From the twelve new ones we quote n = 23 · 5 (k = 3), 22 · 13 (k = 3), 25 · 32 (k = 7), 32 · 73 (k = 8), 27 · 17 (k = 15), etc. D. A. Buell [38] computed all unitary hyperperfect numbers < 108 . By developing a search procedure different from that of Buell, P. Hagis [127] found all such numbers < 109 . If n = p1α1 . . . prαr , then E. G. Straus and M. V. Subbarao [299] call d an exponential divisor if d|n and d = p1b1 . . . prbr where bi |qi (i = 1, r ).

(12)

Let σe (n) be the sum of exponential divisors of n. For various arithmetic functions and convolutions on exponential divisors, see S´andor-Bege [279]. Straus and Subbarao call n exponentially perfect (or shortly eperfect) if σe (n) = 2n (13) 51

CHAPTER 1

Some examples of e-perfect numbers are 22 · 32 , 22 · 33 · 52 , 23 · 32 · 52 , 24 · 32 · 112 , 24 · 33 · 52 · 112 , 26 · 32 · 72 · 132 , 27 · 32 · 52 · 72 · 132 , 28 · 32 · 52 · 72 · 1392 , 219 · 32 · 52 · 72 · 112 · 132 · 192 · 372 · 792 · 1092 · 1572 · 3132 . If m is squarefree, then σe (m) = m, so if n is e-perfect and m = squarefree with (m, n) = 1, then m · n is e-perfect. (14) So it suffices to consider only powerful (i.e. no prime occurs to the first power) e-perfect numbers. Straus and Subbarao proved that there are no odd e-perfect numbers, (15) and that for each r the number of e-perfect numbers with r prime factors is finite. (16) Is there an e-perfect number which is not divisible by 3? (17) Straus and Subbarao conjecture that there is only a finite number of e-perfect numbers not divisible by any given prime p. (18) J. Fabrykowski and Subbarao [100] proved that any e-perfect number not divisible by 3 must be divisible by 2117 , greater than 10664 , and having at least 118 distinct prime factors. (19) In 1988 P. Hagis, Jr. [128] showed that the density of e-perfect numbers is positive (namely, is 0.0087). (20) The number n is called e-multiperfect (see [299] if σe (n) = kn

(21)

for some k > 2. Results (15) and (16) are true also for such numbers. W. Aiello, G. E. Hardy and Subbarao [2] proved that if n is e-multiperfect, then n > 2 · 107 for k = 3;

(22)

n > 1085 for k = 4;

(23)

n > 10320 for k = 5;

(24)

n > 101210 for k = 6.

(25)

For the number of powerful solutions n ≤ x of (21), L. Lucht [201] proved that this is ≤ exp(c log x/ log log x) (26) for x ≥ 3 (even, for rational k > 1), with c a constant not depending on k. A number of interesting properties are proved in the paper by J. Hanumanthachari, V. V. Subrahmanya Sastri and V. Srinivasan [139]: If m is squarefree, then m 2 is e-perfect iff m = 6. (27) The only e-perfect number having two distinct prime factors is 36. (28) 52

PERFECT NUMBERS

b cj q j , where If n is an e-perfect number not multiple of 3, and n = pi i 2 3 p ≡ 1 (mod 3), q j ≡ 2 (mod 3), ( pi , q j primes) with bi = Pi Q i Ri (Pi , Q i being squarefree, (Pi , Q i ) = 1) and e j = L j M 2j N 3j (L j , M j being squarefree and (L j , M j ) = 1), then each Q i = 1, each L j is odd, and no M j is greater than 2. (28 ) c Further, if f = the number of q j j for which M j = 1 and ω(L j ) is even; g = the c number of q j j for which M j = 2 and ω(L j ) is odd, and h = the number of pibi for which ω(Pi ) is odd, then f + g + h is odd or even, according as n ≡ 1 or 2

(mod 3)

(29) c pibi qj j For numbers divisible by 3 the following is proved: if n = 3a (a > 1, bi > 1, c j > 1), with pi , q j primes, pi ≡ 1 (mod 3), q j ≡ 2 (mod 3) is e-perfect, then either (i) some bi has in its factorization some prime highest to the index congruent to 2 (mod 3) or (ii) some c j has 2 in its factorization highest to the index congruent to 1 (mod 3) or some c j has an odd prime occurring in its factorization to the highest index congruent to 2 (mod 3). Hanumanthachari, Subrahmanya Sastri and Srinivasan study also e-superperfect numbers given by σe (σe (n)) = 2n (30)

(31) If n = pq with p, q primes, is a solution of (30), then n = 32 . If p is a prime, n squarefree and ( p, n) = 1, ( p + 1, n) > 1, then p 2 n is esuperperfect only if p = 2. (31 ) Generally, if (σe (m), n) = 1 and n is squarefree, then mn is e-superperfect iff m is superperfect, too. (32) Related to the iteration of σe (32 ), they remark that σe(4+r ) (32 ) = 2 · 3 · 5 for any r ≥ 0 and conjecture that σe(k) (22 · 32 ) is never squarefree.

(33)

Another conjecture states that for every prime p there is a least positive integer k = k( p) such that σe(k) ( p 2 ) is squarefree. (34) In this section we shall deal also with integer-perfect numbers, which are numbers n such that n= α(d)d (35) (n) where indicates that the sum is over the proper divisors d of n and α(d) ∈ (n) {1, −1} for each d. This notion is due to L. V. Marijo [209]. 53

CHAPTER 1

Let ν(n) be the number of such representation of n, and call an integer-perfect number minimal if it has no proper divisor which is integer perfect. Marijo proves the following results: No integer of the form 2a b (b odd) is integer-perfect if b is a perfect square, but otherwise all integers of this form are interger-perfect for sufficiently large a. (36) If n is an (ordinary) even perfect number, then ν(n) = ν(2n) = 1.

(37)

For any positive integer N , there exists a minimal integer-perfect number g(N ) such that ν(g(N )) ≥ N . (38) If p is a prime not dividing n, then for any positive integer a, ν( pa n) ≥ 2a (ν(n))a+1 , with equality whenever p > σ (n)

(39)

The following asymptotic results appears in Marijo [210]: car d{m ≤ x : ν(m) ≥ m} = O(x 3/4 ).

(40)

ν(n) can be arbitrarily large. (41) nk Finally, we define γ -perfect numbers. M. D. Miller [214] defines a function γ : N → N recursively by γ (n) = γ (d) (42) For each k ∈ N∗ ,

d/n,d 1 will be called γ -perfect if γ (n) = n

(44)

Miller (who use another terminology) proves that there are no odd γ -perfect numbers. (45) n n 2 n 3 p q is γ -perfect iff p = 2 and n + 2 = 2q, while p q or p q cannot be γ -perfect. A number of the form p n qr is γ -perfect iff p = 2, and 2qr = n 2 + 6n + 6. 54

(46)

PERFECT NUMBERS

These give example of such perfect numbers, e.g. 48, 1280, 2496, 28672, 454656, 2342912,... More generally, if f is an arithmetic function, then n is called f -perfect by J. L. Pe [On a generalization of perfect numbers, J. Recr. Math. (to appear)] if f (d) n= d|n,d 1. Then n is multiplicatively perfect (in short: m-perfect), if T (n) = n 2

(1)

T (T (n)) = n 2

(2)

T (n) = n k

(3)

m-superperfect, if m-multiperfect, if for some k ≥ 2. He considered also the generalization of (2) to T (T (n)) = n k

(4)

(i.e. m-multisuperperfect numbers); as well as T (k) (n) = n k

(5)

The following results are proved: All m-perfect numbers (i.e. satisfying equation (1)) have one of the following forms: n = p1 p2 or n = p13 , where p1 , p2 are distinct primes. (6) (The author discovered later that this result appears also in K. Ireland and M. Rosen [154]. However, the first source is E. Lionnet [192] who defined ”perfect number of 55

CHAPTER 1

the second kind” as number equal to the product of its aliquot parts. See also [84], p. 58.) There are no m-superperfect numbers. (7) n = 6 is the only perfect number, which is multiplicatively perfect, too. (8) The general form of m-multiperfect numbers can be determined too, e.g.: n = p1 p22 , or n = p15 for k = 3;

(9)

n = p1 p23 or n = p1 p2 p3 or n = p17 for k = 4;

(10)

n = p1 p24 or n = p1 p24 or n = p19 for k = 5;

(11)

n=

p1 p2 p32

or n =

p1 p25 ,

n=

p111

for k = 6;

(12)

n = p1 p26 or n = p113 for k = 7;

(13)

n = p1 p2 p3 p4 or n = p1 p2 p33 or n = p13 p23 or n = p115 for k = 8;

(14)

n = p1 p22 p32 , n = p1 p28 , n = p117 for k = 9;

(15)

n = p1 p2 p34 , n = p1 p29 , n = p110 for k = 10.

(16)

As corollaries, one can deduce the following assertions: n = 28 is the single perfect number which is m-triperfect, too. (17) There are no perfect and 4-m-perfect numbers; (18) n = 496 is the only perfect number which is 5-m-perfect. (19) Related to equation (4) one can say, that it has at most a finite number of solution. (20) Particularly, it is not solvable for k = 4, 5, 6. (21) For k = 3, the general solutions are n = 812 , for k = 7, n = p13 , and for k = 9, (22) n = p1 p2 ( p1 , p2 distinct primes). Equation (5) has no solutions n > 1. (23) The function T (n) has some interesting properties: For example lim inf n→∞

log T (n) log T (n) = 1, lim sup = +∞; log n n→∞ log n

(24)

the normal order of magnitude of log log T (n) is (1 + log 2) log log n − log 2

(25)

F. Luca [200] proves that T (σ (n)) > T (n) for almost all n, and that T (n) = T (σ (n)) is impossible for any n > 1. He shows also that both of the relations T (n)|T (σ (n)) and T (σ (n))|T (n) have infinitely many solutions. 56

PERFECT NUMBERS

ˇ at and J. Tomanov´a [267] have shown that T. Sal´ log log T (n) → 1 + log 2 as n → ∞ log log n on a sequence of density 1. A similar result holds true for T (n)/n. Recently Z. Weiyi [On the divisor product sequences, Smarandache Notions J. 14(2004), 144-146] has obtained the following results: 1 1 , = log log x + C1 + O log x n≤x T (n) n≤x

1 = π(x) + (log log x)2 + B log log x + C2 + O T (n)

log log x log x

where x ≥ 1, C1 , B, C2 are constants, and T (n) = T (n)/n (π(x) is the number of primes ≤ x). A. Bege [17] introduced unitary m-perfect numbers n > 1 as solutions of T ∗ (n) = n 2

(26)

where T ∗ (n) is the product of all unitary divisors of n. Similar concepts as above for unitary m-superperfect and unitary multiperfect are also introduced and studied. All unitary m-perfect numbers have two distinct prime factors; (27) there are no unitary m-superperfect numbers. (28) If T ∗(k) (n) = n l (29) (where T ∗(k) denotes the k-times iteraton of T ∗ ) then n > 1 is called m-unitary (k, l)-perfect number. If l = 2mk , then there are no m-unitary (k, l)-perfect numbers, (30) while if l = 2mk , then every n with ω(n) = m + 1 is an m-unitary (k, l)-perfect number. (31) In a forthcoming paper, A. Bege [18] considered the similar problems for biunitary divisors. n > 1 is m-bi-unitary perfect, if T ∗∗ (n) = n 2 ,

(32)

where T ∗∗ (n) is the product of bi-unitary divisors of n etc. All m-bi-unitary perfect numbers have one of the following forms: n = p14 , n = p13 , n = p12 p22 , n = p12 p2 , n = p1 p2 , where p1 = p2 are primes. (33) 57

CHAPTER 1

All m-bi-unitary superperfect numbers have one of the following forms: n = p, n = p 2 ( p prime). (34) Let k ≥ 2. All (l, k) m-bi-unitary perfect numbers have the form k n= pi i piki −1 (35) ki =2k

where k =

l

ki =2k+1

ki and pi (i = 1, l) are distinct primes.

i=1

In a recent paper, J. S´andor [276] has introduced the multiplicatively e-perfect numbers. Let Te (n) denote the product of all e-divisors of n > 1. Then n is called m − e-perfect if Te (n) = n 2 (36) He proved the following theorem: n > 1 is m − e-perfect iff n = p k , where p is an arbitrary prime, and k is an arbitrary (ordinary) perfect number (i.e. σ (k) = 2k). (37) 6 28 496 For example, n = p , p , p , . . . are all m − e-perfect numbers. Analogously, the m − e-superperfect numbers with the property Te (Te (n)) = n 2

(38)

have the form n = p s , where s is an ordinary superperfect number (i.e. σ (σ (s)) = 2s). (39) According to the open problems relating to the ordinary perfect, or superperfect numbers, the complete determination of m − e-perfect numbers is also left to the future.

1.12

Practical numbers

A positive integer m is said to be practical (see A. K. Srinivasan [293]) if every integer n, with 1 ≤ n ≤ σ (m) is a sum of distinct divisors of m. (1) B. M. Stewart [298] showed that m = p1α1 . . . prαr with p1 < p2 < · · · < pr primes and integers αi ≥ 1 (i = 1, r ) is practical iff either m = 1 or p1 = 2 and for αi−1 every i = 2, . . . , r , pi ≤ σ ( p1α1 p2α2 . . . pi−1 ) + 1. (2) In 1950 P. Erd¨os [87] announced that practical numbers have asymptotic density. (3) Let 1 = d1 < d2 < · · · < dr = n be the divisors of n and for k ≤ r put tk = d1 + · · · + dk with t0 = 0. Then n is practical iff dk+1 ≤ tk + 1 for all k = 0, r − 1. 58

(4)

PERFECT NUMBERS

As a corollary, if n is practical, then σ (n) ≥ 2n − 1.

(5)

Results (4) and (5) are due to D. F. Robinson [261]. Let P(x) be the cardinality of practical numbers n ≤ x. Then 1 P(x) = O(x/(log x)β ) for every β < (1/ log 2 − 1)2 = 0.0979 . . . 2 and

1 P(x) ≥ Ax exp (log log x)2 + 3 log log x 2 log 2

(6)

(7)

for sufficiently large x (where A = 25/2 /5). Here (6) is due to M. Hausman and H. N. Shapiro [142], and (7) to M. Margenstern [208]. Margenstern proved also that if n is practical, distinct from a power of 2, then σ (n) ≥ 2n,

(8)

which is related to (5). As a corollary of the proof of (8) one gets: all even perfect numbers are practical (see [209]). (9) Hausman and Shapiro proved also the fact that for all x ≥ 1/3, the interval √ (x, x + 3 x) contains a practical number. (10) Margenstern proved also that lim inf σ (m)/m = 2, lim sup σ (m)/m = ∞, m→∞

n→∞

(11)

where m is practical, distinct from powers of 2. He conjectured that every even positive integer is a sum of two practical numbers, (12) and that there exist infinitely many practical numbers m such that m − 2 and m + 2 are also practical. (13) Conjectures (12) and (13) have been proved affirmatively by G. Melfi [213] (who used also a table by Margenstern for all even number < 100000 for (12)). Finally we state another conjecture (which is still open) by Margenstern, namely that x P(x) ∼ λ (x → ∞) (14) log x where λ ≈ 1.341. E. Saias [266] proved that x x c1 · ≤ P(x) ≤ c2 · for x ≥ 2 (15) log x log x for all x ≥ 2; while G. Melfi [212] showed that there exist infinitely many practical numbers in the sequences of Fibonacci, Pell, and Lucas. (16) 59

CHAPTER 1

1.13

Amicable numbers

Two numbers a and b are called amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = a + b Clearly for a = b we reobtain the perfect numbers, so one may assume in what follows that a = b. According to Iamblicus (about 283-330), ”certain men steeped in mistaken opinion thought that the perfect numbers was called love by Pythagoreans on account of the union of different elements and affinity which exists in it; for they call certain other numbers, on the contrary, amicable numbers, adopting virtues and social qualities to numbers, as 284 and 220, for the parts of each have the power to generate the other, according to the rule of friendship, as Pythagoras affirmed. When asked what is a friend, he replied ”another I”, which is shown in these numbers. Aristotle so defined a friend in his Ethics.” Among Jacob’s presents to Esau were 200 she-goats and 20 he-goats, 200 ewes and 20 rams (Genesis, XXXII, 14). Abraham Azulai (1570-1643), in commenting on this passage from the Bible, remarked that he had found written in the name of Rau Nachson (ninth centure A.D.): ”Our ancestor Jacob prepared his present in a wise way. This number 220 (of goats) is a hidden secret, being one of a pair of numbers such that the parts of it are equal to the other one 284, and conversely. And Jacob had this in mind; this has been tried by the ancients in securing the love of kings and dignatories.” The Arab El Madschrˆıtˆı (1007) of Madrid related that he had himself put to the test the erotic effect of ”giving any one the smaller number 220 to eat, and himself eating the larger number 284”. Ben Kalonymos discussed amicable numbers in 1320 in a work written for Robert of Anjou. A knowledge of amicable numbers was considered necessary by Jochanan Allemanno (fifteenth century) to determine whether an aspect of the planets was friendly or not. In 1634 Mersenne remarked that ”220 and 284 can signify the perfect friendship of two persons since the sum of the aliquot parts of 220 is 284 and conversely, as is these two numbers were only the same thing”. For the early history of amicable numbers (up to 1919), we cite L. E. Dickson [84]. E. B. Escott [95] made a review of the subject up to 1941, while that of E. J. Lee and J. S. Madachy [187] to 1972. More recent surveys can be found in Guy [114], Mitrinovi´c-S´andor [218], Eric Weisstein [325]. Here we will study the subject in a such a manner which shows that certain forgotten or new aspects could be important for the further considerations. Only the most important results will be pointed out. 60

PERFECT NUMBERS

The first method described for finding amicable pairs is due to Thabit ibn Qurra (836-901) (see [84]): Let p = 3 · 2n−1 − 1, q = 3 · 2n − 1, r = 9 · 22n−1 − 1 be all primes (where n is a positive integer). Then (1) a = 2n pq and b = 2n r are amicable. For n = 2 one has p = 5, q = 11, r = 71, so one gets the Pythagorean pair. By rediscovering Thabit’s rule, Fermat in 1636 (in a letter for Mersenne) discovered for n = 4 (when p = 23, q = 47, r = 1151) a new pair a = 17296, b = 18416. In 1838 Descartes (again in a letter to Mersenne) found for n = 7 (when p = 191, q = 383, r = 73727) the third pair a = 9363584, b = 9437056. It was discovered later that these pairs were known to Ibn-al-Bann´a (1256-1321) of Marakesh and to K. Farisi of Bagdad (see e.g. W. Borho [29]). Despite later searches to n ≤ 8 by Euler, to n ≤ 15 by Legendre, to n ≤ 34 by Le Lasseur, to n ≤ 200 by G´erardin, to n ≤ 1000 by Riesel (see [187]), no additional Thabitean pair have been discovered. L. Euler (1747) [96] was the first to treat extensively the subject of amicable numbers and to show for the first time their great diversity. To exhaust all amicable numbers of the form (1) Euler generalized Thabit’s formulae as follows: If for g = 2n−β + 1 with some β, 0 < β < n, the numbers r1 = 2β g − 1, r2 = 2n g − 1 and s = (r1 + 1)(r2 + 1) − 1 = 2n+β g 2 − 1

(2)

are prime, then the numbers (1) are amicable, and this gives all amicable pairs of the form (1). For example, β = n − 1 gives Thabit’s rule. Euler’s generalization gives further amicable pairs for n = 8, β = 1, resp. n = 40, β = 29, as discovered by A. M. Legendre and P. Chebyshev, resp. by te Riele [252]. For various other algebraic methods due to Euler, see [187]. We note that a simple method, by the use of Diophantine equations was discovered earlier by F. van Schooten in 1657, but his method gives only the first three known pairs (see [84]). Euler’s methods enabled him to give a list of 30 new pairs. One of the Euler’s method (the third algebraic method) was discovered independently also by G. W. Kraft (1751), see [84], [187]. In 1968 E. J. Lee [186] discovered the so called ”BDE method” (i.e. Bilinear Diophantine Equation method). Given natural numbers a1 , a2 one may determine all amicable pairs of the form (3) a = a1 q, b = a2 s1 s2 where q, resp. s1 , s2 (s1 = s2 ) are primes not dividing a1 , resp. a2 , by solving a 61

CHAPTER 1

bilinear Diophantine equation on s1 , s2 as follows: Take any factorization of the number (4) ( f + d) f + dg = d1 d2 into two different natural factors d1 , d2 , where f := (σ (a1 ) − a1 )σ (a2 ), g := a1 σ (a1 ), d := a2 σ (a1 ) + a1 σ (a2 ) − σ (a2 )σ (a1 ) If then, for i = 1, 2,

si = (di + f )/d

(5)

(6)

are integers, prime, and prime to a2 , and if also q = σ (a2 )σ (a1 )−1 (s1 + 1)(s2 + 1) − 1

(7)

is prime, and prime to a1 , then we have an amicable pair (3), and this gives all such pairs. The idea of this method goes essentially back to Euler, who formulated, and extensively used it in several special cases, as did many authors later on. A new analogue of Thabit’s formula has been discovered in 1972 by W. Borho [28], and later by E. Borho and H. Hoffman [31]. We cite here the later result: Let n be a positive integer, and choose β, 0 < β < n, such that with g = 2n−β + 1, the number (8) r1 = 2β g − 1 is prime. Now choose α, 0 < α < n, such that p = 2α + (2n+1 − 1)g, r2 = 2n−α gp − 1 and s = (r1 + 1)(r2 + 1) − 1 = 2n−α+β g 2 p − 1

(9)

are also prime. Then a = 2n pr1r2 , b = 2n ps

(10)

are amicable pairs. For example, n = 2 and α = β = 1 give the amicable numbers a = 22 ·23·5·137, b = 22 · 23 · 827, discovered by other methods by Euler. A new analogue of Euler’s formula is contained in the following result ([31]): Let n, γ be positive integers with 0 < γ < n. Put either (i) C = 2n + 2γ , or (ii) C = 2n (2n+1 − 1) + 2γ (11) Take any factorization of C = f D into two positive factors f, D. Let p = D + 2n+1 − 1, r1 = p f − 1, r2 = (r1 + 1)2n−γ − 1 in case (i) 62

(12)

PERFECT NUMBERS

resp. r2 = 2n + f − 1, r2 = p(2n + f )2n−γ − 1 in case (ii)

(13)

s = (r1 + 1)(r2 + 1) − 1

(14)

Whenever the four numbers p1 , r1 , r2 , s are primes, then a = 2n pr1r2 , b = 2n ps

(15)

are amicable, and all amicable pairs (15) with p, r1 , r2 , s odd primes, are obtained in this way. For example, n = 8, γ = 7, f = 23 · 31 give Lee’s pair [186] a = 28 · 1039 · 503 · 1047311, b = 28 · 1039 · 527845247. In 1866 a 16-year old Italian school boy, N. I. Paganini found the small amicable pair (1184, 1210), which is not in the list by Euler (but he gave no indication of the method of discovery). (16) E. B. Escott was the most prolific discoverer of amicable numbers prior to the computer era. There were 390 known amicable pairs as of 1946, (see Escott [95]) and 219 of them were due to Escott. (17) H. L. Rolf [262] was the first (by using an exhaustive numerical method) to discover an amicable pair on a computer. He investigated all numbers less than 105

(18)

J. Alanen, O. Ore and J. Stemple [5] extended the numerical search to 106

(19)

discovering 8 new pairs. In 1970 H. Cohen [54] extended the range to 108 .

(20)

In 1984 te Riele [256] discovered a trick named ”daughter pair from mother pairs”, with a remarkable efficiency. This can be summarized as follows: take the inputs a1 , a2 from the list of already known amicable numbers (see the BDE-method (3)-(7)) (a, b) by splitting both numbers a, b into a = a1 v1 , b = a2 v2 , where vi (i = 1, 2) is either 1, or a large simple prime factor of a, b (v1 for a, v2 for b). From a list of known (”mother”)-pairs new (”daughter”) pairs can be computed. (21) For an improvement of te Riele’s trick, see the ”breeding” method by Borho and Hoffman [31]. 63

CHAPTER 1

te Riele [257] has found all 1427 amicable pair whose lesser members are less than 1010 (22) Moews and Moews found 3340 numbers less than 1011 (D. Moews, P. C. Moews [221]) and 5001 numbers less than 3 · 06 · 1011 (D. Moews, P. C. Moews [222]). In 1993 [258] te Riele discovered a new method similar to the Thabit-Euler-LeeBorho-Hoffman methods. In 1997 M. Garcia (see [325]) discovered a new amicable pair, each of whose members has 4829 digits. Probably this is momentary the largest known amicable pair. (23) The new pair has the form a = C M[(P + Q)P 89 − 1] b = C Q[(P − M)P 89 − 1]

(24)

where C = 211 · P 89 , M = 287155430510003638403359267, P = 574451143340278962374313859, Q = 136272576607912041393307632916794623. Note that P, Q, (P + Q)P 89 − 1 and (P − M)P 89 − 1 are all primes. During the first three months of the year 2001, M. Garcia has found over one million new amicable pairs (see his article ”A million new amicable pairs” from J. Integer Sequences (electronic) 4(2001), article 01.2.6). The earliest known amicable numbers all were divisible by 3. So P. Bratley and J. McKay [32] conjectured that there are no amicable pairs coprime to 6. However, S. Battiato and W. Borho [11] found a counterexample. (25) Today there are many known amicable pairs not divisible by 6 (see J. M. Pedersen [232]). (26) The first example of a pair coprime to 30 has been found by Y. Kohmoto (see [232]) in 1997, consisting of a pair of numbers each having 193 digits. (27) No amicable pairs which are coprime to 210 are currently known. (28) It is also not known, if there exist odd amicable pairs with one member, but not both divisible by 3. (29) A conjecture by Ch. Wall says that odd amicable pairs must be incongruent (modulo 4) (30) (see Guy [114], p. 57). It is not known whether or not there are an infinite number of amicable pairs. (31) 64

PERFECT NUMBERS

The first result in this direction is Kanold’s proof [166] in 1954 that the density of amicable pairs is ≤ 0, 204 (32) The fact that this density is zero, is due to P. Erd¨os [88]. Formulated more precisely, let B(x) = car d{(a, b) : a < b, a < x, (a, b) amicable pair} Then B(x) = o(x)

(33)

Erd¨os and G. J. Rieger [94] improved this to B(x) = O(x/ log log log x)

(34)

Finally, in 1981 C. Pomerance [241] deduced the strongest known estimates, namely B(x) ≤ x exp(−(log x)1/3 ) (35) resp. B(x) x exp(−c(log x log log x)1/3 )

(36)

Note that (35) has an interesting Corollary, not known before, namely that the sum of the reciprocals of the amicable numbers is finite. (37) Relatively prime amicable pairs are not known, (38) but conditions on their existence have been studied by O. Gmelin [109], H.-J. Kanold [163] and P. Hagis, Jr. [115], [116]. Hagis showed that there are no relatively prime amicable numbers with lesser member less than 1060

(39)

Gmelin proved that an even-odd amicable pair (a, b) must be of the form a = 2α A2 , b = B 2 , (A, B odd)

(40)

A. A. Gioia and A. M. Vaidya [108] show that A in (40) cannot be a square. (41) If in (40) α > 1, then A cannot be a prime ≡ 4 (mod 3)

(42)

B must be composite, and if α is odd, then (A, 3) = (B, 3) and there exists a prime q and a positive integer γ such that q γ ||B and q ≡ γ ≡ 1 (mod 3). 65

(43)

CHAPTER 1

If α ≡ 3 (mod 4), then there exists a prime p and a positive integer δ such that p ||B and δ

2p ≡ δ ≡ 2

(mod 5), and A ≡ B ≡

α+1 σ (A2 ) ≡ 0 4

(mod 5).

(44)

(42)-(44) are due to Gioia and Viadya, too. Kanold [164] proves that if α > 1 in (40), then a < b. (45) If α = 1 and a > b in (40), then b must contain at least five distinct prime factors. (46) Also, if a, b in (40) are relatively prime, then ab ≡ 2

(mod 24)

(47)

A corollary of (47) is the interesting fact that there are no relatively prime evenodd amicable pairs in which both members are perfect squares. (48) k If A in (40) is a pure prime power, then α = 1, and if we put M = p , then k > 6, ω(B) > 24, p ≡ 1 (mod 12), and a > b > 1075 . (49) Another result by Kanold states that if ω(a) = ω(b) = 2, then a and b cannot be an amicable pair. (50) Lee and Madachy [187] prove that if a < b are amicable numbers with a and b even, then a 1 > (51) b 2 Borho [30] proved that the set of relatively prime amicable pairs a, b with ω(a)+ ω(b) ≤ K (where K is a given bound), is finite. (52) P. Hagis, Jr. [117] obtained the following results: Let a and b be relatively prime amicable pairs of opposite parity such that a < b and b even. Put 1 ( p prime) S= p p|ab If 5|ab, then S < 1.57549, while if 5 ab, then S < 1.59862. These bound are true also, if b < a, but a < 2b. If a, b are relatively prime amicables with opposite parity, then

(53) (54) (55)

S > 1.43151 if 5|ab;

(56)

S > 1.45382 if 5 ab.

(57)

In 1986 te Riele [257] found 37 pairs of amicable pairs (a, b) and (c, d) such that a+b =c+d 66

(58)

PERFECT NUMBERS

The first such pair is (609928,686072) and (643336,652664). Three such pairs were obtained in 1993 by Moews and Moews, while te Riele in 1995 obtained four pairs. In 1997 five, resp. six pairs have been discovered. Related to amicable numbers in special sequences or functions, we quote the following results: For any a, the numbers a and ϕ(a) (ϕ is Euler’s totient) cannot be amicable. (59) The same for a and (2b − 1)a + 1, where a, b > 1. (60) Results (59) and (60) are due to F. Luca [196]. Here an open question is stated too: for what value of a are a and a + 1 amicable? (they cannot be both perfect; see 4.(49)). (61) The Pell sequence (Pn ) is given by P0 = 0, P1 = 1, Pn+2 = 2Pn+1 + Pn for n ≥ 0. In [199] it is proved that there are no amicable Pell pairs. (62) The notion of amicable numbers (or pairs) has been studied also in certain other contexts. Unitary amicable numbers have been introduced by Hagis [118], and studied by him, and later by Garcia [106]. It seems that there are more than 100 such pairs. The first few are (114,126), (1140,1260), (18018,22302),... The largest known unitary amicable pair has its members with 192 digits, discovered by Y. Kohmoto [327]. We quote some theoretical results on unitary amicable pairs (a, b), i.e. satisfying ∗ σ (a) = σ ∗ (b) = a + b. For example, neither a nor b is of the form p α (prime power); they are of the same parity; if a = 2α M, b = 2β N , where β > α > 0 and M, N are odd integers having s, resp. t prime divisors, then s ≤ α and t ≤ α. (63) If a = 2M, b = 2N , where (10, M N ) = 1, then 10a and 10b also is a pair of unitary amicable numbers. If a and b are both squarefree, then (a, b) is unitary amicable pair iff it is an amicable pair. (63’) It is not known if there are an infinite number of unitary amicable pairs, or if there exists a such pair with relatively prime components. For the bi-unitary amicable numbers see another paper by Hagis [126]. Let (a, b) be a bi-unitary amicable pair, i.e. σ ∗∗ (a) = σ ∗∗ (b) = a + b. Then a and b must have the same parity. If a = 2α M, b = 2β N with M ≡ N ≡ 1 (mod 2), α < β, then ω(M) ≤ α, ω(N ) ≤ β. (64) As a corollary one gets that if a = 2M, b = 2β N with β > 1 and M, N odd, then M = p c , N = q d (prime powers). Suppose that a = m M, b = m N with (m, M) = (m, N ) = 1 and where every exponent in the prime factorization of M and N is odd. If σ ∗∗ (n)/n = σ ∗ (m)/m and (n, M) = (n, N ) = 1, then (n M, n N ) is a new bi-unitary amicable pair. (64’) There are sixty pairs of bi-unitary amicable pairs (a, b) with a < b and a ≤ 106 . The first examples are (114,126), (594,846), (1140,1260), (3608,3952), (4698,5382),...

67

CHAPTER 1

Let σ # (n) be the sum of nonunitary divisors of n. The numbers a and b are called nonunitary amicable (see [190]) if σ # (a) = b and σ # (b) = a.

(65)

All known nonunitary amicable pairs are even. In [129] Hagis proves that if (a, b) is a pair of odd nonunitary numbers, then a = M 2, b = N 2,

(66)

while if such a pair is even-odd, then a = 2α M 2 with M odd and α ≥ 1

(67)

Garcia (see [114], p. 59) has called a pair of numbers (a, b) quasi-amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = a + b + 1

(68)

For example, (48,75), (140,195), (1575,1648), (1050,1925) are quasi-amicable pairs. Some authors use the ”betrothed numbers” terminology, but remarking that for a = b one reobtains from (68) the quasi-perfect numbers (see section 6), this one is more natural terminology. Hagis and Lord [136] have found all 46 pairs of quasi-amicable numbers with a < 107 , a < b. (69) All of them are of opposite parity. No pairs are known with a, b having the same parity. (70) Hagis and Lord prove that if a < b are of the same parity, then a > 1010 .

(71)

If (a, b) = 1 is a quasi-amicable pair, then ω(ab) ≥ 4,

(72)

while if (a, b) = 1 with a, b odd, then ω(ab) ≥ 21.

(73)

Finally, if (a, b) = 1 and a, b are of the same parity, then a and b are > 1030

(74)

The numbers a and b will be called almost-amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = a + b − 1 68

(75)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Note that for a = b one reobtains the almost-perfect numbers (see section 6). Beck and Najar [12] (who call a, b satisfying (75) ”augmented amicable”, while for (68) they use the terminology ”reduced amicable”) found 11 almost-amicable pairs. (76) They found no unitary quasi or almost amicable pairs (a, b) such that a < b, b < 105 ,

(77)

i.e. satisfying (68), resp. (75) with σ ∗ in place of σ . Cohen [58] has introduced infinitary amicable numbers (see section 9 for infinitary divisors) a, b defined by σ∞ (a) = σ∞ (b) = a + b

(78)

Such pairs are e.g. (114,126), (594,846), (1140,1260), (4320,7920), (5940,8460), (8640,11760). He lists all infinitary amicable numbers (a, b) with a < b and a < 106 . There are 62 such pairs. (79) From the list it is interesting to remark that very often a and b have similar prime factorization, and Cohen asks for a motivation of this fact. (80) In an unpublished paper, I. Z. Ruzsa [265] called the numbers a and b lovely numbers if σ (a) = 2b, σ (b) = 2a (81) All lovely pairs (a, b) with a and b even are given by a = 2k (2q+1 − 1), b = 2q (2k+1 − 1)

(82)

where 2q+1 − 1 and 2k+1 − 1 are primes. S´andor [277] obtains a new proof of this result. He also proves that if (a, b) is a super-lovely pair, defined by σ (σ (a)) = 2b, σ (σ (b)) = 2a

(83)

with a and b even, then a = b, so one reobtains the even superperfect numbers (see section 7). The unitary, etc. analogue of lovely numbers are introduced in [278]. In 1913 Dickson [81] defined amicable triples (a, b, c) by σ (a) = σ (b) = σ (c) = a + b + c

(84)

After developing a theory analogues to Euler, he obtained eight sets of amicable triplets in which two of the numbers are equal, and two triples of distinct numbers (293 · 337a, 5 · 16561a, 993371a), resp. (3 · 89b, 11 · 29b, 359b) where a = 25 · 3 · 13, b = 214 · 5 · 19 · 31 · 151. 69

(85)

CHAPTER 1

A. Makowski [204] gave by other method new amicable triples, e.g. (22 · 32 · 5 · 11, 25 · 32 · 7, 22 · 32 · 71). In 1921 T. E. Mason [211] further generalized amicable numbers by introducing amicable k-tuples a1 , a2 , . . . , ak where σ (a1 ) = σ (a2 ) = · · · = σ (ak ) = a1 + a2 + · · · + ak

(86)

It is not known if there exist infinitely many such k-tuples (for any k ≥ 2). (87) Y. Kohmoto (see [114], p. 59) found an example of amicable 4-tuples (which he calls quadri-amicable numbers) with all of ai (i = 1, 4) not multiple of 3. (88) The smallest known amicable quadruple is (842448600, 936343800, 999426600, 1110817800). B. F. Yanney [329] defined a k-tuplet of amicable numbers a1 , . . . , ak by a1 + a2 + · · · + ak = (k − 1)σ (ai ) (i = 1, k). For k = 2 this definition coincides with that of Dickson. For k > 2, however the two definitions are distinct. E.g. a1 = 308, a2 = 455, a3 = 581 are a triplet of amicable numbers in the sense of Yanney, since σ (a1 ) = σ (a2 ) = σ (a3 ) = 672 and a1 + a2 + a3 = 2 · 672. C. W. Anderson and D. Hickerson [7] call the pair (a, b) a friendly pair, if a = b and σ (b) σ (a) = (89) a b For example, (6n, 28n) for (n, 42) = 1 are such pairs. A number a is called solitary if it doesn’t exist b = a such that (a, b) is a friendly pair (90) (i.e. a is a number ”without friends”). Clearly, if a = b are perfect numbers (i.e. σ (a) = 2a, σ (b) = 2b), then (a, b) satisfies (89). An odd solution is (135,819) or (33 · 5 · 7, 34 · 72 · 112 · 192 · 127); while a solution with a even, b odd is (42, 32 · 5 · 72 · 13 · 19).

(91)

M. G. Greening [7] shows that numbers n such that (n, σ (n)) = 1, are solitary. (92) There are 53 numbers less than 100, which are solitary, but there are some numbers, as 10, 14, 15, 20,... for which we cannot decide if they are solitary or not. (93) The density of friendly pairs is positive, first shown by Erd¨os [89]: the number of solutions of (89) satisfying a < b ≤ x equals C x + o(x), where C > 0 is a constant (in fact C ≥ 8/147, see [7]). (94) 70

PERFECT NUMBERS

If (a, b) = 1 is a friendly pair, then (89) implies that a|σ (a), b|σ (b), so a and b are multiply perfect numbers (see section 5). It is not known if (89) has infinitely many solutions satisfying (a, b) = 1. (95) If a and b are squarefree, then (a, b) cannot be a friendly pair (see [89]). (96) The density of numbers a with friends is unity, (97) see [7]. R. D. Carmichael [45] called a pair (a, b) multiply amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = k(a + b) for some positive integer k. (98) For k = 1 we obtain the classical amicable pairs. Mason [211] gives various multiply amicable pairs for k = 2 and k = 3. Cohen, Gretton and Hagis [60] called the integers a and b < a (α, β)-multiamicable if σ (b) − b = αa, σ (a) − a = βb, with α, β positive integers. They proved that b cannot have just one distinct prime factor, and if it has precisely two distinct prime factors, then α = 1 and b is even. For small α, β various (α, β)-multiamicable numbers have been tabulated. σ (a) M + αN N + βM Suppose that (a, M) = (a, N ) = 1 and = = . Then a σ (M) σ (N ) a M, a N are (α, β)-multiamicable. By applying this proposition, the authors have found 72 more multiamicable pairs. They proved also that the density of multiamicable numbers is zero. Cohen and te Riele [65] have studied multiple ϕ-amicable pairs (where ϕ is Euler’s totient). The pair (a, b) with 1 < a ≤ b is called ϕ-amicable pair with multiplier k (denoted as (a, b; k) if ϕ(a) = ϕ(b) =

a+b , for some integer k ≥ 1. k

(99)

The pair (a, b) is ϕ-amicable if there exists k with (99). In fact, it is easy to see that one must have k > 2. A ϕ-amicable pair (a, b; k) is called primitive if gcd(a, b) is squarefree and gcd(a, b; k) = 1.

(100)

Cohen and Riele have computed all ϕ-amicable pairs with b < 109 , and found 812 pairs for which the greatest common divisor is squarefree. Among them 499 are primitive. In fact with a ϕ-pair for which the g.c.d. is squarefree, infinitely many other ϕ-amicable pairs can be associated. (101) They proved the following general theorems: There are only finitely many primitive ϕ-amicable pairs with a given number of different prime factors. (102) 71

CHAPTER 1

Let (a, b; k) be ϕ-amicable, where ω(a) = r , ω(b) = s. Let p be the smallest prime divisor of ab, and put m = max{r, s}. Then p≤

k + 4m − 8 k−4

k + 2m − 2 p≤ k−2

with k ≥ 5, if the pair is even, (103) with k ≥ 3, if the pair is odd.

If (a, b; k) is a ϕ-amicable pair with (a, b) = 1, then k−1

1, there is no chain an 1 , an 2 , . . . , an k of period k in which (n 1 , . . . , n k ) = 1 and (n j , a) = 1, j = 1, k, a > 1. (4) 72

PERFECT NUMBERS

In 1918 P. Poulet (see [244]) discovered a chain of period 5, namely n = 12496 = 24 · 11 · 71, s(n) = 24 · 19 · 47, s (2) (n) = 24 · 967, s (3) (n) = 23 · 23 · 79, s (4) (n) = 23 · 1783, s (5) (n) = n

(5)

and another one of period 28 for n = 14316. (6) After a gap of 50 years, and the advent of high-speed computers, H. Cohen (see [114]) discovered nine cycles of period 4, and Borho [27], as well as David and Root (see [114]) also discovered some. (7) Moews and Moews [220] have made an exhaustive search for such cycles with greatest member less than 1010 . There are 24 such cycles. (8) They found also an 8-cycle. A. Flammenkamp [101] discovered a new 8-cycle, and one 9-cycle. (9) Moews and Moews [221] have continued to uncover all cycles, of any length, whose member preceding the largest member is less than 3.6 · 1010 . They found three more 4-cycles, and one 6-cycle, all of whose members are odd (for n = 21548919483 = 35 · 72 · 13 · 17 · 19 · 431). (10) No one found a 3-cycle, and it has been conjectured that such cycles do not exist. (11) On the other hand it has been conjectured that for each k there are infinitely many k-cycles (see [114]). (12) For new four-cycles, see [25] (where fifty new such cycles are found, bringing the total number of 4-cycles to 110). Related to Catalan’s conjecture (3), today we have experimental (and heuristic) arguments that some sequences go to infinity (see e.g. [251]). (13) Perhaps (13) holds true for almost all even n. D. H. Lehmer (see [114]) showed that the aliquot sequence {s (k) (138)} after reaching a maximum s (117) (138) = 2 · 61 · 929 · 1587569, terminated at s (177) (138) = 1. (14) Guy et al. (see [114]) used a program to discover that s (746) (840) = 601

(15)

and establishing a new record s (287) (840) for the maximum of a terminating sequence. Recently, M. Dickerman found a new record showing that s (583) (1248) reaches a 73

CHAPTER 1

maximum of a number of 58 digits, the period being 1075 for this number n = 1248. (16) For recent advances in aliquot sequences (of computational nature), see M. Benito and J. L. Varona [20]. In 1977 H. W. Lenstra [188] has proved that it is possible to construct arbitrarily long monotonic increasing aliquot sequences, i.e. for each k there is an n with n < s(n) < s (2) (n) < · · · < s (k) (n)

(17)

P. Erd¨os [91] proved that for all fixed k and δ > 0 and for all n, except a sequence of density zero one has

s(n) (1 − δ)n n

i

s(n) < s (n) < (1 + δ)n n (i)

i (18)

for i = 1, k.

s(n) s (i+1) (n) > − ε for i = 1, k (for each ε > 0 and k) has (i) s (n) n asymptotic density 1. (19) Erd¨os, Granville, Pomerance and Spiro [93] proved a similar result: for each ε > 0, the set of n with s (2) (n) s(n) < +ε s(n) n The set of n with

has asymptotic density 1. (20) Let S (k) (x) denote the number of odd integers m ≤ x, not in the range of the function s (k) . Then there is a δ > 0 such that S (k) (x) x 1−δ

(21)

uniformly for all positive integers k, and x > 0. The unitary aliquot sequences and unitary sociable numbers are defined similarly, by considering s ∗ (n) = σ ∗ (n) − n (22) where σ ∗ (n) denotes the sum of unitary divisors of n. The analogue of (17) holds true here, too, proved by te Riele [249]: for each k there is an n such that n < s ∗ (n) < s (2)∗ (n) < · · · < s (k)∗ (n)

(23)

but we do not know if there are unbounded unitary aliquot sequences, or not. (24) 74

PERFECT NUMBERS

te Riele pursued all unitary aliquot sequences for n < 105 . The only one which did not terminate or become periodic was 89610. Later calculations [250] showed that this reached a maximum at s ∗(568) (89610), and terminated at its 1129th term. (25) Unitary sociable numbers may occur rather more frequently than their ordinary counterparts. M. Lal, G. Tiller and T. Summers [185] found cycles of periods 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 25, 39, 65. For example, (30,42,54) is a 3-cycle, while (1482,1878,1890,2142,2178) is a 5-cycle. Beck and Najar [13] considered the iterates of L ∗− (n) = s ∗ (n) − 1, and

(26)

L ∗+ (n) = s ∗ (n) + 1.

(27)

They introduce ”reduced unitary sociable numbers” by considering the iterations of L ∗− , and ”augmented unitary sociable numbers” by the same for L ∗+ . We shall call these in a more natural way as unitary quasi-sociable, resp. unitary almostsociable numbers, in accordance with the used terminologies in the case of perfect and amicable numbers. Beck and Najar showed by a computer search that there are no unitary almostsociable numbers n for n < 105 . (28) The same is true for unitary quasi-sociable numbers less than 110000

(29)

Recently, the calculations were lifted up to 109 , and one cycle has been obtained for both cases (see [219]). (30) Cohen [58] introduces in a similar manner infinitary sociable numbers. He finds eight infinitary aliquot cycles of order 4, three of order 6 and one of order 11. (31) This last is the only cycle of order less than 17 and least member less than a million. Y. Kohmoto (see [326]) has considered a generalization of the sociable numbers as follows. Let (a(n)) be a sequence defined by a(n) =

σ (a(n − 1)) . m

If this sequence becomes cyclic after k > 1 terms, it is then called an 1/msociable number of order k. It is easy to see that e.g. 2m−1 Mn and 2n−1 Mm are 1/2-sociable numbers of order 2, with Mn and Mm being distinct Mersenne primes. In [219] one finds certain remarks and numerical results for the bi-unitary, exponential cycles, as well as their quasi and almost variants. (32) 75

CHAPTER 1

Hagis [129] considered nonunitary aliquot sequences. A k-tuple of distinct natural numbers (n 0 , n 1 , . . . , n k−1 ) with n i = σ # (n i−1 ) (i = 1, k − 1) and n 0 = σ # (n k−1 ) is called a nonunitary k-cycle. (33) A search was made for all nonunitary k-cycles with k > 2 and n 0 ≤ 106 . A 3-cycle was found: (619368, 627264, 1393551) (34) An open question is whether or not unbounded nonunitary aliquot sequences exist. For generalized aliquot sequences, see te Riele [253]. For the iteration of various arithmetic functions, see [255]. Finally we mention two open problems, one due to Alaoglu and Erd¨os [3], the other one to Poulet [245]. Alaoglu and Erd¨os propose the question of whether or not the sequences: σ (n), σ (σ (n)), ϕ(σ (σ (n))), σ (ϕ(σ (σ (n)))), . . .

(35)

ϕ(n), ϕ(ϕ(n)), σ (ϕ(ϕ(n))), . . .

(36)

or converge to a periodic state, a fixed number, or tend to infinity for all n? Poulet conjectures that the sequence ( f k (n))k defined by f 0 (n) = n, f 2k+1 (n) = σ ( f 2k (n)), f 2k (n) = ϕ( f 2k−1 (n)) is eventually periodic, for all n. (37)

76

References [1] H. L. Abbott, C. E. Aull, E. Brown and D. Suryanarayana, Quasiperfect numbers, Acta Arith. 22(1973), 439-447; Errata: 29(1976), 427-428. [2] W. Aiello, G. E. Hardy and M. V. Subbarao, On the existence of e-multiperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), 65-71. [3] L. Alaoglu and P. Erd¨os, A conjecture in elementary number theory, Bull. A.M.S. 50(1944), 881-882. [4] L. B. Alexander, Odd triperfect numbers are bounded below by 1060 , (M. A. Thesis, 1984, East Carolina Univ.). [5] J. Alanen, O. Ore and J. Stemple, Systematic Computation of amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 21(1967), 242-245. [6] K. Alladi, On arithmetic functions and divisors of higher order, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 23(1977), 9-27. [7] C. W. Anderson and D. Hickerson, Problem 6020, Amer. Math. Monthly 82(1975), 307. Comment by M. G. Greening and comments by the proposers in 84(1977), 65-66. [8] S. Asadulla, Even perfect numbers and their Euler’s function, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 10(1987), no. 2, 409-412. [9] E. Bach, G. Miller and J. Shallit, Sums of divisors, perfect numbers and factoring, SIAM J. Comput. 15(1986), no. 4, 1143-1154. [10] E. Bach and J. Shallit, Algorithmic number theory, MIT, 1996. [11] S. Battiato and W. Borho, Are there odd amicable numbers not divisible by three? Math. Comp. 50(1988), 633-637. 77

CHAPTER 1

[12] W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar, More reduced amicable pairs, Fib. Quart. 15(1977), 331-332. [13] W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar, Fixed points of certain arithmetic functions, Fib. Quart. 15(1977), 337-342. [14] W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar, A lower bound for odd triperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 38(1982), 249-251. [15] E. Bedocchi, Perfect numbers in real quadratic fields, (Italian), Bolletino U.M.I. (5)15-A(1978), 94-103. [16] A. Bege, Fixed points of certain divisor functions, Notes Number Th. Discr. Math., 1(1995), no. 1, 43-44. [17] A. Bege, On multiplicatively unitary perfect numbers, Seminar on Fixed Point Theory, Cluj-Napoca, 2(2001), 59-63. [18] A. Bege, On multiplicatively bi-unitary perfect numbers, Notes Number Th. Discr. Math. 8(2002), 28-36. [19] M. Bencze, On perfect numbers, Studia Univ. Babes¸-Bolyai, 26(1981), 14-18. [20] M. Benito and J. L. Varona, Advances in aliquot sequences, Math. Comp. 68(1999), 389-393. [21] S. J. Benkovski, Problem E2308, Amer. Math. Monthly 79(1972), 774. [22] S. J. Benkovski and P. Erd¨os, On weird and pseudoperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 28(1974), 617-623; corrigendum. S. Krawitz, 29(1975), 673. [23] J. T. Betcher and J. H. Jaroma, An extension of the results of Servais and Cramer on odd perfect and odd multiply perfect numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 110(2003), no. 1, 49-52. [24] S. J. Bezuska and M. J. Kenney, Even perfect numbers, The Math. Teacher 90(1997), 628-633. [25] K. Blamkenagel, W. Borho and A. vom Stein, New amicable four cycles, Math. Com., 72(2003), no. 244, 2071-2076 (electronic). ¨ [26] D. Bode, Uber eine Verallgemeinerung der vollkommenen Zahlen (Dissertation, Braunschweig 1971, 57 pp.). 78

PERFECT NUMBERS

¨ [27] W. Borho, Uber die Fixpunkte der k-fach itarierten Teilersummenfunktion, Mitt. Math. Gesellsch. Hamburg 9(1969), 34-48. [28] W. Borho, On Thabit Ibn Kurrah’s formula for amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 26(1972), 571-578. [29] W. Borho, Befreundete Zahlen, Ein Zweitausend Jahre altes Thema der elementaren Zahlentheorie, in: Lebendige Zahlen, Math. Miniaturen, vol. 1, Birkh¨auser V., Basel, 1981. [30] W. Borho, Befreundete Zahlen mit gegebener Primteileranzahl, Math. Ann. 209(1974), 183-193. [31] W. Borho and H. Hoffman, Breeding amicable numbers in abundance, Math. Comp. 46(1986), 281-293. [32] P. Bratley and J. McKay, More amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 22(1968), 677-678. [33] A. Brauer, On the non-existence of odd perfect numbers of form 2 p α q12 . . . qt−1 qt4 , Bull. A.M.S., 49(1943), 712-718. [34] R. P. Brent and G. L. Cohen, A new lower bound for odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 53(1989), 431-437, S7-S24. [35] R. P. Brent, G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, Improved techniques for lower bounds of odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 57(1991), 857-868. [36] S. Brentjes, Die ersten sieben volkommenen Zahlen und drei Arten befreundeter Zahlen in einem Werk zur elementaren Zahlentheorie von Ismal b. Ibrahim ibn Fallus, NTM Schr. Gesichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 24(1)(1987), 21-30. [37] S. Brentjes, Eine Tabelle mit volkommenen Zahlen in einer arabischen Handschrift aus dem 13 Jahrhundert, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde (4)8(2)(1990), 239241. [38] D. A. Buell, On the computation of unitary hyperperfect numbers, Congr. Numer. 34(1982), 191-206. [39] E. A. Bugulov, On the question of the existence of odd multiperfect numbers (Russian), Kabardino Balkarsk Gos. Univ. Ucen. Zap. 30(1966), 9-19. 79

CHAPTER 1

1 1 + = 1, p N p/N pseudoperfect numbers and partially weighted graphs, Math. Comp. 69(1999), 407-420.

[40] W. Butske, L. M. Jaje and D. R. Mayernik, The equation

[41] D. Callan, Solution to Problem 6616, Amer. Math. Monthly 99(1992), 783789. [42] W. Carlip, E. Jacobson and L. Somer, Pseudo-primes, perfect numbers, and a problem of Lehmer, Fib. Quart. 36(1998), 361-371. [43] R. D. Carmichael, Annals of Math. (2)8(1906-7), 149; see also [84], p. 29. [44] R. D. Carmichael, A table of multiply perfect numbers, Bull. A.M.S. 13(1907), 383-386. [45] R. D. Carmichael, Review of History of the Theory of Numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 26(1919), 396-403. [46] P. J. McCarthy, Odd perfect numbers, Scripta Math. 23(1957), 43-47. [47] P. J. McCarthy, Remarks concerning the nonexistence of odd perfect numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 64(1957), 257-258. [48] P. J. McCarthy, Note on perfect and multiply perfect numbers, Portugal Math. 16(1957), 19-21. [49] E. Catalan, Propositions et questions divers, Bull. Soc. Math. France 16(188788), 128-129. [50] P. Cattaneo, Sui numeri quasiperfetti, Boll. U.M.I. (3), 6(1951), 59-62. [51] J. F. Z. Chein, An odd perfect number has at least 8 prime factors, Ph. D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State Univ., 1979. [52] L. Cheng, A result on multiply perfect number, J. Southeast Univ. (English Ed.) 18(2002), no. 3, 265-269. [53] E. Cohen, Arithmetical functions associated with the unitary divisors of an integer, Math. Z. 74(1960), 66-80. [54] G. L. Cohen, On amicable and sociable numbers, Math. Comp. 24(1970), 423429. 80

PERFECT NUMBERS

[55] G. L. Cohen, On odd perfect numbers (II), multiperfect numbers and quasiperfect numbers, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 29(1980), 369-384. [56] G. L. Cohen, Even perfect numbers, Math. Gaz. 65(1981), no. 431, 28-30. [57] G. L. Cohen, The nonexistence of quasiperfect numbers of certain forms, Fib. Quart. 20(1982), no. 1, 81-84. [58] G. L. Cohen, On an integer’s infinitary divisors, Math. Comp. 54(1990), 395411. [59] G. L. Cohen, Numbers whose positive divisors have small integral harmonic mean, Math. Comp. 66(1997), 883-891. [60] G. L. Cohen, S. Gretton and P. Hagis, Jr., Multiamicable numbers, Math. Comp. 64(1995), 1743-1753. [61] G. L. Cohen and P. Hagis, Jr., Some results concerning quasiperfect numbers, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 33(1982), 275-286. [62] G. L. Cohen and D. Moujie, On a generalization of Ore’s harmonic numbers, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde 16(1998), no. 3, 161-172. [63] G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, Iterating the sum-of-divisors function, Research Report R95-10, School of Math. Sci., Univ. of Techn., Sydney, 1995; CWI Report NM-R9525, CWI Amsterdam, 1995. [64] G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, Iterating the sum-of-divisors function, Experimental Math. 5(1996), no. 2, 91-100. Errata in 6(1997), no. 2, 177. [65] G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, On ϕ-amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 67(1998), no. 221, 399-411. [66] G. L. Cohen and R. M. Sorli, Harmonic seeds, Fib. Quart. 36(1998), 386-390. [67] G. L. Cohen and R. J. Williams, Extensions of some results concerning odd perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 23(1985), 70-76. [68] J. T. Condict, On an odd perfect number’s largest prime divisor, Senior Thesis, Middleburg College, May, 1978. [69] J. S. McCranie, A study of hyperperfect numbers, J. Integer Sequences 3(2000), no. 00.1.3 (electronic). [70] J. S. McCranie, Personal communication dated nov. 11, 2001 to E. Weisstein. 81

CHAPTER 1

[71] J. T. Cross, A note on almost perfect numbers, Math. Mag. 47(1974), 230-231. [72] M. Crubellier and J. Sip, Looking for perfect numbers, History of Mathematics: History of Problems (Paris, 1997), 389-410. [73] A. Cunningham, Proc. London Math. Soc. 35(1902-1903), 40. [74] G. G. Dandapat, J. L. Hunsucker and C. Pomerance, Some new results on odd perfect numbers, Pacific J. Math. 57(1975), 359-364. [75] W. L. McDaniel, On odd multiply perfect numbers, Boll. U.M.I. (4) 3 (1970), no. 2, 185-190. [76] W. L. McDaniel, The non-existence of odd perfect numbers of a certain form, Arch. Math. (Basel), 21(1971), 52-53. [77] W. L. McDaniel, Perfect Gaussian integers, Acta Arith. 25(1973), 137-144. [78] W. L. McDaniel, An analogue in certain unique factorization domains of the Euclid-Euler theorem on perfect numbers, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 13(1990), no. 1, 13-24. [79] S. Davis, A rationality condition for the existence of odd perfect numbers, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2003, no. 20, 1261-1293 (electronic). [80] L. E. Dickson, Amer. Math. Monthly 18(1911), 109; see also [84], p. 30. [81] L. E. Dickson, Amicable number triples, Amer. Math. Monthly 20(1913), 8492. [82] L. E. Dickson, Finiteness of the odd perfect and primitive abundant numbers with n distinct prime divisors, Amer. J. Math. 35(1913), 413-422. [83] L. E. Dickson, Theorems and tables on the sum of the divisors of a number, Quart. J. Math. 44(1913), 264-296. [84] L. E. Dickson, History of the theory of numbers, Chelsea, vol. 1, 4th ed. 1999. [85] U. Dudley, Numerology, or what Pythagoras wrought, Washington D. C., 1997. [86] E. Ehrhart, Problem E3081, Amer. Math. Monthly 92(1985), p. 215, Solution by V. Pambuccian, same journal 94(1987), 794-795. [87] P. Erd¨os, On a Diophantine equation (Hungarian), Mat. Lapok 1(1950), 192210. 82

PERFECT NUMBERS

[88] P. Erd¨os, On amicable numbers, Publ. Math. (Debrecen), 4(1955), 108-111. [89] P. Erd¨os, Remarks on number theory, II, Some problems on the σ function, Acta Arith. 5(1959), 171-177. [90] P. Erd¨os, Some remarks on the iterates of the ϕ and σ functions, Colloq. Math., 17(1967), 195-202. [91] P. Erd¨os, On asymptotic properties of aliquot sequences, Math. Comp. 30 (1976), 641-645. [92] P. Erd¨os and R. L. Graham, Old and new problems and results in combinatorial number theory, Monographies de l’Enseignement Math´ematique, No. 28, Gen`eve (p. 103). [93] P. Erd¨os, A. Granville, C. Pomerance and C. Spiro, On the normal behaviour of the iterates of some arithmetical functions, in: Analytic Number Theory, Allerton Park, 1989, Birkh¨auser, Boston, 1990 (see pp. 165-204). [94] P. Erd¨os and H. J. Rieger, Ein Nachtrag u¨ ber befreundete Zahlen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 273(1975), 220. [95] E. B. Escott, Amicable numbers, Scripta Math. 12(1946), no. 1, 61-72. [96] L. Euler, De numeris amicabilibus, Nova Acta Eruditorum, Lipsiae, 1747, 2679; Comm. Arith. Coll. II, 1849, 637-8. [97] L. Euler, Opera postuma 1(1862), 88. [98] L. Euler, Opera postuma 1(1862), p. 14-15. [99] J. A. Ewell, On the multiplicative structure of odd perfect numbers, J. Number Th. 12(1980), 339-342. [100] J. Fabrykowski and M. V. Subbarao, On e-perfect numbers not divisible by 3, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde (4)4(1986), 165-173. [101] A. Flammenkamp, New sociable numbers, Math. Comp. 56(1991), 871-873. [102] K. Ford, Math. Pages (Sublime numbers), http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath202/kmath202.htm. [103] R. L. Francis, Problem 954, Mathematics Magazine 48(1975), 293, solution by R. E. Giudici in same journal 49(1976), 256. 83

CHAPTER 1

¨ [104] H. A. M. Frei, Uber unitar perfekte Zahlen, Elem. Math. 33(1978), 95-96. [105] M. Garcia, On numbers with integral harmonic mean, Amer. Math. Monthly 61(1954), 89-96. [106] M. Garcia, New unitary amicable pairs, J. Recreational Math. 17(1984-5), 3235. [107] J. Gill, Computational complexity of probabilistic Turing machines, SIAM J. Comput. 6(1977), 675-695. [108] A. A. Gioia and A. M. Vaidya, Amicable numbers with opposite parity, Amer. Math. Monthly 74(1967), no. 8, 969-973. ¨ [109] O. Gmelin, Uber Vollkommene und Befreundete Zahlen, Inaugural Diss. Heidelberg 1917, Saale, Halle, 1917. [110] I. S. Gradstein, Odd perfect numbers, Mat. Sb. 32(1925), 476-510. [111] S. W. Graham, Unitary perfect numbers with squarefree odd part, Fib. Quart. 27(1989), 317-322. ¨ [112] O. Gr¨un, Uber ungerade vollkommene Zahlen, Math. Z. 55(1952), 353-354. [113] A. Grytczuk and M. Wojtowicz, There are no small odd perfect numbers, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´er. Math. 328(1999), no. 12, 1101-1105. Errata: 330(2000), 533. [114] R. K. Guy, Unsolved problems in number theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994 (2nd ed.). [115] P. Hagis, Jr., On relatively prime odd amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 23(1969), 539-543. [116] P. Hagis, Jr., Lower bounds for relatively prime amicable numbers of opposite parity, Math. Comp. 24(1970), 963-968. [117] P. Hagis, Jr., Relatively prime amicable numbers of opposite parity, Math. Mag. 43(1970), 14-20. [118] P. Hagis, Jr., Unitary amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 25(1971), 915-918. [119] P. Hagis, Jr., A lower bound for the set of odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 27(1973), 951-953. 84

PERFECT NUMBERS

[120] P. Hagis, Jr., Every odd perfect number has at least 8 prime factors, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 22(1975), A-60. [121] P. Hagis, Jr., On the second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number, in: Analytic number theory, Proc. Conf. Temple Univ., May 12-15(1980). [122] P. Hagis, Jr., Unitary hyperperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 299-301. [123] P. Hagis, Jr., Sketch of a proof that an odd perfect number relatively prime to 3 has at least eleven prime factors, Math. Comp. 40(1983), no. 161, 399-404. [124] P. Hagis, Jr., Lower bounds for unitary multiperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 22(1984), 140-143. [125] P. Hagis, Jr., The third largest prime factor of an odd multiperfect exceeds 101, Bull. Malaysian Math. Soc. (2)9(1986), 43-49. [126] P. Hagis, Jr., Bi-unitary amicable and multiperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), 144-150. [127] P. Hagis, Jr., A systematic search for unitary hyperperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), no. 1, 6-10. [128] P. Hagis, Jr., Some results concerning exponential divisors, Intern. J. Math. Math. Sci. 11(1988), 343-349. [129] P. Hagis, Jr., Odd nonunitary perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 28(1990), 11-15. [130] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen, Results concerning odd multiperfect numbers, Bull. Malaysian Math. Soc. (2)8(1985), 23-26. [131] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen, Infinitary harmonic numbers, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 41(1990), 151-158. [132] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen, Every odd perfect number has a prime factor which exceeds 106 , Math. Comp. 67(1998), no. 223, 1323-1330. [133] P. Hagis, Jr. and W. L. McDaniel, A new result concerning the structure of odd perfect numbers, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 32(1972), 13-15. [134] P. Hagis, Jr. and W. L. McDaniel, On the largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number, II. Math. Comp. 29(1975), 922-924. [135] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. Lord, Unitary harmonic numbers, Proc. A.M.S. 51(1975), 1-7. 85

CHAPTER 1

[136] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. Lord, Quasi-amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 31(1977), 608-611. [137] P. Hagis and D. Suryanarayana, A theorem concerning odd perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 8(1970), 337-346. [138] K. Hanawalt, The end of a perfect number, Math. Teacher, 58(1965), 621-622. [139] J. Hanumanthachari, V. V. Subrahmanya Sastri and V. Srinivasan, On e-perfect numbers, Math. Student, 46(1978), no. 1, 71-80. [140] H. Harboth, Eine Bemerkung zu den vollkommenen Zahlen, Elem. Math. 31(1976), no. 5, 115-117. [141] M. Hausman, On norm abundant Gaussian integers, J. Indian Math. Soc. (N.S.) 49(1985), 119-123 (1987). [142] M. Hausman and H. N. Shapiro, On practical numbers, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 37(1984), 705-713. [143] D. R. Heath-Brown, Odd perfect numbers, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 115(1994), 191-196. [144] J. A. Holdener, A theorem of Touchard on the form of odd perfect numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 109(2002), no. 7, 661-663. [145] J. A. Holdener, A generalization of Touchard’s theorem and the form of odd multiply perfect numbers, manuscript (2002). [146] B. Hornfeck, Zur Dichte der Menge der vollkommenen Zahlen, Arch. Math. (Basel) 6(1955), 442-443. [147] B. Hornfeck, Bemerkung zu meiner Note u¨ ber vollkomenen Zahlen, Arch. Math. (Basel) 7(1956), 273. ¨ [148] B. Hornfeck and E. Wirsing, Uber die H¨aufigkeit vollkommener Zahlen, Math. Ann. 133(1957), 431-438. [149] J. L. Hunsucker and C. Pomerance, There are no odd superperfect numbers less than 7 · 1024 , Indian J. Math. 17(1975), 107-120. [150] D. E. Iannucci, The second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds ten thousand, Math. Comp. 68(1999), no. 228, 1749-1760. 86

PERFECT NUMBERS

[151] D. E. Iannucci, The third largest prime divisor of ann odd perfect number exceeds one hundred, Math. Comp. 69(2000), no. 230, 867-879. [152] D. E. Iannucci, Problem 10800, Amer. Math. Monthly 107(2000), 368. Solution by K.-W. Lau, same journal 109(2002), 304-305. [153] D. E. Iannucci and R. M. Sorli, On the total number of prime factors of an odd perfect number, Math. Comp., 72(2003), no. 244, 2071-2076 (electronic). [154] K. Ireland and M. Rosen, A classical introduction to modern number theory, Springer Verlag, 1982, Ch. 2. [155] P. M. Jenkins, Odd perfect numbers have a prime factor exceeding 107 , Math. Comp. 72(2003), no. 243, 1549-1554 (electronic). [156] R. P. Jerrard and N. Temperley, Almost perfect numbers, Math. Mag. 46(1973), 84-87. [157] L. Jones, Problem 10869, Amer. Math. Monthly 108(2001), 372; solution by F. Luca and L. Zhou in the same journal 110(2003), p. 160. [158] H.-J. Kanold, Untersuchungen u¨ ber ungerade vollkommene Zahlen, J. Reine Angew. Math., 183(1941), 98-109. [159] H.-J. Kanold, Verscharfung einer notwendigen Bedingung f¨ur die Existenz einer ungeraden volkommenen Zahl, J. f¨ur Math., 184(1942), 116-124. [160] H.-J. Kanold, Folgerungen aus dem Vorkommen einer Gauss’schen Primzahl in der Primfaktorzerlegung einer ungeraden Vollkommenen Zahl, J. Reine Angew. Math. 186(1944), 25-29. [161] H.-J. Kanold, Satze u¨ ber Kreisteilungspolynome und ihre Anwendungen auf einige Zahlentheoretische Probleme, J. f¨ur Math. 187(1950), 169-182; 188(1950), 129-146. ¨ [162] H.-J. Kanold, Uber ein spezielles System vom zwei diophantischen Gleichungen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 189(1952), 243-245. [163] H.-J. Kanold, Untere Schranken f¨ur Teilerfremde Befreundete Zahlen, Arch. Math. 4(1953), 399-401. ¨ [164] H.-J. Kanold, Uber befreundete Zahlen, II, Math. Nachrichten 10(1953), 243248. 87

CHAPTER 1

[165] H.-J. Kanold, Einige neure Bedingung f¨ur die Existenz ungerader vollkommenen Zahlen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 192(1953), 24-34. ¨ [166] H.-J. Kanold, Uber die Dichten der Mengen der vollkommenen und der befreundeten Zahlen, Math. Z. 61(1954), 180-185. ¨ [167] H.-J. Kanold, Uber einen Satz von L. E. Dickson, Math. Ann. 131(1956), 167179. ¨ [168] H.-J. Kanold, Uber einen Satz von L. E. Dickson, II, Math. Ann. 132(1956), 246-255. ¨ [169] H.-J. Kanold, Uber die Verteilung der vollkommenen Zahlen und allgemeinerer Zahlenmengen, Math. Ann. 132(1957), 442-450. ¨ [170] H.-J. Kanold, Uber das harmonische Mittel der Teiler einer nat¨urlichen Zahl, Math. Ann. 133(1957), 371-374. ¨ [171] H.-J. Kanold, Uber ”super perfect numbers”, Elem. Math. 24(1969), 61-62. ¨ [172] H.-J. Kanold, Uber ”quasi-vollkommene Zahlen”, Abh. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges. 40(1988), 17-20. ¨ [173] H.-J. Kanold, Uber eine neue Verallgemeinerung eines Satzes von L. E. Dickson, Arch. Math. (Basel), 54(1990), 448-454. [174] Gy. Kisgergely, The proof of Euler’s theorem on the even perfect numbers (Hungarian), Mat. Lapok (Budapest), 32(1981-1984), pp. 143-144. [175] M. Kishore, Quasiperfect numbers are divisible by at least six distinct divisors, Notices A.M.S. 22(1975), A-441. [176] M. Kishore, Odd integers n with five distinct prime factors for which 2 − 10−12 < σ (n)/n < 2 + 10−12 , Math. Comp. 32(1978), 303-309. [177] M. Kishore, On odd perfect, quasiperfect and almost perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 583-586. [178] M. Kishore, On odd perfect, quasiperfect and almost perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 583-586. [179] M. Kishore, Odd perfect numbers not divisible by 3, II. Math. Comp. 40(1983), 405-411. 88

PERFECT NUMBERS

[180] M. Kishore, Odd triperfect numbers are divisible by eleven distinct prime factors, Math. Comp. 44(1985), 261-263. [181] M. Kishore, Odd triperfect numbers are divisible by twelve distinct prime factors, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 42(1987), 173-182. [182] S. Kravitz, A search for large weird numbers, J. Recreational Math. 9(197677), 82-85. [183] A. Krawczyuk, Uog´olnienie problem Perisastriego, Prace Nauk. Inst. Mat. Fiz. Teoret. Pol. Woclaw No. 6(1972), 67-70. [184] U. K¨uhnel, Versch¨arfung der notwendigen Bedingungen f¨ur die Existenz von ungeraden vollkommen Zahlen, Math. Z. 52(1949), 202-211. [185] M. Lal, G. Tiller and T. Summers, Unitary sociable numbers, Proc. 2nd Manitoba Conf. Numerical Math. 1972, pp. 211-216. [186] E. J. Lee, Amicable numbers and the bilinear diophantine equation, Math. Comp. 22(1968), 181-187. [187] E. J. Lee and J. S. Madachy, The history and discovery of amicable numbers, I-III, J. of Recreat. Math. 5(1972), 77-93, 153-174, 231-249. [188] H. W. Lenstra, Problem 6064, Amer. Math. Monthly 82(1975), 1016. Solution by the proposer 84(1977), 580. [189] R. J. Levit, The non-existence of a certain type of odd perfect number, Bull. A.M.S. 53(1947), 392-396. [190] S. Ligh and Ch. R. Wall, Functions of nonunitary divisors, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), no. 4, 333-338. [191] J. L. Lightfoot, An early reference to perfect numbers? some notes on Euphorion SH417, Classical Quarterly 48(1998), 187-194. [192] E. Lionnet, Nouv. Ann. Math. (2)18(1879), 306-308. [193] G. Lord, Even perfect and superperfect numbers, Elem. Math. 30(1975), 8788. [194] F. Luca, Multiply perfect numbers in Lucas sequences with odd parameters, Publ. Math. Debrecen 58(2001), no. 1-2, 121-155. 89

CHAPTER 1

[195] F. Luca, Problem 10711, Amer. Math. Monthly, 99(1999), 166; solution by F. B. Coghlan, in the same journal 108(2001), 80-81. [196] F. Luca, Problem 10793, Amer. Math. Monthly 107(2000), 278, solution by N. Komanda in 109(2002), 206-207. [197] F. Luca, Perfect Fibonacci and Lucas numbers, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo Ser. II, 49(2000), 651-661. [198] F. Luca, Multiply perfect numbers in Lucas sequences, Publ. Math. (Debrecen), 58(2001), 121-155. [199] F. Luca, Amicable Pell numbers, Math. Pannonica 13(2002), 97-102. [200] F. Luca, On the product of divisors of n and σ (n), J. Ineq. Pure Appl. Math., 4(2003), no. 2, 1-7 (electronic). [201] L. Lucht, On the sum of exponential divisors and its iterates, Arch. Math. (Basel) 27(1976), 383-386. [202] H. Maier, On the third iterates of the ϕ and σ -functions, Colloq. Math. 49(1984), 123-130. [203] A. Makowski, Remarques sur les fonction θ (n), ϕ(n) et σ (n), Mathesis 69(1960), 302-303. [204] A. Makowski, On some equations involving functions ϕ(n) and σ (n), Amer. Math. Monthly 67(1960), 668-670; correction in 68(1961), 650. [205] A. Makowski, Remark on perfect numbers, Elem. Math. 17(1962), no. 5, 109. [206] A. Makowski, On two conjectures of Schinzel, Elem. Math. 31(1976), 140141. [207] A. Makowski and A. Schinzel, On the functions ϕ(n) and σ (n), Colloq. Math. 13(1964-65), 95-99. [208] M. Margenstern, Les nombres pratiques: th´eorie, observations et conjectures, J. Number Theory 37(1991), 1-36. [209] L. V. Marijo, Integer-perfect numbers, J. Natur. Sci. Math. 27(1987), no. 2, 33-50. [210] L. V. Marijo, On the order of ν(n), J. Natur. Sci. Math. 28(1988), no. 1, 165173. 90

PERFECT NUMBERS

[211] Th. E. Mason, On amicable numbers and their generalizations, Amer. Math. Monthly 28(1921), no. 5, 195-200. [212] G. Melfi, A survey on practical numbers, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino, 53(1995), no. 4, 347-359. [213] G. Melfi, On two conjectures about practical numbers, J. Number Theory 56(1996), 205-210. [214] M. D. Miller, A recursively defined divisor function, Fib. Quart. 13 (1975), 199-204. [215] W. H. Mills, On a conjecture of Ore, Proc. Number Theory Conf., Boulder CO, 1972, 142-146. [216] D. Minoli, Issues in nonlinear hyperperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 34(1980), 639-645. [217] D. Minoli and R. Bear, Hyperperfect numbers, Pi Mu Epsilon J. 6(1975), no. 3, 153-157. [218] D. S. Mitrinovi´c and J. S´andor, (in coop. with B. Crstici), Handbook of number theory, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1995. [219] David Moews, http://xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/amicable.html. [220] D. Moews and P. C. Moews, A search for aliquot cycles below 1010 , Math. Comp. 57(1991), 849-855. [221] D. Moews and P. C. Moews, A search for aliquot cycles and amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 61(1993), 935-938. [222] D. Moews and P.C. Moews, http://xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/amicable2.txt. [223] J. B. Muskat, On divisors of odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 20(1966), 141-144. [224] K. Nageswara Rao, On some unitary divisor functions, Scripta Math. 28 (1967), 347-351. [225] M. L. Nankar, History of perfect numbers, Ganita Bharati 1(1-2)(1979), 7-8. [226] J. C. M. Nash, Hyperperfect numbers, Periodica Math. Hung. 45(1-2)(2002), 121-122. 91

CHAPTER 1

[227] D’Ooge (tr.), Nicomachus, Introduction to arithmetic, New York, 1926. [228] O. Ore, On the averages of the divisors of a number, Amer. Math. Monthly 55(1948), 615-619. [229] N. I. Paganini, Atti della R. Accad. Sc. Torino, 2, 1866-7, 362. [230] S. Pajunen, On primitive weird numbers, A collection of manuscripts related to the Fibonacci sequence, 18th anniv. vol., Fibonacci Assoc., 162-166. [231] J. M. Pedersen, Tables of aliquot cycles, http://amicable.adsl.dk/aliquot/infper.txt. [232] J. M. Pedersen, Known amicable pairs, http://www.rejlehs.dk/staff/jmp/aliquot/apstat.htm. [233] M. Perisasti, A note on odd perfect numbers, Math. Student, 26(1958), 179181. [234] B. M. Phong, Perfect numbers concerning Fibonacci sequence, Acta Acad. Paedagog. Agriensis Sect. Mat. (N.S.) 26(1999), 3-8(2000). [235] E. Picutti, Pour l’histoire des sept premiers nombres parfaits, Historia Math. 16(2)(1989), 123-136. [236] C. Pomerance, On a problem of Ore: Harmonic numbers, Abstract 709-A5, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 20(1973), A-648. [237] C. Pomerance, Odd perfect numbers are divisible by at least seven distinct primes, Acta Arith. 25(1973/74), 265-300. [238] C. Pomerance, The second largest prime factor of an odd perfect number, Math. Comp. 29(1975), 914-921. [239] C. Pomerance, Multiply perfect numbers, Mersenne primes and effective computability, Math. Ann. 266(1977), 195-206. [240] C. Pomerance, Problem 6036, 82(1975), p. 671; and 84(1977), p. 225; solution by the University of British Columbia Problems Group, same journal, 85(1978), 830. [241] C. Pomerance, On the distribution of amicable numbers, II, J. Reine Angew. Math. 325(1981), 183-188. 92

PERFECT NUMBERS

[242] C. Pomerance, Problem 10331, Amer. Math. Monthly (1993), 796. Solution by U. Everling, same journal (1996), 701-702. [243] M. A. Popov, On Plato’s periodic perfect numbers, Bull. Sci. Math. 123(1999), 29-31. [244] P. Poulet, La chasse aux nombres, Fascicule I, Bruxelles, 1929. [245] P. Poulet, Nouvelles suites arithm´etiques, Sphinx, 2(1932), 53-54. [246] M. Raghavachari, On the form of odd perfect numbers, Math. Student 34(1966), 85-86. [247] R. Rashed, Ibn al-Haytham et les nombres parfaits, Historia Math. 16(1989), 343-352. ¨ ¨ [248] H. Reidling, Uber ungerade mehrfach willkommene Zahlen, Osterreichische Akad. Wiss. Math.-Natur. 192(1983), 237-266. [249] H. J. J. te Riele, Unitary aliquot sequences, MR139/72, Math. Centrum Amsterdam, 1972. [250] H. J. J. te Riele, Further results on unitary aliquot sequences, NW12/73, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1973. [251] H. J. J. te Riele, A note on the Catalan-Dickson conjecture, Math. Comp. 27(1973), 189-192. [252] H. J. J. te Riele, Four large amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 28(1974), 309-312. [253] H. J. J. te Riele, A theoretical and computational study of generalized aliquot sequences, MCT72, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1976. [254] H. J. J. te Riele, Hyperperfect numbers with three different prime factors, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 297-298. [255] H. J. J. te Riele, Iteration of number theoretic functions, Report NN30/83, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1983. [256] H. J. J. te Riele, On generating new amicable pairs from given amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 42(1984), 219-223. [257] H. J. J. te Riele, Computation of all the amicable pairs below 1010 , Math. Comp. 47(1986), 361-368. 93

CHAPTER 1

[258] H. J. J. te Riele, A new method for finding amicable pairs, in Proc. Sympos. Appl. Math. 43, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994. [259] N. Robbins, The nonexistence of odd perfect numbers with less than seven distinct prime factors, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 19(1972), A-52. [260] N. Robbins, Lower bounds for the largest prime factor of an odd perfect number which is divisible by a Fermat prime, J. Reine Angew. Math. 278/279(1975), 14-21. [261] D. F. Robinson, Egyptean fractions via Greek number theory, New Zeeland Math. Mag. 16(1979), 47-52. [262] H. L. Rolf, Friendly numbers, Math. Teacher, 60(1967), no. 2, 157-160. [263] A. Rotkiewicz, Remarque sur les nombres parfaits pairs de la forme a n ± bn , Elem. Math. 18(1963), no. 4, 76-78. [264] S. M. Ruiz, Smarandache’s function applied to perfect numbers, Smarandache Notions J., 10(1999), no. 1-2-3, 114-115. [265] I. Z. Ruzsa, Personal communication to J. S´andor. [266] E. Saias, Entiers a` diviseurd denses, I, J. Number Theory, 62(1997), no. 1, 163-191. ˇ at and J. Tomanov´a, On the product of divisors of a positive integer, [267] T. Sal´ Math. Slovaca 52(2002), no. 3, 271-278. ¨ [268] H. Sali´e, Uber abundante Zahlen, Math. Nachrichten 9(1953), 217-220. [269] J. S´andor, On Dedekind’s arithmetic function, Seminarul de teoria structurilor, no. 51, Univ. Timis¸oara, 1988, pp. 1-15. [270] J. S´andor, On the composition of some arithmetic functions, Studia Univ. Babes¸-Bolyai 34(1989), no. 1, 7-14. [271] J. S´andor, On even perfect and superperfect numbers (Romanian), Lucr. Semin. Didact. Mat. 8(1992), 167-168. [272] J. S´andor, A note on S(n), where n is an even perfect number, Smarandache Notions J., 11(2000), no. 1-2-3, 139. [273] J. S´andor, On an even perfect and superperfect number, Notes Number Theory Discr. Math. (Sofia), 7(2001), no. 1, 4-5. 94

PERFECT NUMBERS

[274] J. S´andor, Abundant numbers, in: M. Hazewinkel, Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Supplement III, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2001 (see pp. 19-21). [275] J. S´andor, On multiplicatively perfect numbers, J. Ineq. Pure Appl. Math. 2(2001), no. 1 (electronic), 6 pp. [276] J. S´andor, On multiplicatively e-perfect numbers, (to appear). [277] J. S´andor, On Ruzsa’s ”lovely numbers”, (to appear). [278] J. S´andor, The unitary, etc. analogues of Ruzsa’s lovely numbers, in preparation. [279] J. S´andor and A. Bege, The M¨obius function: generalizations and extensions, Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math. 6(2003), no. 2, 77-128. [280] M. Satyanarayana, Odd perfecr numbers, Math. Student, 27(1959), no. 1-2, 17-18. [281] A. Schinzel, Ungel¨oste Probleme Nr. 30, Elem. Math. 14(1959), 60-61. [282] A. Schinzel and W. Sierpinski, Sur certaines hypoth`eses concernant les nombres premiers, Acta Arith. 4(1958), 185-208; corrigendum, ibid., 5(1959), 259. [283] Cl. Servais, Sur les nombres parfaits, Mathesis, 8(1888), 92-93. [284] H. N. Shapiro, Note on a theorem of Dickson, Bull. A.M.S. 55(1949), 450-452. [285] H. N. Shapiro, On primitive abundant numbers, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 21(1968), 111-118. [286] W. Sierpinski, Sur les nombres pseudoparfaits, Mat. Vesnik 2(17)(1965), 212213. [287] S. Singh, Fermat’s Enigma: the epic quest to solve the world’s greatest mathematical problem, New York: Walker, 1997. [288] T. N. Sinha, Note on perfect numbers, Math. Student, XLII, no. 3(1974), 336. [289] V. Sitaramaiah and M. V. Subbarao, On unitary multiperfect numbers, Niuew Arch. Wiskunde 16(1998), no. 1-2, 57-61. [290] V. Sitaramaiah and M. V. Subbarao, On the equation σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n, Util. Math. 53(1998), 101-124. [291] J. Slowak, Odd perfect numbers, Math. Slovaca 49(1999), 253-254. 95

CHAPTER 1

[292] R. Spira, The complex sum of divisors, Amer. Math. Monthly 68(1961), 120124. [293] A. K. Srinivasan, Practical numbers, Current science, 1948, pp. 179-180. [294] P. Starni, On the Euler’s factor of an odd perfect number, J. Number Theory 37(1991), 366-369. [295] P. Starni, Odd perfect numbers: a divisor related to the Euler’s factor, J. Number Theory 44(1993), 58-59. [296] R. Steuerwald, Verscharfung einer notwendigen Bedingung f¨ur die Existenz einer ungeraden volkommenen Zahl, S.-B. Math.-Nat. Abt. Bayer, Akad. Wiss. (1937), 68-72. [297] R. Steuerwald, Ein Satz u¨ ber nat¨urliche Zahlen N mit σ (N ) = 3N , Archiv. der Math. 5(1954), 449-451. [298] B. M. Stewart, Sums of distinct divisors, Amer. J. Math. 76(1954), 779-785. [299] E. G. Straus and M. V. Subbarao, On exponential divisors, Duke Math. J. 41(1974), 465-471. [300] M. V. Subbarao, Are there an infinity of unitary perfect numbers? Amer. Math. Monthly 77(1970), 389-390. [301] M. V. Subbarao, Odd perfect numbers: some new issues, Periodica Math. Hungar. 38(1999), no. 1-2, 103-109. [302] M. V. Subbarao, T. J. Cook, R. S. Newberry and J. M. Weber, On unitary perfect numbers, Delta 3(1972), no. 1, 22-26. [303] M. V. Subbarao and L. J. Warren, Unitary perfect numbers, Canad. Math. Bull. 9(1966), 147-153. [304] D. Suryanarayana, On odd perfect numbers, II. Proc. A.M.S. 14(1963), 896904. [305] D. Suryanarayana, On odd perfect numbers. III, Proc. A.M.S. 18(1967), 933939. [306] D. Suryanarayana, The number of k-ary divisors of an integer, Monatsh. Math. 72(1968), 445-450. [307] D. Suryanarayana, Super perfect numbers, Elem. Math. 24(1969), 16-17. 96

PERFECT NUMBERS

[308] D. Suryanarayana, There is no odd super perfect number of the form p 2α , Elem. Math. 28(1973), 148-150. [309] D. Suryanarayana, Research problems # 22, Periodica Math. Hungar. 8(1977), 193-196. [310] J. J. Sylvester, Collected papers, 4(1912), 611-614. [311] J. Touchard, On prime numbers and perfect numbers, Scripta Math. 19(1953), 35-39. [312] H. S. Uhler, Full values of the first seventeen perfect numbers, Scripta Math. 20(1954), 240. [313] A. M. Vaidya, Comment on: ”History of perfect numbers”, Ganita Bharati 1(3-4)(1979), 22. [314] R. C. Vaughan, Adventures in arithmetic, or: how to make good use of a Fourier transform, Math. Intellig. 9(1987), no. 2, 53-60. [315] B. Volkmann, A theorem on the set of perfect numbers, Bull. A.M.S. 62(1956), Abstract 180. [316] R. W. Van der Waall, On a theorem of Leopoldt and on perfect numbers, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde (3) 18(1970), 159-161. [317] S. Wagon, Perfect numbers, Math. Intellig. 7(1985), no. 2, 66-68. [318] Ch. Wall, Topics related to the sum of unitary divisors of an integer, Univ. of Tennessee, 1970. [319] Ch. R. Wall, A new unitary perfect number, Notices A.M.S. 16(1969), 825. [320] Ch. R. Wall, Bi-unitary perfect numbers, Proc. A.M.S., 33(1972), 39-42. [321] Ch. R. Wall, The fifth unitary perfect number, Canad. Math. Bull. 18(1975), 115-122. [322] Ch. R. Wall, On the largest odd component of unitary perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), 312-316. [323] Ch. R. Wall, New unitary perfect numbers have at least nine odd components, Fib. Quart. 26(1988), 312-317. [324] G. C. Webber, Nonexistence of odd perfect numbers of the form 2β 2β 2β 32β p α s1 1 s2 2 s3 3 , Duke Math. J. 18(1951), 741-749. 97

CHAPTER 1

[325] E. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AmicablePair.html. [326] E. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SociableNumbers.html. [327] E. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnitaryAmicablePair.html. [328] E. Wirsing, Bemerkung zu der Arbeit u¨ ber vollkommene Zahlen, Math. Ann. 137(1959), 316-318. [329] B. F. Yanney, Another definition of amicable numbers and some of their relation to Dickson’s amicables, Amer. Math. Monthly, 30(1923), 311-315. [330] A. and E. Zachariou, Perfect, semi-perfect and Ore numbers, Bull. Soc. Math. Gr`ece (N.S.) 13(1972), 12-22. [331] Perfect numbers and imperfect mathematicians (Persian), Bull. Iranian Math. Soc. 9(1)(1981/82), 84-79. [332] http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/mersenne/index.html.

98

PERFECT NUMBERS: OLD AND NEW ISSUES; PERSPECTIVES

1.1

Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to survey the most important and interesting notions, results, extensions, generalizations related to perfect numbers. Many old, as well as new open problems will be stated, which will motivate - we do hope - many further research. This is one of the oldest subjects of Mathematics, with a considerable history. Some basic historical facts will be presented, as this will underline too our strong opinion on the role of perfect numbers in the development of Mathematics. It is sufficient to only mention here Fermat’s ”little theorem” of considerable importance in Number theory, Algebra, and more recently in Criptography. This theorem states that for all primes p and all positive integers a, p divides a p − a. Fermat discovered this result by studying perfect numbers, and trying to elaborate a theory of these numbers. One more example is the theory of primes in special sequences, and generally the classical theory of primes. Even perfect numbers involve the so called ”Mersenne primes”, of great importance in many parts of Number theory. Currently, about 39 such primes are known (39 as of 14-XI-2001, see e.g. http://www.stormloader.com/ajy/perfect/html), giving 39 known perfect numbers, all even. Recently (at the end of 2003) the 40th perfect number has been discovered. No odd perfect numbers are known, but we shall see on the part containing this theme, the most important and up-to-date results obtained along the centuries. An extension 15

CHAPTER 1

of perfect numbers are the ”amicable numbers” having a same old history, with considerable interest for many mathematicians. Many results, more generalizations, connections, analogies will be pointed out. Here the theory is filled again by a lot of unsolved problems. Along with the extensions of the notion of divisibility, there appeared many new notions of perfect numbers. These are e.g. the unitary perfect-, nonunitary perfect, biunitary perfect-, exponential perfect-, infinitary perfect-, hyperperfect-, integer perfect-, etc., numbers. On the other hand, there appeared also the necessity of studying, by analogy with the classical case, such notions as: superperfect-, almost perfect-, quasiperfect-, pseudoperfect (or semi-perfect), multiplicatively perfect, etc., numbers. Some authors use different terminologies, so one aim is also to fix in the literature the exact terminologies and notations. Our aim is also to include results and references from papers published in certain little known journals (or unpublished results, obtained by personal communication to the authors).

1.2

Some historical facts

It is not exactly known when perfect numbers were first introduced, but it is quite possible that the Egypteans would have come across such numbers, given the way their methods of calculation worked (”unit fractions”, ”Egyptean fractions”). These numbers were studied by their mystical properties by Pythagoras, and his followers. For the Pythagorean school the ”parts” of a number are their divisors. A number which can be built up from their parts (i.e. summing their divisors) should be indeed wonderful, perfectly made by the God. God created the world in six days, and the number of days it takes the Moon to travel round the Earth is nothing else than 28. (For the number mysticism by Pythagoras’ school see U. Dudley [85]). These are the first two perfect numbers. The four perfect numbers 6, 28, 496 and 8128 seem to have been known from ancient times, and there is no record of these discoveries. The first recorded result concerning perfect numbers which is known occurs in Euclid’s ”Elements” (written around 300BC), namely in Proposition 36 of Book IX: ”If as many numbers as we please beginning from a unit be set out continuously in double proportion, until the sum of all becomes a prime, and if the sum multiplied into the last make some number, the product will be perfect.” Here ”double proportion” means that each number of the sequence is twice the preceding number. Since 1 + 2 + 4 + · · · + 2k−1 = 2k − 1, the proposition states that: If, for some k > 1, 2k − 1 is prime, then 2k−1 (2k − 1) is perfect. 16

(1)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Here we wish to mention another source for perfect numbers (usually overlooked by the Historians of mathematics) in ancient times, namely Plato’s Republic, where the so-called periodic perfect numbers were introduced. It is remarkable that 2000 years later when Euler proves the converse of (1) (published posthumously, see [97]) he makes no references to Euclid. However, Euler makes reference to Plato’s periodic perfect numbers. M. A. Popov [243] says that Euler’s proof was probably inspired by Plato. Another early reference seems to be at Euphorion (see J. L. Lightfoot [191]) a poet of the third century, B.C. The following significant study of perfect numbers was made by Nichomachus of Gerasa. Around 100 AD he wrote his famous ”Introductio Arithmetica” [227], which gives a classification of numbers into three classes: abundant numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is greater than the number, deficient numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is less than the number, and perfect numbers. Nicomachus used this classification also in moral terms, or biological analogies: ”... in the case of too much, is produced excess, superfluity, exaggerations and abuse; in the case of too little, is produced wanting, defaults, privations and insufficiencies...” ”... abundant numbers are like an animal with ten mouths, or nine lips, and provided with three lines of teeth; or with a hundred arms...” ”... deficient numbers are like animals with a single eye,... one armed or one of his hands, less than five fingers, or if he does not have a tongue.” In the book by Nicomachus there appear five unproved results concerning perfect numbers: (a) the n-th perfect number has n digits; (b) all perfect numbers are even; (c) all perfect numbers end in 6 and 8 alternately; (d) every perfect number is of the form 2k−1 (2k − 1), for some k > 1, with 2k − 1 = prime; (e) there are infinitely many perfect numbers. Despite the fact that Nicomachus offered no justification of his assertions, they were taken as fact for many years. The discovery of other perfect numbers disproved immediately assertions (a) and (c). On the other hand, assertions (b), (d), (e) remain unproved practically even in our days. The Arab mathematicians were also fascinated by perfect numbers and Thabit ibn Quarra wrote ”Treatise on amicable numbers” in which he examined when numbers of the form 2n p ( p prime) can be perfect. He proved also ”Thabit’s rule” (see the section with amicable numbers). Ibn al-Haytham proved a partial converse to Euclid’s proposition (1), in the unpublished work ”Treatise on analysis and synthesis” (see [247]).

17

CHAPTER 1

Among the Arab mathematicians who take up the Greek investigation of perfect numbers with great enthusiasm was Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn Fallus (1194-1239) who wrote a treatise based on Nicomachus’ above mentioned text. He gave also a table of ten numbers claiming to be perfect. The first seven are correct, and in fact these are indeed the first seven perfect numbers. For details of this work see the papers by S. Brentjes [36], [37]. The fifth perfect number was rediscovered by Regiomontanus during his stay at the University of Vienna, which he left in 1461 (see [235]). It has also been found in a manuscript written by an anonymous author around 1458, while the fifth and sixth perfect numbers have been found in another manuscript by the some author, shortly after 1460. The fifth perfect number is 33550336, and the sixth is 8589869056. These show that Nicomachus’ first claims (a) and (c) are false, since the fifth perfect number has 8 digits, and the fifth and sixth perfect numbers both ended in 6. In 1536 Hudalrichus Regius published ”Utriusque Arithmetices” in which he found the first prime p ( p = 11) such that 2 p−1 (2 p − 1) = 2047 = 23 · 89 is not perfect. In 1603 Cataldi found the factors of all numbers up to 800 and also a table of all primes up to 750. He used his list of primes to check that 219 − 1 = 524287 was prime, so he had found the seventh perfect number 137438691328. Among the many mathematicians interested in perfect numbers one should mention Descartes, who in 1638 in a letter to Mersenne wrote ([72]): ”... Perfect numbers are very few... as few are the perfect men...” In this sense see also a Persian manuscript [331]. ”I think I am able to prove there are no even numbers which are perfect apart from those of Euclid; and that there are no odd perfect numbers, unless they are composed of a single prime number, multiplied by a square whose root is composed of several other prime number. But I can see nothing which would prevent one from finding numbers of this sort... But, whatever method one might use, it would require a great deal of time to look for these numbers...” The next major contribution was made by Fermat [225], [313]. He told Roberval in 1636 that he was working on the topic and, although the problems were very difficult, he intended to publish a treatise on the topic. The treatise would never been written, perhaps because Fermat didn’t achieve the substantial results he had hoped. In June 1640 Fermat wrote a letter to Mersenne telling him about his discoveries on perfect numbers. Shortly after writing to Mersenne, Fermat wrote to Frenicle de Bessy, by generalizing the results in the earlier letter. In his investigations Fermat used three theorems: (a) if n is composite, then 2n − 1 is composite; (b) if n is prime, a n − a is multiple of n; (c) if n is prime, p is a divisor of 2n − 1, then p − 1 is a multiple of n.

18

PERFECT NUMBERS

Using his ”Little theorem”, Fermat showed that 223 − 1 was composite and also 237 − 1 is composite, too. Mersenne was very interested in the results that Fermat sent him on perfect numbers. In 1644 he published ”Cogitata physica mathematica”, in which he claimed that 2 p−1 (2 p − 1) is perfect for p = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127, 257 and for no other value of p up to 257. It is remarkable that among the 47 primes p between 19 and 258 for which 2 p − 1 is prime, for 42 cases Mersenne was right. Primes of the form 2 p − 1 are called Mersenne primes. (For a recent table of known Mersenne primes, see the site http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/mersenne/index.html). The next mathematician who made important contributions was Euler. In 1732 he proved that the eighth perfect number was 230 (231 − 1). It was the first seen perfect number discovered for 125 years. But the major contributions by Euler were obtained in two unpublished manuscripts during his life. In one of them he proved the converse of Euclid’s statement: All even perfect number are of the form 2 p−1 (2 p − 1).

(2)

By quoting R. C. Vaughan [314]: ”we have an example of a theorem that took 2000 years to prove... But pure mathematicians are used to working on a vast time scale...” Euler’s results on odd perfect numbers and amicable numbers will be considered later. After Euler’s discovery of primality of 231 − 1, the search for perfect numbers had now become an attempt to check whether Mersenne was right with his claims. The first error in Mersenne’s list was discovered in 1876 by Lucas, who showed that 267 − 1 is composite. But 2127 − 1 is a Mersenne prime, so he obtained a new perfect number (but not the nineth, but as later will be obvious the twelfth). Lucas made also a theoretical discovery too, which later modifed by Lehmer will be the basis of a computer search for Mersenne primes. In 1883 Pervusin showed that 261 − 1 is prime, thus giving the nineth perfect number. In 1911, resp. 1914 Powers proved that 289 − 1 resp. 2101 − 1 are primes. 288 (289 − 1) was in fact the last perfect number discovered by hand calculations, all others being found using theoretical elements or a computer. In fact computers have led to a revival of interest in the discovery of Mersenne primes, and therefore of perfect numbers. The first significant results on odd perfect numbers were obtained by Sylvester. In his opinion (see e.g. [317]): ”... the existence of an 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...” 19

CHAPTER 1

In 1888 he proved that any odd perfect number must have at least 4 distinct prime factors. Later, in the same year he improved his result for five factors. The developments, as well as recent results will be studied separately. Finally, we shall include here for the sake of completeness all known perfect numbers along with the year of discovery and the discoverer (s). Let Pk be the kth perfect number. Then Pk = 2 p−1 (2 p − 1) = A p , where 2 p − 1 is a Mersenne prime. P1 = A2 = 6, P2 = A3 = 28, P3 = A5 = 496, P4 = A7 = 8128, P5 = A13 (1456, anonymous), P6 = A17 (1588 Cataldi), P7 = A19 (1588, Cataldi), P8 = A31 (1772, Euler), P9 = A61 (1883, Pervushin), P10 = A89 (1911, Powers), P11 = A107 (1914, Powers), P12 = A127 (1876, Lucas), P13 = A521 (1952, Robinson), P14 = A607 (1952, Robinson), P15 = A1279 (1952, Robinson), P16 = A2203 (1952, Robinson), P17 = A2281 (1952, Robinson), P18 = A3217 (1957, Riesel), P19 = A4253 (1961, Hurwitz), P20 = A4423 (1961, Hurwitz), P21 = A9689 (1963, Gillies), P22 = A9941 (1963, Gillies), P23 = A11213 (1963, Gillies), P24 = A19937 (1971, Tuckerman), P25 = A21701 (1978, Noll and Nickel), P26 = A23209 (1979, Noll), P27 = A44497 (1979, Nelson and Slowinski), P28 = A86243 (1982, Slowinski), P29 = A110503 (1988, Colquitt and Welsh), P30 = A132049 (1983, Slowinski), P31 = A216091 (1985, Slowinski), P32 = A756839 (1992, Slowinski and Gage), P33 = A859433 (1994, Slowinski and Gage), P34 = A1257787 (1996, Slowinski and Gage), P35 = A1398269 (1996, Armengaud, Woltman, et al. (GIMPS)), P36 = A2976221 (1997, Spence, Woltman, et al. (GIMPS)), P37 = A3021377 (1998, Clarkson, Woltman, Kurowski et al. (GIMPS, Primenet)), P38 = A6972593 (1999, Hajratwala, Woltman, Kurowki et al. (GIMPS, Primenet)), P?? = A13466917 (2001, Cameron, Woltman, Kurowski, et al.). Recently, M. Shafer (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com) has announced the discovery of the 40th Mersenne prime, giving A20996011 . The full values of the first seventeen perfect numbers are written also in the note by H. S. Uhler [312] from 1954. For a quick perfect number analyzer by Brendan McCarthy see the applet at http://ccirs.camosun.bc.ca/∼jbritton/jbperfect/htm. The 39th Mersenne prime is of course, a very large prime, having a number of 4053946 digits (it seems that it is the largest known prime). There have been discovered also very large primes of other forms. For example, in 2002, Muischnek and Gallot discovered the prime number 105747665536 + 1. For the largest known primes of various forms see the site: http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/largest.html.

1.3

Even perfect numbers

Let σ (n) denote the sum of all positive divisors of n. Then n is perfect if σ (n) = 2n 20

(1)

PERFECT NUMBERS

As we have seen in the Introduction, all known perfect numbers are even, and by the Euclid-Euler theorem n can be written as n = 2k−1 (2k − 1),

(2)

where 2k − 1 is a prime (called also as ”Mersenne prime”). Actually k must be prime. The first two perfect numbers, namely 6 and 28 are perhaps the most ”human” since are closely related to our life (number of days of a week, of a month, of a woman cycle, etc.). The famous mathematician and computer scientist D. Knuth in his interesting homepage (http://www-csfaculty.stanford.edu/∼knuth/retd.htm) on the occasion of his retirement says: ”... I’m proud of the 28 students for whom I was a dissertation advisor (see vita); and I know that 28 is a perfect number...” 28 is in fact the single even perfect number of the form x3 + 1

(3)

(x positive integer), proved by A. Makowski [205]. As corollaries of this fact Makowski deduces that the single even perfect number (4) of the form n n + 1 is 28; and that there is no even perfect number of the form nn

...n

+ 1,

(5)

where the number of n’s is ≥ 3. By generalization, A. Rotkiewicz [263] proves that 28 is the single even perfect number of the form a n + bn , where (a, b) = 1 and n > 1.

(6)

If n > 2 and (a, b) = 1, he proves also that there is no even perfect number of the form a n − bn . (7) Not being aware of Rotkiewicz’s result (6), T. N. Sinha [288] has rediscovered it in 1974. The numbers 6 and 28 are the only couple of perfect numbers of the form n − 1 n(n + 1) , where n > 1; and this is obtained for n = 7. This is a result of L. and 2 Jones [157]. (8) We note that this result applies the Euclid-Euler theorem (representation of even perfect numbers), as well as a theorem by Euler on the form of odd perfect numbers (see the next section). 21

CHAPTER 1

As for the digits of even perfect numbers, as already Nicomachus (see section 2) remarked, the last digits are always 6 or 8 (but not in alternate order, as he thought), proved rigorously by E. Lucas in 1891 (see [84], p. 27, and also [138]). (9) Let us now sum the digits of any even perfect number (except 6), then sum the digits of the resulting number,..., etc., repeating this process until we get a single digit. Then this single digit will be one. (10) See [332] for this result, with a proof. Let A(n) be the set of prime divisors of n > 1. If n is an even perfect number, then it is immediate that A(n) = A(σ (n)). (11) Now, an interesting fact, due to C. Pomerance [240] states that, reciprocally, if (11) holds true for a number n, then n must be even perfect. For the additive representation of even perfect numbers, by an interesting result by R. L. Francis [103] any even perfect number > 28 can be represented as the sum of at least two perfect numbers. (12) For the values of other arithmetic functions at even perfect numbers we quote the following result of S. M. Ruiz [264]: Let S(n) be the Smarandache function, defined by S(n) = min{k ∈ N : n|k!}.

(13)

Then if n is even perfect, then one has S(n) = M p

(14)

where M p = 2 p − 1 is the Mersenne prime in the known form of n. For a simple proof, see J. S´andor [272]. In [272] there is proved also that S(M p ) ≡ 1 (mod p), and that if 22 p + 1 is prime too, then S(24 p − 1) = 22 p + 1 ≡ 1 (mod 4 p). For the values of Euler’s function on even perfect numbers, see S. Asadulla [8]. For perfect numbers concerning a Fibonacci sequence, see [234]. F. Luca [197] proved also that there are no perfect Fibonacci or Lucas numbers. In [198] he proved that there are only finitely many multiply perfect numbers in these sequences. K. Ford [102] considered numbers n such that d(n) and σ (n) are both perfect numbers (called ”sublime numbers”). There are only two known such numbers, namely n = 12 and n = 2126 (261 − 1)(231 − 1)(219 − 1)(27 − 1)(25 − 1)(23 − 1). It is not known if any odd sublime number exists. D. Iannucci (see his electronic paper ”The Kaprekar numbers”, J. Integer Sequences, 3(2000), article 00.1.2) proved that every even perfect number is a Kaprekar number in the binary base, e.g. (28)2 = 11100 and 11002 = 1100010000 with 100 + 010000 = 11100 (703 in base 10 is Kaprekar means that 7032 = 494209 where 494 + 209 = 703). 22

PERFECT NUMBERS

We wish to mention also some new proofs of the Euler theorem on the form of an even perfect number. In standard textbooks, usually it is given Euler’s proof, in a slightly simplified form given by L. E. Dickson in 1913 ([82], [80]). An earlier proof was given by R. D. Carmichael [43]. A new proof has been published by Gy. Kisgergely [174] in a paper written in Hungarian. Another proof, due to J. S´andor ([271], [273]) is based on the simple inequality σ (ab) ≥ aσ (b)

(15)

with equality only for a = 1. This method enabled him also to obtain a new proof on the form of even superperfect numbers (see later). For even perfect numbers see a paper by S. J. Bezuska and M. J. Kenney [24] (where 36 perfect numbers are mentioned (up to 1997!)). See also G. L. Cohen [56].

1.4

Odd perfect numbers

There is a good account of results until 1957 in the paper by P. J. McCarthy [46]. The first important result on odd perfect numbers was obtained by Euler [98] when he proved that such a number n should have the representation n = p α q1 1 . . . qr2βr 2β

(1)

where p, qi (i = 1, r ) are distinct odd primes and p ≡ 1 (mod 4), α ≡ 1 (mod 4). Here p α is called the Euler factor of n. Another noteworthy result, mentioned also in the Introduction is due to J. J. Sylvester [310] who proved that we must have r ≥ 4 and that r ≥ 5 if n ≡ 0 (mod 3). (2) The modern revival of interest in the problem of odd perfect numbers seems to have been begun by R. Steurwald [296] who proved that n cannot be perfect if β1 = · · · = βr = 1.

(3)

A. Brauer [33] and H.-J. Kanold [159] proved the same if β1 = 2 and β2 = · · · = βr = 1

(4)

In [158] Kanold proved that n is not perfect if β1 = · · · = βr = 2

(5)

2βi + 1 (i = 1, r ) have as a common factor 9, 15, 21, or 33.

(6)

and also if the

23

CHAPTER 1

Similarly, he proved [165] that n cannot be perfect if β1 = β2 = 2, β3 = · · · = βr = 1; and if α = 5 and βi = 1 or 2 (i = 1, r ). (7) He obtained similar results in [161]. P. J. McCarthy [47] proved that if n is perfect and prime to 3, and β2 = · · · = βr = 1, then q1 ≡ 1

(mod 3)

(8)

In 1971 W. L. McDaniel [76] improved result (6) by proving that 3 cannot be a common divisor of 2βi + 1 (i = 1, r ). (9) A year later, P. Hagis, Jr. and W. L. McDaniel [133] showed that n cannot be perfect if β1 = · · · = βr = 3. (10) We note here that in the above papers the theory of cyclotomic polynomials, as well as diophantine equations are widely used. Some computations use modern computers, too. It is of interest to note that in the proof of (10) the following results due to U. K¨uhnel [184], resp. H.-J. Kanold [158] are used: If n is odd perfect, then 105 n; (11) If n is odd perfect, and if in (1) s is a common factor of 2βi + 1 (i = 1, r ), then (12) s 4 |n. Another refinement of Euler’s theorem is due to J. A. Ewell [99]. If the prime q1 , . . . , qr (together with their corresponding exponents) are relabeled as p1 , p2 , . . . , pk , h 1 , h 2 , . . . , h t so that pi (i = 1, k) are of the form ≡ 1 (mod 4) and each h j ( j = 1, t) are of the form ≡ −1 (mod 4), say n = pα

k

pi2αi

i=1

t

2β j

hj

(13)

j=1

then: (i) the ordered set A(k) = {α1 , . . . , αk } contains an even number of odd numbers, provided α and p belong to the same residue class (mod 8); (ii) A(k) contains an odd number of odd numbers, provided that α and p belong to different classes (mod 8). (14) Of a similar nature are also the following theorems due to G. L. Cohen and R. J. Williams [67]: If n is an odd perfect number, then in (1) if we assume that β1 = · · · = βr = β, then we must have β ∈ {6, 8, 11, 14, 18}; (15) If n is as above and β1 = · · · = βr = 1, then β1 ∈ {5, 6}; 24

(16)

PERFECT NUMBERS

They obtain also (independently) a simpler proof of result (14). The theorem of Sylvester on the lower bounds for r in (1) has been improved by several authors. I. S. Gradstein [110], U. K¨uhnel [184] and G. C. Webber [324] proved that in (2) r ≥ 5 holds without any condition. (17) Recall, that r = ω(n) − 1. The result r ≥6 (18) has been discovered by N. Robbins [259] and C. Pomerance [237]; while the strongest result known today, namely r ≥7 (19) is due to P. Hagis, Jr. [120] and J. E. Z. Chein [51]. For a new, algorithmic approach, see G. L. Cohen and R. M. Sorli [On the number of distinct prime factors of an odd perfect number, J. Discr. Algorithms 1(2003), 2135]. Result (2) of Sylvester has been sharpened to r ≥ 8 if n ≡ 0

(mod 3)

(20)

r ≥ 10 if n ≡ 0

(mod 3)

(21)

by H.-J. Kanold [160] and to

by M. Kishore [179]. P. Hagis, Jr. [123] proved the same for (n, 3) = 1. For a survey of earlier results, see D. S. Mitrinovi´c - J. S´andor [218] (see p. 100-102). E. Catalan proved in 1888 (see [84]) that if an odd perfect number is not divisible by 3, 5 or 7, it has at least 26 distinct prime factors, and thus has at least 45 digits. T. Pepin showed in 1897 (see [84]) that an odd perfect number relatively prime to 3 · 7, 3 · 5 or 3 · 5 · 7 contains at least 11, 14, or 19 distinct prime factors, respectively; and cannot have the form 5(mod6). In the above mentioned paper [160] Kanold proved also that an odd perfect number must have at least a prime divisor greater than or equal to 61. (22) J. B. Muskat [223] in 1966 proved that an odd perfect number n is divisible by a prime power > 1012 . (23) C. Pomerance [238] proved that the second largest prime divisor of n must be at least 139. (24) and in 1980 P. Hagis, Jr. [121], improved this to 1000. (25) Related to the largest prime factor of an odd perfect number n, this is greater than 100129 25

(26)

CHAPTER 1

as shown by P. Hagis, Jr. and W. J. Daniel [134]; and improved to 300000

(27)

by J. T. Condict [68]. Result (25) on the second largest prime factor has been recently improved to 10000

(28)

by D. E. Iannucci [150]. Ianucci further [151] obtained for the third largest prime factor the lower bound 100 (29) Iannucci and Sorli [153] proved that if n is odd perfect, then (n) ≥ 37, (n) being the total number of prime factors of n. Kanold’s result (22) was subsequently improved. As a corollary of a general result (which we shall state later) N. Robbins [260] proved that if an odd perfect number n is divisible by 17, then n must have a prime factor not smaller than 577. (30) The strongest result was due to P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen [132] who obtained, without any condition the lower bound 106

(31)

Very recently, this has been improved to 107 by P. M. Jenkins [155]. See also A. Grytczuk and M. W´ojtowicz [113] on the magnitude of perfect numbers. Related to the lower bounds of odd perfect numbers, a substantial result was obtained in 1973 by P. Hagis, Jr. [119], giving the lower bound 1050 . This was subsequently improved to 10160 by R. P. Brent and G. L. Cohen [34], to 10300 by Brent, Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele [35]. In a recent paper by S. Davis [79] a rationality condition for the existence of odd perfect numbers is used to derive an upper bound for the density of odd integers such that σ (n) could be equal to 2n, where n belongs to a fixed interval with a lower limit greater than 10300. Bounds of a general nature were first considered by Kanold. In [158] he proved that if n given by (1) is odd perfect, then the largest prime divisor of n is greater then 2 · max{α + 1, 2βi + 1 : i = 1, r }

(32)

In [160] he proved that if n is odd perfect and p is a Gaussian prime, then α < a(a − 1) ≤ r (r − 1)

(33)

where a is the number of qi such that qi ≡ 1 (mod p). In [165] a similar result runs as follows: 26

PERFECT NUMBERS

Suppose n is odd perfect and that ( p − 1, 2βi + 1) = 1, i = 1, r . Let a be as 3a(a − 1) 2β , when pa−1 σ (qi i ) above. Then 1 < a < r and α ≤ min a(a − 2), 4 (a − 1)(3a − 2) for any i = 1, r ; and α ≤ , otherwise. (34) 4 A complicated lower bound has been given by N. Robbins [260]. Suppose u is an odd prime. Let a1 (u) < a2 (u) < . . . be those primes p such that (i) p ≡ 2u 2k − 1 (mod 4u 2k ) for some integer k; (ii) 105 ( p + 1); (iii) 165 ( p + 1). Let V (u) be the set of all primes v such that v ≡ 1 (mod u). For each v ∈ V (u), let v = max{v ∗ : v ∗ ∈ V (u), v ∗ |φu (v)}, where φn (t) denotes the n-th cyclotomic polynomial evaluated at t. Let w(v) = max{v, v }. Let b1 (u) < b2 (u) < . . . be all the distinct w(v) such that v ∈ V (u). Finally, let X (u) be the set of all primes x such that (i) x ≡ 2u 2k−1 (mod 4u 2k−1 ) for some integer k; (ii) 105 (x 2u − 1)/(x − 1); (iii) 165 (x 2u − 1)/(x − 1). For each x ∈ X (u), let v = max{v ∗ : v ∗ ∈ V (u), v ∗ |φu (x)}, v = max{v ∗ : ∗ v ∈ V (u), v ∗ |φu (−x)}. Let y(x) = max{x, v, v }. Let c1 (u) < c2 (u) < . . . be all the distinct y(x) such that x ∈ X (u). Put L(u) = min{a1 (u), b1 (u), c1 (u)}.

(35)

Now, if n given by (1) is an odd perfect number and u is a Fermat prime such that u ||n, then m

M(n) ≥ L(u)

(36)

M(n) = max{ p, q1 , . . . , qr }

(37)

where

For an example, the values of an (3), an (5), an (17), bn (3), bn (5), bn (17), cn (3), cn (5), cn (17), consider the tables: n 1 2 3 4 5 6 an (3) 17 89 197 233 449 521 an (5) 149 349 449 1249 1549 1949 an (17) 577 1733 8669 14449 19073 22541 27

CHAPTER 1

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 bn (3) 19 61 67 79 97 127 bn (5) 1381 2221 3221 bn (17) < 1031

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 cn (3) 271 821 919 1021 1087 1093 cn (5) 400291 cn (17) < 1031 Various bounds for the prime factors of an odd perfect number have been deduced. Let p1 be the least prime factor of n given by (1). Then Cl. Servais [283] proved first that p1 ≤ r + 1 = ω(n) = A (38) where ω(n) = A denotes the number of distinct prime factors of n. For a recent extension of the Servais result see [23]. In 1952 O. Gr¨un [112] improved this to 2 A+2 3

p1

1

(55)

Some words on the density of odd perfect numbers: In 1954 Kanold [166] proved that this density is 0. This follows also from a result by B. Volkmann [315]. Stronger results have been obtained in the following years by B. Hornfeck [146] who showed that for V (x) = car d{n ≤ x : n perfect} (56) one has V (x) < x 1/2

(57)

A year later [147] he showed that V (x) 1 lim sup √ ≤ √ x x→∞ 2 5 30

(58)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Kanold [169] improved these to V (x) < c

x 1/4 log x log log x

(59)

while Hornfeck and E. Wirsing [148], resp. Wirsing [328] proved that c log x log log log x V (x) < exp log log x and

c log x V (x) < exp log log x

(60)

(61)

It follows from this result that even if some odd perfect numbers do exist, at least they are less numerous than, for example, the primes. In particular, the sum of the reciprocals of the perfect numbers is a convergent series. Finally, we wish to point out some new issues on odd perfect number, along with some open problems. By writing n = p α M 2 , where p ≡ α ≡ 1 (mod 4), clearly if one has

σ (M 2 ) = p α ,

σ ( p α ) = 2M 2 ,

(62) (63)

then n is odd perfect. In 1977 D. Suryanarayana [309] raised the question, that should every odd perfect number (which necessarily has the form (62)) also necessarily satisfy the relations (63)? This was answered in the negative by G. G. Dandapat, J. L. Hunsucker and C. Pomerance [74], and also later by E. Z. Chen utilizing a deep result of Ljunggern. D. Suryanarayana [309] raised also the following problem. If n = p α M 2 is an odd perfect number so that p ≡ α ≡ 1 (mod 4) and ( p, M) = 1, does it necessarily follow that there exist a divisor d|M such that σ (d 2 ) = p α M 2 /d 2 and σ ( p α M 2 /d 2 ) = 2d 2 ?

(64)

This problem is still open. Another open problem by Suryanarayana is that: is it true that every odd perfect number is of the form mσ (m) for some odd integer m; if so, is (m, σ (m)) = 1 necessarily? (65)

31

CHAPTER 1

M. V. Subbarao [301] raises the problem: Does every odd perfect number n (if such exist) have the representation 1 n = mσ (m)? 2

(66)

Another question: whenever n given by (66) is perfect, does it follow that n is odd and (m, σ (m)) = 1? (67) C. W. Anderson (see [239]) has conjectured that the set of rational numbers that arise as σ (n)/n for some n, is a recursive set. (68)

1.5

Perfect, multiperfect and multiply perfect numbers

First we wish to mention that the notion of a perfect number has been extended to Gaussian integers (see R. Spira [292], W. L. McDaniel [77], M. Hausman [141], D. S. Mitrinovi´c – J. S´andor [218]) to real quadratic fields (see E. Bedocchi [15]), or generally to unique factorization domains (see W. L. McDaniel [78]). A number n is called multiperfect, if there exist a positive integer k ≥ 1 such that σ (n) = kn (1) In this case n is called also as k-perfect number. The union of all k-perfect numbers when k ∈ N is the set of multiply perfect numbers. Thus n is called multiply perfect when n|σ (n) (2) In the sections with perfect numbers (when k = 2 in (1)) we sometimes mentioned that some results which were true for perfect numbers do hold also for multiperfect numbers. (For the history of multiply perfect and multiperfect numbers up to 1907, see Dickson [84].) For example, the famous Dickson theorem 4.(50) holds true also for k-perfect number, as proved by H.-J. Kanold [168]. A positive integer n is called primitive if cannot be written in the form m = st, where s is an even perfect number and (s, t) = 1. Kanold proved that for any k there are only a finitely many primitive k-perfect numbers with a fixed number of distinct prime factors. (3) C. Pomerance [239] proved that for every k ≥ 1 (even rational number) and every non-negative integer K , there is an effectively computable number N (k, K ) such that if ω(n) = K and n is primitive k-perfect, then n ≤ N (k, K ). 32

(4)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Here ω(n) denotes, as usual, the number of distinct prime divisors of n. Let A(n) be the set of all prime divisors of n. In 1998 W. Carlip, E. Jacobson and L. Somer [42] proved the following theorem: For fixed integers k and t, there exist at most finitely many squarefree integers n such that car d A(N ) ≤ t and n is k − perfect.

(5)

P. J. McCarthy [48] has shown that if n is k-perfect, then ω(n) ≥ k 2 − 1

(6)

For some improvements, see W. L. McDaniel [75]. McDaniel shows also that there exists no odd k-perfect numbers with k odd of the form m α , where m is an integer, and α + 1 is a prime, the square of a prime, or the cube of a prime. (7) It is not known if there exist odd k-perfect numbers, but actually up to recently (February 2002) we have a total of 5040 known k-perfect numbers. There are 39 2-perfect (i.e. classical perfect), 6 3-perfect, 36 4-perfect, 65 5-perfect, 245 6-perfect, 516 7-perfect, 1134 8-perfect, 923 10-perfect and 1 11-perfect numbers. For details regarding the discoverers see the site http://www.homes/unibielefeld.de/achim/mpn.html by A. Flammenkamp. P. Hagis Jr. and G. L. Cohen [130] have shown that the largest prime factor of a k-perfect number is at least 100129, (8) while the second largest prime factor is ≥ 1009.

(9)

Later, Hagis Jr. [125] proved that the third largest divisor is ≥ 101

(10)

The density of k-perfect numbers is 0, as first was shown by Kanold, but in 1957 Hornfeck and Wirsing proved that P(x) = o(x ε )

(11)

for any ε > 0, where P(x) denotes the number of k-perfect numbers not exceeding x. In fact in the book by Erd¨os and Graham [92] one can read that Wirsing can show that P(x) < cx c log log x log x/ log log x (12) with c, c > 0 constants. (Here k > 0 can be even rational number.) 1 in the case of an odd perfect number have been Various bounds for S = p p/n included in section 4 (see 4.44). G. L. Cohen [55] in 1980 proved the following: 33

CHAPTER 1

Let n be k-perfect. Then

if k is odd log k, log k log k 1050 34

PERFECT NUMBERS

This was improved to n > 1060

(21)

n > 1070

(22)

by L. B. Alexander [4], and to by Cohen and Hagis, Jr. [130]. As we mentioned, an odd triperfect number must be a square: D. Iannucci [152] proves that the square root of an odd triperfect number cannot be squarefree number. (23) The important theorem by Touchard (see 4.48) can be extended in some cases also to multiperfect numbers. J. A. Holdener [145] proves that if n is odd k-perfect, where k is not divisible by 3 or 4, then n≡1

(mod 12) or n ≡ 9 (mod 36).

(24)

Now certain facts on multiply perfect numbers. (Remark that many authors confuse the words ”multiperfect” and ”multiply perfect”. Clearly if n is k-perfect, then it is multiply perfect. But the converse is not true.) R. D. Carmichael [44] found all multiply perfect numbers less than 109 . These are: 1, 6, 28, 120, 496, 672, 8128, 30240, 32760, 523776, 2178540, 23569920, 33550336, 45532800, 142990848, 459818240 (this corrected list appears in [9]). (25) Since, as we mentioned before, there are more than 5040 multiperfect numbers, and these are also multiply perfect numbers, today (in the computer era) we know multiply perfect numbers having about 10000 digits. However, it is not known whether or not there are infinitely many such numbers. See also R. K. Guy [114]. The estimate 4.(60) for the number of perfect numbers ≤ x holds true essentially also for multiply perfect numbers, so for these numbers m(x) one has c log x log log x log x m(x) = O exp (26) log log x due to Hornfeck and Wirsing [148]. We now study some miscellaneous results related to multiply perfect numbers. H. Harboth [140] takes in place of σ (n) the value S(n) = the sum of all possible sums of distinct divisors of n (in fact one obtains S(n) = σ (n) · 2d(n)−1 , where d(n) is the number of divisors of n). She proves that n|S(n) for infinitely many n

(27)

thus the open question above is solved in the case considered here. In a difficult proposed problem, C. Pomerance [242] considers multiply perfect numbers of the form n!, and shows that this is possible only for n ∈ {1, 3, 5}. (28) 35

CHAPTER 1

L. Cheng [52] has proved that n = 23 · 3 · 5, 25 · 3 · 7 and 25 · 33 · 5 · 7 are the only integers satisfying σ (n) = ω(n) · n. (29) For multiply perfect numbers in Lucas sequences see [194]. Finally, let us stop at certain problems relating complexity theory of algorithms. Gill’s complexity class ([107]) BPP is the class of languages recognized in polynomial time by a probabilistic Turing machine, with two-sided error probability bounded by a constant away from 1/2. Now Theorem 8 of [9] states that the set of multiply perfect numbers is in BPP. (30) Bach, Miller and Shallit prove the similar result for perfect numbers, as well as amicable numbers. (31) For algorithmic number theory, see [10].

1.6

Quasiperfect, almost perfect, and pseudoperfect numbers

A number n is called quasiperfect, if σ (n) = 2n + 1

(1)

No such numbers are known, but necessary conditions have been obtained by various authors. P. Cattaneo [50] proved that if n is quasiperfect and r |σ (n), then r ≡ 1 or 3

(mod 8)

(2)

If p 2α ||n and q|(2α + 1), then (q − 1)( p + 1) ≡ 0 or 4

(mod 16)

(3)

Cattaneo proved also that an odd quasiperfect number must be a perfect square. (4) H. L. Abbott, C. E. Aull, E. Brown and D. Suryanarayana [1] as well as G. L. Cohen [57] deduced other conditions. For example, in [57] it is shown that there is no quasiperfect number of the forms m 4 or m 6 (in this last case one suppose also (m, 3) = 1) (5) It is shown also that there are no quasiperfect numbers of the form 32a m 2b where 3 m, a ≡ 2

(mod 8) and b ≡ 0

If a number of the form

r

6qi +2

pi

(mod 5) or b ≡ 0

(mod 11)

(6)

( pi primes) is quasiperfect, then

i=1

r ≥ 230876 36

(7)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Abbott, Aull, Brown and Suryanarayana [1] showed that a quasiperfect number n must have at least five distinct divisors and n > 1020

(8)

M. Kishore [175] improved this to ω(n) ≥ 6 and n > 1030

(9)

while Cohen and Hagis, Jr. [61] obtained the refinement ω(n) ≥ 7 and n > 1035

(10)

When 3 n, this has been earlier obtained by Jerrard and Temperley [156]. Kanold [172] proved that there are only finitely many quasiperfect numbers n for which ω(n) < K (11) where K is a fixed constant. 1 2M + log . For a positive integer M, let λ(M) = p σ (M) p/M 1 . If n is quasiperfect, then Let S = p p/n (i) if p1 = 5, then S < λ(56 ) (12) (ii) if p1 ≥ 7, then S < log 2 (13) (iii) if p1 = 3, p2 = 5, then S < λ(34 · 56 ) (14) (iv) if p1 = 3, p2 ≥ 7, then S < λ(34 ) (15) Here p1 < p2 are the least two prime divisors of n. These results are due to Cohen [55]. Let n be quasiperfect and let p1 < · · · < pr be its prime divisors. Kishore [178] proves that i−1 (16) pi < 22 (r − i + 1) for 2 ≤ i ≤ 6 A. Makowski [203] has investigated the solutions of the equation σ (n) = 2n + 2 If 2k − 3 = prime, then n = 2k−1 (2k − 3) is a solution. We note that 2k − 3 are primes e.g. for k = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, etc. A solution of other type is n = 650. We now introduce almost perfect numbers. A number n is called so, if one has σ (n) = 2n − 1 37

(17)

CHAPTER 1

Again, we should note that in the literature ”almost perfect” sometimes means quasiperfect in the sense of (1), or almost perfect, in the sense of (17) (see e.g. [156], [71]). S. Singh [287] calls almost perfect numbers ”slightly defective” while quasiperfect numbers ”slightly excessive”. It is easy to check that powers of 2 satisfy (17); no other almost perfect numbers are known. An infinite class of numbers which are not almost perfect is given by J. T. Cross [71] as follows: Let p denote an odd prime. If 2m+1 > p, then no multiple (18) of 2m p is almost perfect. In 1978 M. Kishore [176] proved that if n is an odd almost perfect number, then ω(n) ≥ 6

(19)

Cross [71] notes that the argument by Jerrard and Temperley [156] can be modified to show that if 3 n, then ω(n) ≥ 7 (20) for such numbers. An analogous result to (16) in case of almost perfect numbers is i−1

pi < 22 (r − i + 1), 2 ≤ i ≤ 5

(21)

p6 < 23775427335(r − 5)

(22)

and due to Kishore [178]. An odd almost perfect number n should be a perfect square, and if p1a1 ||n, where p1 = 3 is the least prime divisor of n, then a1 ≥ 12. (23) For this result, see also [176].

1.7

Superperfect and related numbers

A number n is called superperfect (after D. Suryanarayana [307]) if σ (σ (n)) = 2n

(1)

Suryanarayana and Kanold [171] have determined the general form of even superperfect numbers. These can be written as n = 2k (k ≥ 1), where 2k+1 − 1 is prime

(2)

New proofs of (2) have been obtained by G. Lord [193] and J. S´andor ([271], [273]). The odd superperfect numbers are not known, but they must be perfect squares (3) 38

PERFECT NUMBERS

as proved by Kanold [307]. According to Guy [114] (p. 65), Dandepat et al. proved that if n is odd superperfect, then n or σ (n) is divisible by at least three distinct primes. (4) Suryanarayana [308] shows that odd numbers of this type cannot have the form p 2α ( p prime). (5) Hunsucker and Pomerance [149] give the lower bound 7 · 1024

(6)

for the odd superperfect numbers. D. Bode [26] obtained that the number of even superperfect numbers less than x is o(log x/ log log x)

(7)

By iterating the composition of σ , Bode [26] showed also that there are no even m-superperfect numbers for m ≥ 3, in the sense that σ (m) (n) = 2n

(8)

where σ (m) (n) = σ (. . . σ (n) . . .). m times

For a new proof, see Lord [193]. J. McCranie [70] has shown that there are no m-superperfect numbers less than 4.29 × 109 for any m ≥ 3. S´andor [270] considered the perfect number analogue for the composition of some arithmetic functions. He reproved (2) by showing that σ (σ (n)) ≥ 2n for all even n

(9)

with equality only for n = 2k , with 2k+1 − 1 prime. Let ψ be the Dedekind arithmetic function, defined by 1 ψ(n) = n (n > 1), ψ(1) = 1. 1+ p p/n Then, an improvement of (9) is the inequality σ (σ (n)) ≥ ψ(σ (n)) ≥ 2n for even n,

(10)

where the last equality holds only for n = 2k , with 2k+1 − 1 prime. Superperfect number are called σ ◦ σ -perfect numbers, while numbers with property ψ(σ (n)) = 2n 39

(11)

CHAPTER 1

are called ψ ◦ σ -perfect numbers. All even perfect numbers of this type are determined. Equation (11) has at least an odd solution n = 3. Let n be an odd solution of (11). Then (see [270]) (a) n ≡ −1 (mod 3), (b) n ≡ 7 (mod 12) (c) n ≡ −4 (mod 21), n ≡ 10 (mod 21) (d) 2α · 3β σ (n) for all α, β ≥ 1. (12) Related to σ ◦ ψ-perfect numbers, i.e. satisfying σ (ψ(n)) = 2n

(13)

S´andor proves that the only even solution is n = 2. One has σ (ψ(n)) ≥ 2n

m+1 for n even, m

(14)

with n = 2a , where m denotes the greatest odd divisor of n. If n is an odd σ ◦ ψperfect number, and p is an odd prime having the property σ ( p + 1) > 2 p, then p n (particularly 3, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19 n). (15) It is conjectured that (13) doesn’t have odd solutions. In connection to Bode’s result, S´andor [270] proves that for any m ≥ 3, there are no ψ ◦ ψ ◦ · · · ◦ ψ −perfect numbers (16) m

The problem of ”ψ-superperfect” numbers is completely settled as followed: The only solution of equation ψ(ψ(n)) = 2n

(17)

is n = 3. But there are many ”ψ-triperfect” numbers as the even solutions of ψ(ψ(n)) = 3n

(18)

are n = 2k , where k > 1. Let ϕ be the Euler totient. S´andor [270] proves that there are no ψ ◦ ϕ-perfect numbers which are odd. (19) If n is even, and the greatest odd divisor of n is ψ ◦ ϕ-deficient, then n is also ψ ◦ ϕ-deficient (i.e. (ψ ◦ ϕ)(n) < 2n). Here it is conjectured also that ψ(ϕ(m)) ≥ m for any odd m 40

(20)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Related to ψ-multiperfect numbers the following result is true (S´andor [269]). We say that n is ω-multiple of m (see Ch. Wall [318]) if m|n and the sets of prime factors of m resp. n are identical. Let us now suppose that the least solution of equation ψ(n) = kn (21) is a squarefree number n k . Then all solutions of (21) are the ω-multiples of n. Let us call n quasi-superperfect if σ (σ (n)) = 2n + 1

(22) (23)

Clearly the Mersenne primes are such; it is not known if there are others. Subbarao [301] proves that if a prime p satisfies (23) then p is a Mersenne prime, otherwise (24) σ ( p) = 2r M 2 , where M has at leat two prime divisors. Generally, if n satisfies (23), then n must be odd, and σ (a) must be of the form σ (n) = 2r M 2 , where M is an odd integer.

(25)

Subbarao proves also that there is no odd perfect number of the form n = 1 mσ (m) for which σ (m) is a power of n and with m quasi-superperfect (i.e. m 2 satisfying (23)). (26) He raises the following open problem: if m is quasi-superperfect, is the number 1 (27) n given by n = mσ (m) a perfect number? 2 The almost superperfect numbers are defined by σ (σ (n)) = 2n − 1

(28)

We cannot decide if there exist such numbers, in fact no reference to this question we were able to find in the literature. (The analogous question, however, for unitary divisors, as we will see in a further section, is much easier). Another generalization of superperfect numbers has been considered by G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele [64]. They call a number n (m, k)-perfect if σ (m) (n) = kn

(29)

The classical perfect numbers are then the (1,2)-perfect, the k-multiperfect numbers are (1, k)-perfect, the superperfect numbers are (2,2)-perfect, the m-superperfect numbers are (m, 2)-perfect. They give a table of all (2, k)-perfect numbers up to 109 . They gave a table for all (3, k)-perfect and (4, k)-perfect numbers up to 2 · 108 in 41

CHAPTER 1

1995 [63]. It is interesting to note that no new (1,3)-perfect numbers have been found in the last 350 years, nor any new (1,4)-perfect numbers in the last 70 years. For (2, k)-perfect numbers they prove the following general result: suppose l is an odd (2, k)-perfect number. For any a such that 2a |kσ (σ (2a )) and such that σ (2a ) and σ (l) are relative prime, the number 2a l is (2, 2−a kσ (σ (2a )))-perfect. (30) For example, for p > 2, 2 p−1 · 3 · 5 · 7 · 132 · 31 is (2,12)-perfect. They conjecture that all numbers n are (m, k)-perfect for some m, k; and verified it for all n ≤ 1000. (31) There are also some theoretical results supporting conjecture (31). Here one has to do with the properties relating to the iteration of σ . P. Erd¨os [90] asked if (σ (m) (n))1/m has a limit as m → ∞. He conjectures that it is infinite for each n > 1. (32) Erd¨os, Granville, Pomerance and Spiro [93] poses five new open problems, as follows: (i) For any n > 1, σ (m+1) (n)/σ (m) (n) → 1 as m → ∞ (33) (ii) For any n > 1, σ (m+1) (n)/σ (m) (n) → ∞ as m → ∞ (34) (iii) For any n > 1, there is m with n|σ (m) (n) (35) (iv) For any n, l > 1 there is m with l|σ (m) (n) (36) (v) For any n 1 , n 2 > 1, there are m 1 , m 2 with σ (m 1 ) (n 1 ) = σ (m 2 ) (n 2 ). (37) Cohen and te Riele [64] give some computational evidence to indicate that statements (32), (34), (35), (36) are true, while (33) and (36) are false. A. Schinzel [281] asks if lim inf σ (m) (n)/n < ∞ n→∞

(38)

for each m, and observe that it follows for m = 2 from a deep theorem of A. R´enyi. A. Makowski and A. Schinzel [207] gave an elementary proof that for m = 2 the limit is 1. The result is also true for m = 3, proved by H. Maier [202]. (39) Makowski [206] showed earlier this result by assuming the infinitude of Mersenne primes. He proves also that (38) is true if one assumes a general hypothesis H due to Schinzel [282]. (40) For the iteration properties of s(n) = σ (n) − n, as well as divisibility and congruence properties of σ (m) (n), see the surveys in Mitrinovi´c-S´andor [218] (pp. 92-94). We will return later on the iteration of s(n) when studying sociable numbers.

1.8

Pseudoperfect, weird and harmonic numbers

W. Sierpinski [286] called a number pseudoperfect if it was the sum of the some its distinct divisors. E.g. 20 = 1+4+5+10 is pseudoperfect but 8 not. Some authors use the ”semiperfect” terminology (see e.g. A. and E. Zachariou [330]). 42

PERFECT NUMBERS

Numbers n with the property σ (n) > 2n are called abundant (for their properties, see Mitrinovi´c-S´andor [218], and for a recent survey, see S´andor [274]. In [218] and [274] one can find results also on deficient numbers, defined by σ (n) < 2n). A number is called primitive abundant if it is abundant, but all its proper divisors are deficient; and primitive pseudoperfect if it is pseudoperfect, but none of its proper divisors are. C. Pomerance [236] called n a harmonic number, if the harmonic mean of all the divisors of n is an integer (equivalently, σ (n) divides nd(n); where d(n) is the number of divisors of n). These numbers were considered first by O. Ore [228], and some author call them ”Ore numbers”. Finally, S. J. Benkovski [21] called a number weird, if it is abundant but not pseudoperfect. Now some results on these numbers. Erd¨os (see [114], p. 46) has shown that the density of pseudoperfect numbers exists, (1) and says that probably there are integers n which are not pseudoperfect, but for which n = ab, with a abundant and b having many prime factors. (2) H. Abbott (see [114], p. 46) lets l = l(n) (where n ≥ 3) be the least integer for which there are n integers 1 ≤ a1 < a2 < · · · < an = l such that each ai divides s= ai (so that s is pseudoperfect). Then

for all n ≥ 3; and

l(n) > n c1 log log n (c1 > 0 constant),

(3)

l(n) < n c2 log log n (c2 > 0, constant),

(4)

for infinitely many n. A. and E. Zachariou [330] note that every multiple of a pseudoperfect number is pseudoperfect. (5) All numbers 2m p with m ≥ 1 and p a prime between 2m and 2m+1 are primitive pseudoperfect, but there are such numbers not of this form, e.g. 770. (6) There are infinitely many primitive pseudoperfect numbers that are not harmonic numbers. The smallest odd primitive pseudoperfect number is 945. (7) P. Erd¨os (see [114], p. 47) can show that the number of odd primitive pseudoperfect numbers is infinite. (8) Benkovski and Erd¨os [22] showed that the density of weird numbers is positive. (9) Some very large weird numbers were found by S. Kravitz [182]. There are 24 primitive weird numbers less than a million (70, 836, 4030, 5830,...). Nonprimitive weird numbers include numbers of form 70 p, where p > 144 is a prime, or 836 p with p = 421, 487, 491 or ≥ 577; also 7192 · 31. (10) Benkovski and Erd¨os [22] posed some open problems on weird numbers: are there infinitely many primitive abundant numbers which are weird? (11) 43

CHAPTER 1

Is every odd abundant number pseudoperfect (thus not weird)? (12) Can σ (n) be arbitrarily large for weird n? (13) They conjecture ”no”. For primitive weird numbers, see also [230]. Clearly, a pseudoperfect number is a perfect one, too. The similar statement for harmonic numbers is due to Ore [228]: n perfect ⇒ n harmonic. (14) Ore proved that a harmonic number has at least two distinct prime factors, (15) and Pomerance [236] (see also D. Callan [41]) proved that the only harmonic numbers with two distinct prime factors are the even perfect numbers. (16) M. Garcia [105] extended the list of harmonic numbers to include all 45 which are < 107 , and he found more than 200 larger ones. The least one, apart from 1 and the perfect numbers, is 140. (17) 9 All 130 harmonic numbers up to 2 · 10 are listed in G. L. Cohen [59], (18) and R. M. Sorli (see Cohen and Sorli [66]) has continued the list to 1010 . (19) Kanold [170] has shown that the density of harmonic numbers is 0. (20) Ore [228] conjectured that every harmonic number is even, but this probably is very difficult. Indeed, this result, if true, would imply that there are no odd perfect numbers. See also W. H. Mills [215], who proved that if there exists an odd harmonic number n, then n has a prime-power factor greater than 107 . Related to Pomerance’s result (16) one can ask: if a harmonic number has three distinct divisors, is it even? (21) In 1998 G. L. Cohen and D. Moujie [62] have introduced a generalization of harmonic numbers. A number n > 1 is called k-harmonic if Hk =

n k d(n) σk (n)

is an integer. Here k ≥ 1 denotes a positive integer, and σk (n) =

(22)

d k denotes

d/n

the sum of kth powers of divisors of n. The number n is called power-harmonic if it is k-harmonic for some k ≥ 1. A power-harmonic number is proper, it if is kharmonic for some k ≥ 2. No k-harmonic number with k ≥ 2 is known. However, Cohen and Moujie are able to prove some necessary conditions. For example, if n is power-harmonic, then has at least two distinct prime factors. (23) This generalizes Ore’s result (15). If n is k-harmonic, then Hk (n) ≤ d(n) − 1

(24)

For even k-harmonic numbers the following is true: Let n = 2a p b ( p odd prime) be a proper k-harmonic number. If k is even, then b ≡ 7 (mod 8); if k is odd then b is odd and ( p + 1)(b + 1) ≡ 0 (mod 16) (25) 44

PERFECT NUMBERS

If n is a proper k-harmonic number, then d(n) > 1 +

k−1 k ·2 , k+1

(26)

and if n is a proper power-harmonic number, then d(n) ≥ 60

(27)

Also, if n is a proper power-harmonic number, then n > 1010

(28)

Finally, we note that W. Butske et al. [40] have considered primary pseudoperfect number n which is a product of distinct primes and which satisfies 1 1 + = 1. The first few such numbers are 2, 6, 42, 1806, 47058,... n p p/n

1.9

Unitary, bi-unitary, infinitary-perfect and related numbers

n = 1. Let σ ∗ (n) denote A divisor d of n is called a unitary divisor, if d, d the sum of unitary divisors of n. It is known that (see E. Cohen [53], and see also [279] for various divisibility notions, convolutions and arithmetic functions) σ ∗ is multiplicative and σ ∗ ( p α ) = p α + 1 for any prime power α. Also σ ∗ (1) = 1. In 1966 M. V. Subbarao and L. J. Warren [303] introduced the unitary perfect numbers n satisfying σ ∗ (n) = 2n (1) They found the first four unitary perfect numbers, namely 6, 60, 90, 87360,

(2)

and in 1975 Ch. Wall [319], [321] discovered the fifth, namely 218 · 3 · 54 · 7 · 11 · 13 · 19 · 37 · 79 · 109 · 157 · 313

(3)

Subbarao and Warren proved that there are no odd solutions of (1). This was shown independently also by K. Nageswara Rao [224]. No other unitary perfect numbers than the five given by (2) and (3) are known, but if n = 2a m (m odd ) would be a new one, then Subbarao et al. [302] showed that one must have a > 10 and ω(m) > 6 (4) 45

CHAPTER 1

Later, Wall [323] improved this to ω(m) > 8,

(5)

while in [322] he proved that any new unitary perfect number has a prime power unitary divisor larger than 215 (6) H. A. M. Frei [104] has shown that if n = 2m p1a1 . . . prar is unitary perfect with (n, 3) = 1, then m > 144, r > 144, and n > 10440 (6 ) It is not known if there are infinitely many unitary perfect numbers. Subbarao (see [300]) has conjectured that there are only finitely many. It is also not known whether there exists at least a unitary perfect number not divisible by 3. (7) (see [303]), or a k-unitary perfect number for k ≥ 3, where σ ∗ (n) = kn, (8) see [289]. P. Hagis [124] proved that if (8) holds and n contains t distinct odd divisors, then k = 4 or 6 implies n > 10110 , t ≥ 51 and 249 |n. (9) (10) If k ≥ 8, then n > 10663 and t ≥ 247, while k ≥ 5, odd, imply n > 10461 and t ≥ 166, 2166 |n. (11) a In 1989 S. W. Graham [111] proved the following result: If n = 2 m is a unitary perfect number, where m is an odd squarefree number, then either a = 1 and m = 3, a = 2 and m = 3 · 5, or a = 6 and m = 3 · 5 · 7 · 13 (thus there are only three such numbers). (12) J. De Boer [129] proved that if n = 29 · 32 m is unitary perfect, with (m, 6) = 1 and squarefree, then a = 1 and m = 5. On unitary abundant numbers, see [274]. A divisor d of n is called a bi-unitary divisor if the greatest common unitary n divisor of d and is 1. Let σ ∗∗ (n) be the sum of bi-unitary divisors of n. Wall [320] d call n bi-unitary perfect, if σ ∗∗ (n) = 2n (13) It is not difficult to verify that σ ∗∗ is multiplicative and σ ∗∗ ( p α ) = σ ( p α ) = and σ ∗∗ ( p α ) =

p α+1 − 1 if α is odd, p−1

p α+1 − 1 − p α/2 , if α is even p−1 46

(14)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Hence

σ ∗∗ (n) ≤ σ (n)

(15)

with equality only if every prime which divides n does so an odd number of times. Wall proves that there are only three bi-unitary perfect numbers, namely 6, 60, 90. (16) Hagis [126] introduced bi-unitary multiply perfect numbers by n|σ ∗∗ (n)

(13 )

and proved that there are no odd numbers of this type. There are 17 numbers n < 107 satisfying (13’) (three of them are the numbers from (16)). W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar [13] essentially have determined all unitary quasiperfect numbers satisfying σ ∗ (n) = 2n + 1

(17)

as well as all unitary almost perfect numbers such that σ ∗ (n) = 2n − 1 They proved that there are no unitary quasiperfect numbers, and that n = 1 and n = 2 are the all possible unitary almost perfect numbers.

(18) (19)

(20) A. Bege [16] has proved that there are no bi-unitary quasiperfect numbers, i.e. numbers n satisfying σ ∗∗ (n) = 2n + 1. J. S´andor [270] (see pp. 11-12) showed there are no unitary quasi superperfect numbers n satisfying σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n + 1 (21) and that the only unitary almost superperfect number n, i.e. such that σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n − 1

(22)

are n = 1 and n = 3. Sitaramaiah and Subbarao [290] rediscovered this result. They study more profoundly the unitary superperfect numbers n with σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n

(23)

The first ten such numbers are 2, 9, 165, 238, 1640, 4320, 10250, 10824, 13500 and 23760. There are not known odd unitary superperfect numbers other than 9 and 165, and Sitaramaiah and Subbarao conjecture that the set of such numbers is finite. (24) 47

CHAPTER 1

In fact 165 is the single such number, having three distinct prime factors. (25) 238 is the only even unitary superperfect number such that n has three prime factors, while σ ∗ (n) two. (26) ∗ If n is an odd unitary superperfect number not divisible by 3, then 3|σ (n); in such a case n must be squarefree, ω(n) even, and ω(n) ≥ 52. (27) We quote one more result: All n ≤ 108 such that n|σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) (28) (which could be called as ”unitary multiply superperfect numbers”) are determined; there are 29 such numbers. S. Ligh and Ch. R. Wall [190] have introduced ”nonunitary divisors” and nonunitary perfect numbers. d is a nonunitary divisor of n, if n = cd, with (c, d) > 1. Let σ # (n) be the sum of nonunitary divisors of n. It is immediate that σ # (n) = σ (n) − σ ∗ (n),

(29)

and that σ # is not multiplicative. A number n is called nonunitary perfect, if σ # (n) = n

(30)

All known nonunitary perfect numbers are even. P. Hagis, Jr. [129] prove that σ # (n) is odd iff n = 2α M 2 , where M > 1 is odd and α ≥ 0. (31) As a corollary we get that an odd nonunitary perfect number must be a perfect square. (32) Another result by Hagis says that an odd nonunitary perfect number n must have at least four distinct prime factors, and n > 1015 . If 3 n, then ω(n) ≥ 7. (33) 2 4 4 If 2 · 5 · 7|n, then for such numbers one has also 3 ||n and 5 · 7 |n. Also p n if 11 ≤ p ≤ 271. (34) G. L. Cohen [58] calls a unitary divisor d of n as 1-ary divisor, and he calls d a k-ary divisor of n (for k > 1), and writes d|k n, if the greatest (k − 1)-ary divisor of d n n = 1 for 1-ary divisors d. He also calls p x an infinitary and is 1. Note that d, d d (35) divisor of p y (y > 0, p prime) if p x | y−1 p y , and writes p x |∞ p y . r y p j j , for distinct primes p1 , . . . , pr , and Let d be a divisor of n and write n = d=

r

j=1 x

p j j (where 0 ≤ x j ≤ y j , j = 1, r ). Then d is an infinitary divisor of n if

j=1 x

y

p j j |∞ p j j for each k = 1, r . 48

(36)

PERFECT NUMBERS

It is interesting to note that, by writing the binary representations x = xj2j and y − x = z j 2 j (where the sums are finite, j ≥ 0, each x j and z j is 0 or 1, and trailing zeros are allowed where required), then xjzj = 0 (37) p x |∞ p y iff Another interesting characterization (see [58]) is the following: y x y is odd, (38) p |∞ p iff x y = C yx denotes a binomial coefficient. where x Let σ∞ (n) be the sum of all infinitary divisors of n. Then σ∞ is a multiplicative function, and j σ∞ ( p α ) = (1 + p 2 ), where y = yj2j (39) y j =1

The number n is called infinitary perfect, resp. infinitary k-perfect if σ∞ (n) = 2n,

(40)

σ∞ (n) = kn (k ≥ 2)

(41)

resp. There are no odd infinitary perfect or k-perfect numbers, and Cohen conjectures that there are no infinitary perfect or k-perfect numbers not divisible by 3. (42) Cohen gives a number of 14 infinitary perfect, 13 infinitary 3-perfect, 7 infinitary 4-perfect, 2 infinitary 5-perfect numbers. Pedersen [231] found 139 new infinitary (43) perfect numbers. Cohen proves also that the only infinitary perfect numbers not divisible by 8 are 6, 60 and 90. (44) We note that D. Suryanarayana [306] and K. Alladi [6] have given different generalizations from above for unitary divisors, thus obtaining other notions of k-ary divisors. (45) ∗ ∗ A number n is called unitary harmonic if σ (n)|nd (n) (46) i.e. if the unitary harmonic mean H ∗ (n) = nd ∗ (n)/σ ∗ (n) is an integer. The main properties of unitary harmonic numbers were studied by Hagis and Lord [135], but it was earlier introduced also by N. Nageswara Rao [224] who showed that if n is unitary perfect, then it is also unitary harmonic. (47) Ch. R. Wall [Unitary harmonic numbers, Fib. Quart. 21(1983), 18-25] has proved that there are 23 unitary harmonic numbers n with ω(n) ≤ 4, and 43 unitary harmonic numbers n ≤ 106 . 49

CHAPTER 1

Let H ∗ (x) be the counting function of unitary harmonic numbers. Then for ε > 0 and large x one has (48) H ∗ (x) < 2.2x 1/2 · 2(1+ε) log x/ log log x a result due to Hagis and Lord [135]. Hagis and Cohen [131] study infinitary harmonic numbers, i.e. those numbers n for which (49) σ∞ (n)|nd∞ (n) where d∞ (n) and σ∞ (n) denote the number, resp., sum of infinitary divisors of n. Let H∞ (n) = nd∞ (n)/σ∞ (n). They show that if n is infinitary perfect, then it is also infinitary harmonic. (50) If Sc is the set of all positive integers such that H∞ (n) = c, then Sc is finite (or empty) for every real number c. (51) For the counting function H∞ (x) of infinitary harmonic function exactly the same estimate as (48) holds: H∞ (x) < 2.2x 1/2 · 2(1+ε) log x log log x

1.10

(52)

Hyperperfect, exponentially perfect, integer-perfect and γ -perfect numbers

In 1975 D. Minoli and R. Bear [217] have generalized the concept of perfect number, by introducing the hyperperfect numbers. An integer n > 1 is k-hyperperfect if n = 1 + k[σ (n) − n − 1] (1) When k = 1, this gives the perfect numbers. It easily follows that for k ≥ 2 all k-hyperperfect numbers are odd. For example 21, 2133, 19521 are 2-hyperperfect, 325 is 3-hyperperfect, 301 and 16513 are 6hyperperfect, 697 is 12-hyperperfect (see [217]). (2) Minoli [216] gave a table for all hyperperfect numbers less than 1500000. All these numbers have two distinct prime factors. But hyperperfect numbers can have more than two prime factors, for example (see te Riele [254]) 13·269·449 = 1570153 is a 5-hyperperfect number, having three distinct prime factors. (3) Minoli and Bear prove that a hyperperfect number cannot be a power of a prime. (4) If n = pq with p, q primes is k-hyperperfect, then k < p < 2k < q. (5) m m+1 m+1 If n = 3 (3 − 2), where 3 − 2 is a prime, then n is 2-hyperperfect. (6) 50

PERFECT NUMBERS

Recently, J. C. M. Nash [226] extended this to any prime p in place of 3, as follows: If n = p m ( p m+1 − ( p − 1)) and p m+1 − ( p − 1) is prime, then n is ( p − 1)hyperperfect. (7) Minoli [216] proves that if n = p1α1 p22 is k-hyperperfect, then k + 2 ≤ p1 ≤ (8) (k + 1)2 ( p1 , p2 distinct primes); and if n = p1α1 p2α2 is k-hyperperfect, then α2 ≤

log[k( p1α1 + · · · + 1) + ( p2 − 1)(k − 1)] log p2

(9)

Finally, a conjecture by Minoli and Bear [217] states that there are k-hyperperfect numbers for every k. (10) Another conjecture by them affirms that the converse of theorem (6) is true, namely if n = 3m (3m+1 − 2) is 2-hyperperfect, then 3m+1 − 2 is prime. (11) 3k + 1 , q = 3k + 4 are prime, then it If k > 1 is an odd integer, and p = 2 is immediate that p 2 q is k-hyperperfect. J. S. McCranie [69] conjectures that all khyperperfect numbers for odd k > 1 are of this form. McCranie has tabulated all hyperperfect numbers less than 1011 . For unitary hyperperfect numbers, see [122]. Here one replaces in (1) σ (n) with σ ∗ (n). It is easy to see that if n is unitary hyperperfect, and 3 n, then n ≡ 1 (mod 3). Also, if 3 nk, then n has an odd number of distinct prime factors. n cannot be a prime power, and if n has the form n = pa q b , then pa − k = 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, 25, 26, 29, 34, . . . There are in total 36 unitary hyperfect numbers n ≤ 106 . Four of these numbers are unitary perfect, found by Subbarao and Warren, twenty are hyperperfect numbers given by Minoli. From the twelve new ones we quote n = 23 · 5 (k = 3), 22 · 13 (k = 3), 25 · 32 (k = 7), 32 · 73 (k = 8), 27 · 17 (k = 15), etc. D. A. Buell [38] computed all unitary hyperperfect numbers < 108 . By developing a search procedure different from that of Buell, P. Hagis [127] found all such numbers < 109 . If n = p1α1 . . . prαr , then E. G. Straus and M. V. Subbarao [299] call d an exponential divisor if d|n and d = p1b1 . . . prbr where bi |qi (i = 1, r ).

(12)

Let σe (n) be the sum of exponential divisors of n. For various arithmetic functions and convolutions on exponential divisors, see S´andor-Bege [279]. Straus and Subbarao call n exponentially perfect (or shortly eperfect) if σe (n) = 2n (13) 51

CHAPTER 1

Some examples of e-perfect numbers are 22 · 32 , 22 · 33 · 52 , 23 · 32 · 52 , 24 · 32 · 112 , 24 · 33 · 52 · 112 , 26 · 32 · 72 · 132 , 27 · 32 · 52 · 72 · 132 , 28 · 32 · 52 · 72 · 1392 , 219 · 32 · 52 · 72 · 112 · 132 · 192 · 372 · 792 · 1092 · 1572 · 3132 . If m is squarefree, then σe (m) = m, so if n is e-perfect and m = squarefree with (m, n) = 1, then m · n is e-perfect. (14) So it suffices to consider only powerful (i.e. no prime occurs to the first power) e-perfect numbers. Straus and Subbarao proved that there are no odd e-perfect numbers, (15) and that for each r the number of e-perfect numbers with r prime factors is finite. (16) Is there an e-perfect number which is not divisible by 3? (17) Straus and Subbarao conjecture that there is only a finite number of e-perfect numbers not divisible by any given prime p. (18) J. Fabrykowski and Subbarao [100] proved that any e-perfect number not divisible by 3 must be divisible by 2117 , greater than 10664 , and having at least 118 distinct prime factors. (19) In 1988 P. Hagis, Jr. [128] showed that the density of e-perfect numbers is positive (namely, is 0.0087). (20) The number n is called e-multiperfect (see [299] if σe (n) = kn

(21)

for some k > 2. Results (15) and (16) are true also for such numbers. W. Aiello, G. E. Hardy and Subbarao [2] proved that if n is e-multiperfect, then n > 2 · 107 for k = 3;

(22)

n > 1085 for k = 4;

(23)

n > 10320 for k = 5;

(24)

n > 101210 for k = 6.

(25)

For the number of powerful solutions n ≤ x of (21), L. Lucht [201] proved that this is ≤ exp(c log x/ log log x) (26) for x ≥ 3 (even, for rational k > 1), with c a constant not depending on k. A number of interesting properties are proved in the paper by J. Hanumanthachari, V. V. Subrahmanya Sastri and V. Srinivasan [139]: If m is squarefree, then m 2 is e-perfect iff m = 6. (27) The only e-perfect number having two distinct prime factors is 36. (28) 52

PERFECT NUMBERS

b cj q j , where If n is an e-perfect number not multiple of 3, and n = pi i 2 3 p ≡ 1 (mod 3), q j ≡ 2 (mod 3), ( pi , q j primes) with bi = Pi Q i Ri (Pi , Q i being squarefree, (Pi , Q i ) = 1) and e j = L j M 2j N 3j (L j , M j being squarefree and (L j , M j ) = 1), then each Q i = 1, each L j is odd, and no M j is greater than 2. (28 ) c Further, if f = the number of q j j for which M j = 1 and ω(L j ) is even; g = the c number of q j j for which M j = 2 and ω(L j ) is odd, and h = the number of pibi for which ω(Pi ) is odd, then f + g + h is odd or even, according as n ≡ 1 or 2

(mod 3)

(29) c pibi qj j For numbers divisible by 3 the following is proved: if n = 3a (a > 1, bi > 1, c j > 1), with pi , q j primes, pi ≡ 1 (mod 3), q j ≡ 2 (mod 3) is e-perfect, then either (i) some bi has in its factorization some prime highest to the index congruent to 2 (mod 3) or (ii) some c j has 2 in its factorization highest to the index congruent to 1 (mod 3) or some c j has an odd prime occurring in its factorization to the highest index congruent to 2 (mod 3). Hanumanthachari, Subrahmanya Sastri and Srinivasan study also e-superperfect numbers given by σe (σe (n)) = 2n (30)

(31) If n = pq with p, q primes, is a solution of (30), then n = 32 . If p is a prime, n squarefree and ( p, n) = 1, ( p + 1, n) > 1, then p 2 n is esuperperfect only if p = 2. (31 ) Generally, if (σe (m), n) = 1 and n is squarefree, then mn is e-superperfect iff m is superperfect, too. (32) Related to the iteration of σe (32 ), they remark that σe(4+r ) (32 ) = 2 · 3 · 5 for any r ≥ 0 and conjecture that σe(k) (22 · 32 ) is never squarefree.

(33)

Another conjecture states that for every prime p there is a least positive integer k = k( p) such that σe(k) ( p 2 ) is squarefree. (34) In this section we shall deal also with integer-perfect numbers, which are numbers n such that n= α(d)d (35) (n) where indicates that the sum is over the proper divisors d of n and α(d) ∈ (n) {1, −1} for each d. This notion is due to L. V. Marijo [209]. 53

CHAPTER 1

Let ν(n) be the number of such representation of n, and call an integer-perfect number minimal if it has no proper divisor which is integer perfect. Marijo proves the following results: No integer of the form 2a b (b odd) is integer-perfect if b is a perfect square, but otherwise all integers of this form are interger-perfect for sufficiently large a. (36) If n is an (ordinary) even perfect number, then ν(n) = ν(2n) = 1.

(37)

For any positive integer N , there exists a minimal integer-perfect number g(N ) such that ν(g(N )) ≥ N . (38) If p is a prime not dividing n, then for any positive integer a, ν( pa n) ≥ 2a (ν(n))a+1 , with equality whenever p > σ (n)

(39)

The following asymptotic results appears in Marijo [210]: car d{m ≤ x : ν(m) ≥ m} = O(x 3/4 ).

(40)

ν(n) can be arbitrarily large. (41) nk Finally, we define γ -perfect numbers. M. D. Miller [214] defines a function γ : N → N recursively by γ (n) = γ (d) (42) For each k ∈ N∗ ,

d/n,d 1 will be called γ -perfect if γ (n) = n

(44)

Miller (who use another terminology) proves that there are no odd γ -perfect numbers. (45) n n 2 n 3 p q is γ -perfect iff p = 2 and n + 2 = 2q, while p q or p q cannot be γ -perfect. A number of the form p n qr is γ -perfect iff p = 2, and 2qr = n 2 + 6n + 6. 54

(46)

PERFECT NUMBERS

These give example of such perfect numbers, e.g. 48, 1280, 2496, 28672, 454656, 2342912,... More generally, if f is an arithmetic function, then n is called f -perfect by J. L. Pe [On a generalization of perfect numbers, J. Recr. Math. (to appear)] if f (d) n= d|n,d 1. Then n is multiplicatively perfect (in short: m-perfect), if T (n) = n 2

(1)

T (T (n)) = n 2

(2)

T (n) = n k

(3)

m-superperfect, if m-multiperfect, if for some k ≥ 2. He considered also the generalization of (2) to T (T (n)) = n k

(4)

(i.e. m-multisuperperfect numbers); as well as T (k) (n) = n k

(5)

The following results are proved: All m-perfect numbers (i.e. satisfying equation (1)) have one of the following forms: n = p1 p2 or n = p13 , where p1 , p2 are distinct primes. (6) (The author discovered later that this result appears also in K. Ireland and M. Rosen [154]. However, the first source is E. Lionnet [192] who defined ”perfect number of 55

CHAPTER 1

the second kind” as number equal to the product of its aliquot parts. See also [84], p. 58.) There are no m-superperfect numbers. (7) n = 6 is the only perfect number, which is multiplicatively perfect, too. (8) The general form of m-multiperfect numbers can be determined too, e.g.: n = p1 p22 , or n = p15 for k = 3;

(9)

n = p1 p23 or n = p1 p2 p3 or n = p17 for k = 4;

(10)

n = p1 p24 or n = p1 p24 or n = p19 for k = 5;

(11)

n=

p1 p2 p32

or n =

p1 p25 ,

n=

p111

for k = 6;

(12)

n = p1 p26 or n = p113 for k = 7;

(13)

n = p1 p2 p3 p4 or n = p1 p2 p33 or n = p13 p23 or n = p115 for k = 8;

(14)

n = p1 p22 p32 , n = p1 p28 , n = p117 for k = 9;

(15)

n = p1 p2 p34 , n = p1 p29 , n = p110 for k = 10.

(16)

As corollaries, one can deduce the following assertions: n = 28 is the single perfect number which is m-triperfect, too. (17) There are no perfect and 4-m-perfect numbers; (18) n = 496 is the only perfect number which is 5-m-perfect. (19) Related to equation (4) one can say, that it has at most a finite number of solution. (20) Particularly, it is not solvable for k = 4, 5, 6. (21) For k = 3, the general solutions are n = 812 , for k = 7, n = p13 , and for k = 9, (22) n = p1 p2 ( p1 , p2 distinct primes). Equation (5) has no solutions n > 1. (23) The function T (n) has some interesting properties: For example lim inf n→∞

log T (n) log T (n) = 1, lim sup = +∞; log n n→∞ log n

(24)

the normal order of magnitude of log log T (n) is (1 + log 2) log log n − log 2

(25)

F. Luca [200] proves that T (σ (n)) > T (n) for almost all n, and that T (n) = T (σ (n)) is impossible for any n > 1. He shows also that both of the relations T (n)|T (σ (n)) and T (σ (n))|T (n) have infinitely many solutions. 56

PERFECT NUMBERS

ˇ at and J. Tomanov´a [267] have shown that T. Sal´ log log T (n) → 1 + log 2 as n → ∞ log log n on a sequence of density 1. A similar result holds true for T (n)/n. Recently Z. Weiyi [On the divisor product sequences, Smarandache Notions J. 14(2004), 144-146] has obtained the following results: 1 1 , = log log x + C1 + O log x n≤x T (n) n≤x

1 = π(x) + (log log x)2 + B log log x + C2 + O T (n)

log log x log x

where x ≥ 1, C1 , B, C2 are constants, and T (n) = T (n)/n (π(x) is the number of primes ≤ x). A. Bege [17] introduced unitary m-perfect numbers n > 1 as solutions of T ∗ (n) = n 2

(26)

where T ∗ (n) is the product of all unitary divisors of n. Similar concepts as above for unitary m-superperfect and unitary multiperfect are also introduced and studied. All unitary m-perfect numbers have two distinct prime factors; (27) there are no unitary m-superperfect numbers. (28) If T ∗(k) (n) = n l (29) (where T ∗(k) denotes the k-times iteraton of T ∗ ) then n > 1 is called m-unitary (k, l)-perfect number. If l = 2mk , then there are no m-unitary (k, l)-perfect numbers, (30) while if l = 2mk , then every n with ω(n) = m + 1 is an m-unitary (k, l)-perfect number. (31) In a forthcoming paper, A. Bege [18] considered the similar problems for biunitary divisors. n > 1 is m-bi-unitary perfect, if T ∗∗ (n) = n 2 ,

(32)

where T ∗∗ (n) is the product of bi-unitary divisors of n etc. All m-bi-unitary perfect numbers have one of the following forms: n = p14 , n = p13 , n = p12 p22 , n = p12 p2 , n = p1 p2 , where p1 = p2 are primes. (33) 57

CHAPTER 1

All m-bi-unitary superperfect numbers have one of the following forms: n = p, n = p 2 ( p prime). (34) Let k ≥ 2. All (l, k) m-bi-unitary perfect numbers have the form k n= pi i piki −1 (35) ki =2k

where k =

l

ki =2k+1

ki and pi (i = 1, l) are distinct primes.

i=1

In a recent paper, J. S´andor [276] has introduced the multiplicatively e-perfect numbers. Let Te (n) denote the product of all e-divisors of n > 1. Then n is called m − e-perfect if Te (n) = n 2 (36) He proved the following theorem: n > 1 is m − e-perfect iff n = p k , where p is an arbitrary prime, and k is an arbitrary (ordinary) perfect number (i.e. σ (k) = 2k). (37) 6 28 496 For example, n = p , p , p , . . . are all m − e-perfect numbers. Analogously, the m − e-superperfect numbers with the property Te (Te (n)) = n 2

(38)

have the form n = p s , where s is an ordinary superperfect number (i.e. σ (σ (s)) = 2s). (39) According to the open problems relating to the ordinary perfect, or superperfect numbers, the complete determination of m − e-perfect numbers is also left to the future.

1.12

Practical numbers

A positive integer m is said to be practical (see A. K. Srinivasan [293]) if every integer n, with 1 ≤ n ≤ σ (m) is a sum of distinct divisors of m. (1) B. M. Stewart [298] showed that m = p1α1 . . . prαr with p1 < p2 < · · · < pr primes and integers αi ≥ 1 (i = 1, r ) is practical iff either m = 1 or p1 = 2 and for αi−1 every i = 2, . . . , r , pi ≤ σ ( p1α1 p2α2 . . . pi−1 ) + 1. (2) In 1950 P. Erd¨os [87] announced that practical numbers have asymptotic density. (3) Let 1 = d1 < d2 < · · · < dr = n be the divisors of n and for k ≤ r put tk = d1 + · · · + dk with t0 = 0. Then n is practical iff dk+1 ≤ tk + 1 for all k = 0, r − 1. 58

(4)

PERFECT NUMBERS

As a corollary, if n is practical, then σ (n) ≥ 2n − 1.

(5)

Results (4) and (5) are due to D. F. Robinson [261]. Let P(x) be the cardinality of practical numbers n ≤ x. Then 1 P(x) = O(x/(log x)β ) for every β < (1/ log 2 − 1)2 = 0.0979 . . . 2 and

1 P(x) ≥ Ax exp (log log x)2 + 3 log log x 2 log 2

(6)

(7)

for sufficiently large x (where A = 25/2 /5). Here (6) is due to M. Hausman and H. N. Shapiro [142], and (7) to M. Margenstern [208]. Margenstern proved also that if n is practical, distinct from a power of 2, then σ (n) ≥ 2n,

(8)

which is related to (5). As a corollary of the proof of (8) one gets: all even perfect numbers are practical (see [209]). (9) Hausman and Shapiro proved also the fact that for all x ≥ 1/3, the interval √ (x, x + 3 x) contains a practical number. (10) Margenstern proved also that lim inf σ (m)/m = 2, lim sup σ (m)/m = ∞, m→∞

n→∞

(11)

where m is practical, distinct from powers of 2. He conjectured that every even positive integer is a sum of two practical numbers, (12) and that there exist infinitely many practical numbers m such that m − 2 and m + 2 are also practical. (13) Conjectures (12) and (13) have been proved affirmatively by G. Melfi [213] (who used also a table by Margenstern for all even number < 100000 for (12)). Finally we state another conjecture (which is still open) by Margenstern, namely that x P(x) ∼ λ (x → ∞) (14) log x where λ ≈ 1.341. E. Saias [266] proved that x x c1 · ≤ P(x) ≤ c2 · for x ≥ 2 (15) log x log x for all x ≥ 2; while G. Melfi [212] showed that there exist infinitely many practical numbers in the sequences of Fibonacci, Pell, and Lucas. (16) 59

CHAPTER 1

1.13

Amicable numbers

Two numbers a and b are called amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = a + b Clearly for a = b we reobtain the perfect numbers, so one may assume in what follows that a = b. According to Iamblicus (about 283-330), ”certain men steeped in mistaken opinion thought that the perfect numbers was called love by Pythagoreans on account of the union of different elements and affinity which exists in it; for they call certain other numbers, on the contrary, amicable numbers, adopting virtues and social qualities to numbers, as 284 and 220, for the parts of each have the power to generate the other, according to the rule of friendship, as Pythagoras affirmed. When asked what is a friend, he replied ”another I”, which is shown in these numbers. Aristotle so defined a friend in his Ethics.” Among Jacob’s presents to Esau were 200 she-goats and 20 he-goats, 200 ewes and 20 rams (Genesis, XXXII, 14). Abraham Azulai (1570-1643), in commenting on this passage from the Bible, remarked that he had found written in the name of Rau Nachson (ninth centure A.D.): ”Our ancestor Jacob prepared his present in a wise way. This number 220 (of goats) is a hidden secret, being one of a pair of numbers such that the parts of it are equal to the other one 284, and conversely. And Jacob had this in mind; this has been tried by the ancients in securing the love of kings and dignatories.” The Arab El Madschrˆıtˆı (1007) of Madrid related that he had himself put to the test the erotic effect of ”giving any one the smaller number 220 to eat, and himself eating the larger number 284”. Ben Kalonymos discussed amicable numbers in 1320 in a work written for Robert of Anjou. A knowledge of amicable numbers was considered necessary by Jochanan Allemanno (fifteenth century) to determine whether an aspect of the planets was friendly or not. In 1634 Mersenne remarked that ”220 and 284 can signify the perfect friendship of two persons since the sum of the aliquot parts of 220 is 284 and conversely, as is these two numbers were only the same thing”. For the early history of amicable numbers (up to 1919), we cite L. E. Dickson [84]. E. B. Escott [95] made a review of the subject up to 1941, while that of E. J. Lee and J. S. Madachy [187] to 1972. More recent surveys can be found in Guy [114], Mitrinovi´c-S´andor [218], Eric Weisstein [325]. Here we will study the subject in a such a manner which shows that certain forgotten or new aspects could be important for the further considerations. Only the most important results will be pointed out. 60

PERFECT NUMBERS

The first method described for finding amicable pairs is due to Thabit ibn Qurra (836-901) (see [84]): Let p = 3 · 2n−1 − 1, q = 3 · 2n − 1, r = 9 · 22n−1 − 1 be all primes (where n is a positive integer). Then (1) a = 2n pq and b = 2n r are amicable. For n = 2 one has p = 5, q = 11, r = 71, so one gets the Pythagorean pair. By rediscovering Thabit’s rule, Fermat in 1636 (in a letter for Mersenne) discovered for n = 4 (when p = 23, q = 47, r = 1151) a new pair a = 17296, b = 18416. In 1838 Descartes (again in a letter to Mersenne) found for n = 7 (when p = 191, q = 383, r = 73727) the third pair a = 9363584, b = 9437056. It was discovered later that these pairs were known to Ibn-al-Bann´a (1256-1321) of Marakesh and to K. Farisi of Bagdad (see e.g. W. Borho [29]). Despite later searches to n ≤ 8 by Euler, to n ≤ 15 by Legendre, to n ≤ 34 by Le Lasseur, to n ≤ 200 by G´erardin, to n ≤ 1000 by Riesel (see [187]), no additional Thabitean pair have been discovered. L. Euler (1747) [96] was the first to treat extensively the subject of amicable numbers and to show for the first time their great diversity. To exhaust all amicable numbers of the form (1) Euler generalized Thabit’s formulae as follows: If for g = 2n−β + 1 with some β, 0 < β < n, the numbers r1 = 2β g − 1, r2 = 2n g − 1 and s = (r1 + 1)(r2 + 1) − 1 = 2n+β g 2 − 1

(2)

are prime, then the numbers (1) are amicable, and this gives all amicable pairs of the form (1). For example, β = n − 1 gives Thabit’s rule. Euler’s generalization gives further amicable pairs for n = 8, β = 1, resp. n = 40, β = 29, as discovered by A. M. Legendre and P. Chebyshev, resp. by te Riele [252]. For various other algebraic methods due to Euler, see [187]. We note that a simple method, by the use of Diophantine equations was discovered earlier by F. van Schooten in 1657, but his method gives only the first three known pairs (see [84]). Euler’s methods enabled him to give a list of 30 new pairs. One of the Euler’s method (the third algebraic method) was discovered independently also by G. W. Kraft (1751), see [84], [187]. In 1968 E. J. Lee [186] discovered the so called ”BDE method” (i.e. Bilinear Diophantine Equation method). Given natural numbers a1 , a2 one may determine all amicable pairs of the form (3) a = a1 q, b = a2 s1 s2 where q, resp. s1 , s2 (s1 = s2 ) are primes not dividing a1 , resp. a2 , by solving a 61

CHAPTER 1

bilinear Diophantine equation on s1 , s2 as follows: Take any factorization of the number (4) ( f + d) f + dg = d1 d2 into two different natural factors d1 , d2 , where f := (σ (a1 ) − a1 )σ (a2 ), g := a1 σ (a1 ), d := a2 σ (a1 ) + a1 σ (a2 ) − σ (a2 )σ (a1 ) If then, for i = 1, 2,

si = (di + f )/d

(5)

(6)

are integers, prime, and prime to a2 , and if also q = σ (a2 )σ (a1 )−1 (s1 + 1)(s2 + 1) − 1

(7)

is prime, and prime to a1 , then we have an amicable pair (3), and this gives all such pairs. The idea of this method goes essentially back to Euler, who formulated, and extensively used it in several special cases, as did many authors later on. A new analogue of Thabit’s formula has been discovered in 1972 by W. Borho [28], and later by E. Borho and H. Hoffman [31]. We cite here the later result: Let n be a positive integer, and choose β, 0 < β < n, such that with g = 2n−β + 1, the number (8) r1 = 2β g − 1 is prime. Now choose α, 0 < α < n, such that p = 2α + (2n+1 − 1)g, r2 = 2n−α gp − 1 and s = (r1 + 1)(r2 + 1) − 1 = 2n−α+β g 2 p − 1

(9)

are also prime. Then a = 2n pr1r2 , b = 2n ps

(10)

are amicable pairs. For example, n = 2 and α = β = 1 give the amicable numbers a = 22 ·23·5·137, b = 22 · 23 · 827, discovered by other methods by Euler. A new analogue of Euler’s formula is contained in the following result ([31]): Let n, γ be positive integers with 0 < γ < n. Put either (i) C = 2n + 2γ , or (ii) C = 2n (2n+1 − 1) + 2γ (11) Take any factorization of C = f D into two positive factors f, D. Let p = D + 2n+1 − 1, r1 = p f − 1, r2 = (r1 + 1)2n−γ − 1 in case (i) 62

(12)

PERFECT NUMBERS

resp. r2 = 2n + f − 1, r2 = p(2n + f )2n−γ − 1 in case (ii)

(13)

s = (r1 + 1)(r2 + 1) − 1

(14)

Whenever the four numbers p1 , r1 , r2 , s are primes, then a = 2n pr1r2 , b = 2n ps

(15)

are amicable, and all amicable pairs (15) with p, r1 , r2 , s odd primes, are obtained in this way. For example, n = 8, γ = 7, f = 23 · 31 give Lee’s pair [186] a = 28 · 1039 · 503 · 1047311, b = 28 · 1039 · 527845247. In 1866 a 16-year old Italian school boy, N. I. Paganini found the small amicable pair (1184, 1210), which is not in the list by Euler (but he gave no indication of the method of discovery). (16) E. B. Escott was the most prolific discoverer of amicable numbers prior to the computer era. There were 390 known amicable pairs as of 1946, (see Escott [95]) and 219 of them were due to Escott. (17) H. L. Rolf [262] was the first (by using an exhaustive numerical method) to discover an amicable pair on a computer. He investigated all numbers less than 105

(18)

J. Alanen, O. Ore and J. Stemple [5] extended the numerical search to 106

(19)

discovering 8 new pairs. In 1970 H. Cohen [54] extended the range to 108 .

(20)

In 1984 te Riele [256] discovered a trick named ”daughter pair from mother pairs”, with a remarkable efficiency. This can be summarized as follows: take the inputs a1 , a2 from the list of already known amicable numbers (see the BDE-method (3)-(7)) (a, b) by splitting both numbers a, b into a = a1 v1 , b = a2 v2 , where vi (i = 1, 2) is either 1, or a large simple prime factor of a, b (v1 for a, v2 for b). From a list of known (”mother”)-pairs new (”daughter”) pairs can be computed. (21) For an improvement of te Riele’s trick, see the ”breeding” method by Borho and Hoffman [31]. 63

CHAPTER 1

te Riele [257] has found all 1427 amicable pair whose lesser members are less than 1010 (22) Moews and Moews found 3340 numbers less than 1011 (D. Moews, P. C. Moews [221]) and 5001 numbers less than 3 · 06 · 1011 (D. Moews, P. C. Moews [222]). In 1993 [258] te Riele discovered a new method similar to the Thabit-Euler-LeeBorho-Hoffman methods. In 1997 M. Garcia (see [325]) discovered a new amicable pair, each of whose members has 4829 digits. Probably this is momentary the largest known amicable pair. (23) The new pair has the form a = C M[(P + Q)P 89 − 1] b = C Q[(P − M)P 89 − 1]

(24)

where C = 211 · P 89 , M = 287155430510003638403359267, P = 574451143340278962374313859, Q = 136272576607912041393307632916794623. Note that P, Q, (P + Q)P 89 − 1 and (P − M)P 89 − 1 are all primes. During the first three months of the year 2001, M. Garcia has found over one million new amicable pairs (see his article ”A million new amicable pairs” from J. Integer Sequences (electronic) 4(2001), article 01.2.6). The earliest known amicable numbers all were divisible by 3. So P. Bratley and J. McKay [32] conjectured that there are no amicable pairs coprime to 6. However, S. Battiato and W. Borho [11] found a counterexample. (25) Today there are many known amicable pairs not divisible by 6 (see J. M. Pedersen [232]). (26) The first example of a pair coprime to 30 has been found by Y. Kohmoto (see [232]) in 1997, consisting of a pair of numbers each having 193 digits. (27) No amicable pairs which are coprime to 210 are currently known. (28) It is also not known, if there exist odd amicable pairs with one member, but not both divisible by 3. (29) A conjecture by Ch. Wall says that odd amicable pairs must be incongruent (modulo 4) (30) (see Guy [114], p. 57). It is not known whether or not there are an infinite number of amicable pairs. (31) 64

PERFECT NUMBERS

The first result in this direction is Kanold’s proof [166] in 1954 that the density of amicable pairs is ≤ 0, 204 (32) The fact that this density is zero, is due to P. Erd¨os [88]. Formulated more precisely, let B(x) = car d{(a, b) : a < b, a < x, (a, b) amicable pair} Then B(x) = o(x)

(33)

Erd¨os and G. J. Rieger [94] improved this to B(x) = O(x/ log log log x)

(34)

Finally, in 1981 C. Pomerance [241] deduced the strongest known estimates, namely B(x) ≤ x exp(−(log x)1/3 ) (35) resp. B(x) x exp(−c(log x log log x)1/3 )

(36)

Note that (35) has an interesting Corollary, not known before, namely that the sum of the reciprocals of the amicable numbers is finite. (37) Relatively prime amicable pairs are not known, (38) but conditions on their existence have been studied by O. Gmelin [109], H.-J. Kanold [163] and P. Hagis, Jr. [115], [116]. Hagis showed that there are no relatively prime amicable numbers with lesser member less than 1060

(39)

Gmelin proved that an even-odd amicable pair (a, b) must be of the form a = 2α A2 , b = B 2 , (A, B odd)

(40)

A. A. Gioia and A. M. Vaidya [108] show that A in (40) cannot be a square. (41) If in (40) α > 1, then A cannot be a prime ≡ 4 (mod 3)

(42)

B must be composite, and if α is odd, then (A, 3) = (B, 3) and there exists a prime q and a positive integer γ such that q γ ||B and q ≡ γ ≡ 1 (mod 3). 65

(43)

CHAPTER 1

If α ≡ 3 (mod 4), then there exists a prime p and a positive integer δ such that p ||B and δ

2p ≡ δ ≡ 2

(mod 5), and A ≡ B ≡

α+1 σ (A2 ) ≡ 0 4

(mod 5).

(44)

(42)-(44) are due to Gioia and Viadya, too. Kanold [164] proves that if α > 1 in (40), then a < b. (45) If α = 1 and a > b in (40), then b must contain at least five distinct prime factors. (46) Also, if a, b in (40) are relatively prime, then ab ≡ 2

(mod 24)

(47)

A corollary of (47) is the interesting fact that there are no relatively prime evenodd amicable pairs in which both members are perfect squares. (48) k If A in (40) is a pure prime power, then α = 1, and if we put M = p , then k > 6, ω(B) > 24, p ≡ 1 (mod 12), and a > b > 1075 . (49) Another result by Kanold states that if ω(a) = ω(b) = 2, then a and b cannot be an amicable pair. (50) Lee and Madachy [187] prove that if a < b are amicable numbers with a and b even, then a 1 > (51) b 2 Borho [30] proved that the set of relatively prime amicable pairs a, b with ω(a)+ ω(b) ≤ K (where K is a given bound), is finite. (52) P. Hagis, Jr. [117] obtained the following results: Let a and b be relatively prime amicable pairs of opposite parity such that a < b and b even. Put 1 ( p prime) S= p p|ab If 5|ab, then S < 1.57549, while if 5 ab, then S < 1.59862. These bound are true also, if b < a, but a < 2b. If a, b are relatively prime amicables with opposite parity, then

(53) (54) (55)

S > 1.43151 if 5|ab;

(56)

S > 1.45382 if 5 ab.

(57)

In 1986 te Riele [257] found 37 pairs of amicable pairs (a, b) and (c, d) such that a+b =c+d 66

(58)

PERFECT NUMBERS

The first such pair is (609928,686072) and (643336,652664). Three such pairs were obtained in 1993 by Moews and Moews, while te Riele in 1995 obtained four pairs. In 1997 five, resp. six pairs have been discovered. Related to amicable numbers in special sequences or functions, we quote the following results: For any a, the numbers a and ϕ(a) (ϕ is Euler’s totient) cannot be amicable. (59) The same for a and (2b − 1)a + 1, where a, b > 1. (60) Results (59) and (60) are due to F. Luca [196]. Here an open question is stated too: for what value of a are a and a + 1 amicable? (they cannot be both perfect; see 4.(49)). (61) The Pell sequence (Pn ) is given by P0 = 0, P1 = 1, Pn+2 = 2Pn+1 + Pn for n ≥ 0. In [199] it is proved that there are no amicable Pell pairs. (62) The notion of amicable numbers (or pairs) has been studied also in certain other contexts. Unitary amicable numbers have been introduced by Hagis [118], and studied by him, and later by Garcia [106]. It seems that there are more than 100 such pairs. The first few are (114,126), (1140,1260), (18018,22302),... The largest known unitary amicable pair has its members with 192 digits, discovered by Y. Kohmoto [327]. We quote some theoretical results on unitary amicable pairs (a, b), i.e. satisfying ∗ σ (a) = σ ∗ (b) = a + b. For example, neither a nor b is of the form p α (prime power); they are of the same parity; if a = 2α M, b = 2β N , where β > α > 0 and M, N are odd integers having s, resp. t prime divisors, then s ≤ α and t ≤ α. (63) If a = 2M, b = 2N , where (10, M N ) = 1, then 10a and 10b also is a pair of unitary amicable numbers. If a and b are both squarefree, then (a, b) is unitary amicable pair iff it is an amicable pair. (63’) It is not known if there are an infinite number of unitary amicable pairs, or if there exists a such pair with relatively prime components. For the bi-unitary amicable numbers see another paper by Hagis [126]. Let (a, b) be a bi-unitary amicable pair, i.e. σ ∗∗ (a) = σ ∗∗ (b) = a + b. Then a and b must have the same parity. If a = 2α M, b = 2β N with M ≡ N ≡ 1 (mod 2), α < β, then ω(M) ≤ α, ω(N ) ≤ β. (64) As a corollary one gets that if a = 2M, b = 2β N with β > 1 and M, N odd, then M = p c , N = q d (prime powers). Suppose that a = m M, b = m N with (m, M) = (m, N ) = 1 and where every exponent in the prime factorization of M and N is odd. If σ ∗∗ (n)/n = σ ∗ (m)/m and (n, M) = (n, N ) = 1, then (n M, n N ) is a new bi-unitary amicable pair. (64’) There are sixty pairs of bi-unitary amicable pairs (a, b) with a < b and a ≤ 106 . The first examples are (114,126), (594,846), (1140,1260), (3608,3952), (4698,5382),...

67

CHAPTER 1

Let σ # (n) be the sum of nonunitary divisors of n. The numbers a and b are called nonunitary amicable (see [190]) if σ # (a) = b and σ # (b) = a.

(65)

All known nonunitary amicable pairs are even. In [129] Hagis proves that if (a, b) is a pair of odd nonunitary numbers, then a = M 2, b = N 2,

(66)

while if such a pair is even-odd, then a = 2α M 2 with M odd and α ≥ 1

(67)

Garcia (see [114], p. 59) has called a pair of numbers (a, b) quasi-amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = a + b + 1

(68)

For example, (48,75), (140,195), (1575,1648), (1050,1925) are quasi-amicable pairs. Some authors use the ”betrothed numbers” terminology, but remarking that for a = b one reobtains from (68) the quasi-perfect numbers (see section 6), this one is more natural terminology. Hagis and Lord [136] have found all 46 pairs of quasi-amicable numbers with a < 107 , a < b. (69) All of them are of opposite parity. No pairs are known with a, b having the same parity. (70) Hagis and Lord prove that if a < b are of the same parity, then a > 1010 .

(71)

If (a, b) = 1 is a quasi-amicable pair, then ω(ab) ≥ 4,

(72)

while if (a, b) = 1 with a, b odd, then ω(ab) ≥ 21.

(73)

Finally, if (a, b) = 1 and a, b are of the same parity, then a and b are > 1030

(74)

The numbers a and b will be called almost-amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = a + b − 1 68

(75)

PERFECT NUMBERS

Note that for a = b one reobtains the almost-perfect numbers (see section 6). Beck and Najar [12] (who call a, b satisfying (75) ”augmented amicable”, while for (68) they use the terminology ”reduced amicable”) found 11 almost-amicable pairs. (76) They found no unitary quasi or almost amicable pairs (a, b) such that a < b, b < 105 ,

(77)

i.e. satisfying (68), resp. (75) with σ ∗ in place of σ . Cohen [58] has introduced infinitary amicable numbers (see section 9 for infinitary divisors) a, b defined by σ∞ (a) = σ∞ (b) = a + b

(78)

Such pairs are e.g. (114,126), (594,846), (1140,1260), (4320,7920), (5940,8460), (8640,11760). He lists all infinitary amicable numbers (a, b) with a < b and a < 106 . There are 62 such pairs. (79) From the list it is interesting to remark that very often a and b have similar prime factorization, and Cohen asks for a motivation of this fact. (80) In an unpublished paper, I. Z. Ruzsa [265] called the numbers a and b lovely numbers if σ (a) = 2b, σ (b) = 2a (81) All lovely pairs (a, b) with a and b even are given by a = 2k (2q+1 − 1), b = 2q (2k+1 − 1)

(82)

where 2q+1 − 1 and 2k+1 − 1 are primes. S´andor [277] obtains a new proof of this result. He also proves that if (a, b) is a super-lovely pair, defined by σ (σ (a)) = 2b, σ (σ (b)) = 2a

(83)

with a and b even, then a = b, so one reobtains the even superperfect numbers (see section 7). The unitary, etc. analogue of lovely numbers are introduced in [278]. In 1913 Dickson [81] defined amicable triples (a, b, c) by σ (a) = σ (b) = σ (c) = a + b + c

(84)

After developing a theory analogues to Euler, he obtained eight sets of amicable triplets in which two of the numbers are equal, and two triples of distinct numbers (293 · 337a, 5 · 16561a, 993371a), resp. (3 · 89b, 11 · 29b, 359b) where a = 25 · 3 · 13, b = 214 · 5 · 19 · 31 · 151. 69

(85)

CHAPTER 1

A. Makowski [204] gave by other method new amicable triples, e.g. (22 · 32 · 5 · 11, 25 · 32 · 7, 22 · 32 · 71). In 1921 T. E. Mason [211] further generalized amicable numbers by introducing amicable k-tuples a1 , a2 , . . . , ak where σ (a1 ) = σ (a2 ) = · · · = σ (ak ) = a1 + a2 + · · · + ak

(86)

It is not known if there exist infinitely many such k-tuples (for any k ≥ 2). (87) Y. Kohmoto (see [114], p. 59) found an example of amicable 4-tuples (which he calls quadri-amicable numbers) with all of ai (i = 1, 4) not multiple of 3. (88) The smallest known amicable quadruple is (842448600, 936343800, 999426600, 1110817800). B. F. Yanney [329] defined a k-tuplet of amicable numbers a1 , . . . , ak by a1 + a2 + · · · + ak = (k − 1)σ (ai ) (i = 1, k). For k = 2 this definition coincides with that of Dickson. For k > 2, however the two definitions are distinct. E.g. a1 = 308, a2 = 455, a3 = 581 are a triplet of amicable numbers in the sense of Yanney, since σ (a1 ) = σ (a2 ) = σ (a3 ) = 672 and a1 + a2 + a3 = 2 · 672. C. W. Anderson and D. Hickerson [7] call the pair (a, b) a friendly pair, if a = b and σ (b) σ (a) = (89) a b For example, (6n, 28n) for (n, 42) = 1 are such pairs. A number a is called solitary if it doesn’t exist b = a such that (a, b) is a friendly pair (90) (i.e. a is a number ”without friends”). Clearly, if a = b are perfect numbers (i.e. σ (a) = 2a, σ (b) = 2b), then (a, b) satisfies (89). An odd solution is (135,819) or (33 · 5 · 7, 34 · 72 · 112 · 192 · 127); while a solution with a even, b odd is (42, 32 · 5 · 72 · 13 · 19).

(91)

M. G. Greening [7] shows that numbers n such that (n, σ (n)) = 1, are solitary. (92) There are 53 numbers less than 100, which are solitary, but there are some numbers, as 10, 14, 15, 20,... for which we cannot decide if they are solitary or not. (93) The density of friendly pairs is positive, first shown by Erd¨os [89]: the number of solutions of (89) satisfying a < b ≤ x equals C x + o(x), where C > 0 is a constant (in fact C ≥ 8/147, see [7]). (94) 70

PERFECT NUMBERS

If (a, b) = 1 is a friendly pair, then (89) implies that a|σ (a), b|σ (b), so a and b are multiply perfect numbers (see section 5). It is not known if (89) has infinitely many solutions satisfying (a, b) = 1. (95) If a and b are squarefree, then (a, b) cannot be a friendly pair (see [89]). (96) The density of numbers a with friends is unity, (97) see [7]. R. D. Carmichael [45] called a pair (a, b) multiply amicable if σ (a) = σ (b) = k(a + b) for some positive integer k. (98) For k = 1 we obtain the classical amicable pairs. Mason [211] gives various multiply amicable pairs for k = 2 and k = 3. Cohen, Gretton and Hagis [60] called the integers a and b < a (α, β)-multiamicable if σ (b) − b = αa, σ (a) − a = βb, with α, β positive integers. They proved that b cannot have just one distinct prime factor, and if it has precisely two distinct prime factors, then α = 1 and b is even. For small α, β various (α, β)-multiamicable numbers have been tabulated. σ (a) M + αN N + βM Suppose that (a, M) = (a, N ) = 1 and = = . Then a σ (M) σ (N ) a M, a N are (α, β)-multiamicable. By applying this proposition, the authors have found 72 more multiamicable pairs. They proved also that the density of multiamicable numbers is zero. Cohen and te Riele [65] have studied multiple ϕ-amicable pairs (where ϕ is Euler’s totient). The pair (a, b) with 1 < a ≤ b is called ϕ-amicable pair with multiplier k (denoted as (a, b; k) if ϕ(a) = ϕ(b) =

a+b , for some integer k ≥ 1. k

(99)

The pair (a, b) is ϕ-amicable if there exists k with (99). In fact, it is easy to see that one must have k > 2. A ϕ-amicable pair (a, b; k) is called primitive if gcd(a, b) is squarefree and gcd(a, b; k) = 1.

(100)

Cohen and Riele have computed all ϕ-amicable pairs with b < 109 , and found 812 pairs for which the greatest common divisor is squarefree. Among them 499 are primitive. In fact with a ϕ-pair for which the g.c.d. is squarefree, infinitely many other ϕ-amicable pairs can be associated. (101) They proved the following general theorems: There are only finitely many primitive ϕ-amicable pairs with a given number of different prime factors. (102) 71

CHAPTER 1

Let (a, b; k) be ϕ-amicable, where ω(a) = r , ω(b) = s. Let p be the smallest prime divisor of ab, and put m = max{r, s}. Then p≤

k + 4m − 8 k−4

k + 2m − 2 p≤ k−2

with k ≥ 5, if the pair is even, (103) with k ≥ 3, if the pair is odd.

If (a, b; k) is a ϕ-amicable pair with (a, b) = 1, then k−1

1, there is no chain an 1 , an 2 , . . . , an k of period k in which (n 1 , . . . , n k ) = 1 and (n j , a) = 1, j = 1, k, a > 1. (4) 72

PERFECT NUMBERS

In 1918 P. Poulet (see [244]) discovered a chain of period 5, namely n = 12496 = 24 · 11 · 71, s(n) = 24 · 19 · 47, s (2) (n) = 24 · 967, s (3) (n) = 23 · 23 · 79, s (4) (n) = 23 · 1783, s (5) (n) = n

(5)

and another one of period 28 for n = 14316. (6) After a gap of 50 years, and the advent of high-speed computers, H. Cohen (see [114]) discovered nine cycles of period 4, and Borho [27], as well as David and Root (see [114]) also discovered some. (7) Moews and Moews [220] have made an exhaustive search for such cycles with greatest member less than 1010 . There are 24 such cycles. (8) They found also an 8-cycle. A. Flammenkamp [101] discovered a new 8-cycle, and one 9-cycle. (9) Moews and Moews [221] have continued to uncover all cycles, of any length, whose member preceding the largest member is less than 3.6 · 1010 . They found three more 4-cycles, and one 6-cycle, all of whose members are odd (for n = 21548919483 = 35 · 72 · 13 · 17 · 19 · 431). (10) No one found a 3-cycle, and it has been conjectured that such cycles do not exist. (11) On the other hand it has been conjectured that for each k there are infinitely many k-cycles (see [114]). (12) For new four-cycles, see [25] (where fifty new such cycles are found, bringing the total number of 4-cycles to 110). Related to Catalan’s conjecture (3), today we have experimental (and heuristic) arguments that some sequences go to infinity (see e.g. [251]). (13) Perhaps (13) holds true for almost all even n. D. H. Lehmer (see [114]) showed that the aliquot sequence {s (k) (138)} after reaching a maximum s (117) (138) = 2 · 61 · 929 · 1587569, terminated at s (177) (138) = 1. (14) Guy et al. (see [114]) used a program to discover that s (746) (840) = 601

(15)

and establishing a new record s (287) (840) for the maximum of a terminating sequence. Recently, M. Dickerman found a new record showing that s (583) (1248) reaches a 73

CHAPTER 1

maximum of a number of 58 digits, the period being 1075 for this number n = 1248. (16) For recent advances in aliquot sequences (of computational nature), see M. Benito and J. L. Varona [20]. In 1977 H. W. Lenstra [188] has proved that it is possible to construct arbitrarily long monotonic increasing aliquot sequences, i.e. for each k there is an n with n < s(n) < s (2) (n) < · · · < s (k) (n)

(17)

P. Erd¨os [91] proved that for all fixed k and δ > 0 and for all n, except a sequence of density zero one has

s(n) (1 − δ)n n

i

s(n) < s (n) < (1 + δ)n n (i)

i (18)

for i = 1, k.

s(n) s (i+1) (n) > − ε for i = 1, k (for each ε > 0 and k) has (i) s (n) n asymptotic density 1. (19) Erd¨os, Granville, Pomerance and Spiro [93] proved a similar result: for each ε > 0, the set of n with s (2) (n) s(n) < +ε s(n) n The set of n with

has asymptotic density 1. (20) Let S (k) (x) denote the number of odd integers m ≤ x, not in the range of the function s (k) . Then there is a δ > 0 such that S (k) (x) x 1−δ

(21)

uniformly for all positive integers k, and x > 0. The unitary aliquot sequences and unitary sociable numbers are defined similarly, by considering s ∗ (n) = σ ∗ (n) − n (22) where σ ∗ (n) denotes the sum of unitary divisors of n. The analogue of (17) holds true here, too, proved by te Riele [249]: for each k there is an n such that n < s ∗ (n) < s (2)∗ (n) < · · · < s (k)∗ (n)

(23)

but we do not know if there are unbounded unitary aliquot sequences, or not. (24) 74

PERFECT NUMBERS

te Riele pursued all unitary aliquot sequences for n < 105 . The only one which did not terminate or become periodic was 89610. Later calculations [250] showed that this reached a maximum at s ∗(568) (89610), and terminated at its 1129th term. (25) Unitary sociable numbers may occur rather more frequently than their ordinary counterparts. M. Lal, G. Tiller and T. Summers [185] found cycles of periods 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 25, 39, 65. For example, (30,42,54) is a 3-cycle, while (1482,1878,1890,2142,2178) is a 5-cycle. Beck and Najar [13] considered the iterates of L ∗− (n) = s ∗ (n) − 1, and

(26)

L ∗+ (n) = s ∗ (n) + 1.

(27)

They introduce ”reduced unitary sociable numbers” by considering the iterations of L ∗− , and ”augmented unitary sociable numbers” by the same for L ∗+ . We shall call these in a more natural way as unitary quasi-sociable, resp. unitary almostsociable numbers, in accordance with the used terminologies in the case of perfect and amicable numbers. Beck and Najar showed by a computer search that there are no unitary almostsociable numbers n for n < 105 . (28) The same is true for unitary quasi-sociable numbers less than 110000

(29)

Recently, the calculations were lifted up to 109 , and one cycle has been obtained for both cases (see [219]). (30) Cohen [58] introduces in a similar manner infinitary sociable numbers. He finds eight infinitary aliquot cycles of order 4, three of order 6 and one of order 11. (31) This last is the only cycle of order less than 17 and least member less than a million. Y. Kohmoto (see [326]) has considered a generalization of the sociable numbers as follows. Let (a(n)) be a sequence defined by a(n) =

σ (a(n − 1)) . m

If this sequence becomes cyclic after k > 1 terms, it is then called an 1/msociable number of order k. It is easy to see that e.g. 2m−1 Mn and 2n−1 Mm are 1/2-sociable numbers of order 2, with Mn and Mm being distinct Mersenne primes. In [219] one finds certain remarks and numerical results for the bi-unitary, exponential cycles, as well as their quasi and almost variants. (32) 75

CHAPTER 1

Hagis [129] considered nonunitary aliquot sequences. A k-tuple of distinct natural numbers (n 0 , n 1 , . . . , n k−1 ) with n i = σ # (n i−1 ) (i = 1, k − 1) and n 0 = σ # (n k−1 ) is called a nonunitary k-cycle. (33) A search was made for all nonunitary k-cycles with k > 2 and n 0 ≤ 106 . A 3-cycle was found: (619368, 627264, 1393551) (34) An open question is whether or not unbounded nonunitary aliquot sequences exist. For generalized aliquot sequences, see te Riele [253]. For the iteration of various arithmetic functions, see [255]. Finally we mention two open problems, one due to Alaoglu and Erd¨os [3], the other one to Poulet [245]. Alaoglu and Erd¨os propose the question of whether or not the sequences: σ (n), σ (σ (n)), ϕ(σ (σ (n))), σ (ϕ(σ (σ (n)))), . . .

(35)

ϕ(n), ϕ(ϕ(n)), σ (ϕ(ϕ(n))), . . .

(36)

or converge to a periodic state, a fixed number, or tend to infinity for all n? Poulet conjectures that the sequence ( f k (n))k defined by f 0 (n) = n, f 2k+1 (n) = σ ( f 2k (n)), f 2k (n) = ϕ( f 2k−1 (n)) is eventually periodic, for all n. (37)

76

References [1] H. L. Abbott, C. E. Aull, E. Brown and D. Suryanarayana, Quasiperfect numbers, Acta Arith. 22(1973), 439-447; Errata: 29(1976), 427-428. [2] W. Aiello, G. E. Hardy and M. V. Subbarao, On the existence of e-multiperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), 65-71. [3] L. Alaoglu and P. Erd¨os, A conjecture in elementary number theory, Bull. A.M.S. 50(1944), 881-882. [4] L. B. Alexander, Odd triperfect numbers are bounded below by 1060 , (M. A. Thesis, 1984, East Carolina Univ.). [5] J. Alanen, O. Ore and J. Stemple, Systematic Computation of amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 21(1967), 242-245. [6] K. Alladi, On arithmetic functions and divisors of higher order, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 23(1977), 9-27. [7] C. W. Anderson and D. Hickerson, Problem 6020, Amer. Math. Monthly 82(1975), 307. Comment by M. G. Greening and comments by the proposers in 84(1977), 65-66. [8] S. Asadulla, Even perfect numbers and their Euler’s function, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 10(1987), no. 2, 409-412. [9] E. Bach, G. Miller and J. Shallit, Sums of divisors, perfect numbers and factoring, SIAM J. Comput. 15(1986), no. 4, 1143-1154. [10] E. Bach and J. Shallit, Algorithmic number theory, MIT, 1996. [11] S. Battiato and W. Borho, Are there odd amicable numbers not divisible by three? Math. Comp. 50(1988), 633-637. 77

CHAPTER 1

[12] W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar, More reduced amicable pairs, Fib. Quart. 15(1977), 331-332. [13] W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar, Fixed points of certain arithmetic functions, Fib. Quart. 15(1977), 337-342. [14] W. E. Beck and R. M. Najar, A lower bound for odd triperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 38(1982), 249-251. [15] E. Bedocchi, Perfect numbers in real quadratic fields, (Italian), Bolletino U.M.I. (5)15-A(1978), 94-103. [16] A. Bege, Fixed points of certain divisor functions, Notes Number Th. Discr. Math., 1(1995), no. 1, 43-44. [17] A. Bege, On multiplicatively unitary perfect numbers, Seminar on Fixed Point Theory, Cluj-Napoca, 2(2001), 59-63. [18] A. Bege, On multiplicatively bi-unitary perfect numbers, Notes Number Th. Discr. Math. 8(2002), 28-36. [19] M. Bencze, On perfect numbers, Studia Univ. Babes¸-Bolyai, 26(1981), 14-18. [20] M. Benito and J. L. Varona, Advances in aliquot sequences, Math. Comp. 68(1999), 389-393. [21] S. J. Benkovski, Problem E2308, Amer. Math. Monthly 79(1972), 774. [22] S. J. Benkovski and P. Erd¨os, On weird and pseudoperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 28(1974), 617-623; corrigendum. S. Krawitz, 29(1975), 673. [23] J. T. Betcher and J. H. Jaroma, An extension of the results of Servais and Cramer on odd perfect and odd multiply perfect numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 110(2003), no. 1, 49-52. [24] S. J. Bezuska and M. J. Kenney, Even perfect numbers, The Math. Teacher 90(1997), 628-633. [25] K. Blamkenagel, W. Borho and A. vom Stein, New amicable four cycles, Math. Com., 72(2003), no. 244, 2071-2076 (electronic). ¨ [26] D. Bode, Uber eine Verallgemeinerung der vollkommenen Zahlen (Dissertation, Braunschweig 1971, 57 pp.). 78

PERFECT NUMBERS

¨ [27] W. Borho, Uber die Fixpunkte der k-fach itarierten Teilersummenfunktion, Mitt. Math. Gesellsch. Hamburg 9(1969), 34-48. [28] W. Borho, On Thabit Ibn Kurrah’s formula for amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 26(1972), 571-578. [29] W. Borho, Befreundete Zahlen, Ein Zweitausend Jahre altes Thema der elementaren Zahlentheorie, in: Lebendige Zahlen, Math. Miniaturen, vol. 1, Birkh¨auser V., Basel, 1981. [30] W. Borho, Befreundete Zahlen mit gegebener Primteileranzahl, Math. Ann. 209(1974), 183-193. [31] W. Borho and H. Hoffman, Breeding amicable numbers in abundance, Math. Comp. 46(1986), 281-293. [32] P. Bratley and J. McKay, More amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 22(1968), 677-678. [33] A. Brauer, On the non-existence of odd perfect numbers of form 2 p α q12 . . . qt−1 qt4 , Bull. A.M.S., 49(1943), 712-718. [34] R. P. Brent and G. L. Cohen, A new lower bound for odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 53(1989), 431-437, S7-S24. [35] R. P. Brent, G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, Improved techniques for lower bounds of odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 57(1991), 857-868. [36] S. Brentjes, Die ersten sieben volkommenen Zahlen und drei Arten befreundeter Zahlen in einem Werk zur elementaren Zahlentheorie von Ismal b. Ibrahim ibn Fallus, NTM Schr. Gesichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 24(1)(1987), 21-30. [37] S. Brentjes, Eine Tabelle mit volkommenen Zahlen in einer arabischen Handschrift aus dem 13 Jahrhundert, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde (4)8(2)(1990), 239241. [38] D. A. Buell, On the computation of unitary hyperperfect numbers, Congr. Numer. 34(1982), 191-206. [39] E. A. Bugulov, On the question of the existence of odd multiperfect numbers (Russian), Kabardino Balkarsk Gos. Univ. Ucen. Zap. 30(1966), 9-19. 79

CHAPTER 1

1 1 + = 1, p N p/N pseudoperfect numbers and partially weighted graphs, Math. Comp. 69(1999), 407-420.

[40] W. Butske, L. M. Jaje and D. R. Mayernik, The equation

[41] D. Callan, Solution to Problem 6616, Amer. Math. Monthly 99(1992), 783789. [42] W. Carlip, E. Jacobson and L. Somer, Pseudo-primes, perfect numbers, and a problem of Lehmer, Fib. Quart. 36(1998), 361-371. [43] R. D. Carmichael, Annals of Math. (2)8(1906-7), 149; see also [84], p. 29. [44] R. D. Carmichael, A table of multiply perfect numbers, Bull. A.M.S. 13(1907), 383-386. [45] R. D. Carmichael, Review of History of the Theory of Numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 26(1919), 396-403. [46] P. J. McCarthy, Odd perfect numbers, Scripta Math. 23(1957), 43-47. [47] P. J. McCarthy, Remarks concerning the nonexistence of odd perfect numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 64(1957), 257-258. [48] P. J. McCarthy, Note on perfect and multiply perfect numbers, Portugal Math. 16(1957), 19-21. [49] E. Catalan, Propositions et questions divers, Bull. Soc. Math. France 16(188788), 128-129. [50] P. Cattaneo, Sui numeri quasiperfetti, Boll. U.M.I. (3), 6(1951), 59-62. [51] J. F. Z. Chein, An odd perfect number has at least 8 prime factors, Ph. D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State Univ., 1979. [52] L. Cheng, A result on multiply perfect number, J. Southeast Univ. (English Ed.) 18(2002), no. 3, 265-269. [53] E. Cohen, Arithmetical functions associated with the unitary divisors of an integer, Math. Z. 74(1960), 66-80. [54] G. L. Cohen, On amicable and sociable numbers, Math. Comp. 24(1970), 423429. 80

PERFECT NUMBERS

[55] G. L. Cohen, On odd perfect numbers (II), multiperfect numbers and quasiperfect numbers, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 29(1980), 369-384. [56] G. L. Cohen, Even perfect numbers, Math. Gaz. 65(1981), no. 431, 28-30. [57] G. L. Cohen, The nonexistence of quasiperfect numbers of certain forms, Fib. Quart. 20(1982), no. 1, 81-84. [58] G. L. Cohen, On an integer’s infinitary divisors, Math. Comp. 54(1990), 395411. [59] G. L. Cohen, Numbers whose positive divisors have small integral harmonic mean, Math. Comp. 66(1997), 883-891. [60] G. L. Cohen, S. Gretton and P. Hagis, Jr., Multiamicable numbers, Math. Comp. 64(1995), 1743-1753. [61] G. L. Cohen and P. Hagis, Jr., Some results concerning quasiperfect numbers, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 33(1982), 275-286. [62] G. L. Cohen and D. Moujie, On a generalization of Ore’s harmonic numbers, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde 16(1998), no. 3, 161-172. [63] G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, Iterating the sum-of-divisors function, Research Report R95-10, School of Math. Sci., Univ. of Techn., Sydney, 1995; CWI Report NM-R9525, CWI Amsterdam, 1995. [64] G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, Iterating the sum-of-divisors function, Experimental Math. 5(1996), no. 2, 91-100. Errata in 6(1997), no. 2, 177. [65] G. L. Cohen and H. J. J. te Riele, On ϕ-amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 67(1998), no. 221, 399-411. [66] G. L. Cohen and R. M. Sorli, Harmonic seeds, Fib. Quart. 36(1998), 386-390. [67] G. L. Cohen and R. J. Williams, Extensions of some results concerning odd perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 23(1985), 70-76. [68] J. T. Condict, On an odd perfect number’s largest prime divisor, Senior Thesis, Middleburg College, May, 1978. [69] J. S. McCranie, A study of hyperperfect numbers, J. Integer Sequences 3(2000), no. 00.1.3 (electronic). [70] J. S. McCranie, Personal communication dated nov. 11, 2001 to E. Weisstein. 81

CHAPTER 1

[71] J. T. Cross, A note on almost perfect numbers, Math. Mag. 47(1974), 230-231. [72] M. Crubellier and J. Sip, Looking for perfect numbers, History of Mathematics: History of Problems (Paris, 1997), 389-410. [73] A. Cunningham, Proc. London Math. Soc. 35(1902-1903), 40. [74] G. G. Dandapat, J. L. Hunsucker and C. Pomerance, Some new results on odd perfect numbers, Pacific J. Math. 57(1975), 359-364. [75] W. L. McDaniel, On odd multiply perfect numbers, Boll. U.M.I. (4) 3 (1970), no. 2, 185-190. [76] W. L. McDaniel, The non-existence of odd perfect numbers of a certain form, Arch. Math. (Basel), 21(1971), 52-53. [77] W. L. McDaniel, Perfect Gaussian integers, Acta Arith. 25(1973), 137-144. [78] W. L. McDaniel, An analogue in certain unique factorization domains of the Euclid-Euler theorem on perfect numbers, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 13(1990), no. 1, 13-24. [79] S. Davis, A rationality condition for the existence of odd perfect numbers, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2003, no. 20, 1261-1293 (electronic). [80] L. E. Dickson, Amer. Math. Monthly 18(1911), 109; see also [84], p. 30. [81] L. E. Dickson, Amicable number triples, Amer. Math. Monthly 20(1913), 8492. [82] L. E. Dickson, Finiteness of the odd perfect and primitive abundant numbers with n distinct prime divisors, Amer. J. Math. 35(1913), 413-422. [83] L. E. Dickson, Theorems and tables on the sum of the divisors of a number, Quart. J. Math. 44(1913), 264-296. [84] L. E. Dickson, History of the theory of numbers, Chelsea, vol. 1, 4th ed. 1999. [85] U. Dudley, Numerology, or what Pythagoras wrought, Washington D. C., 1997. [86] E. Ehrhart, Problem E3081, Amer. Math. Monthly 92(1985), p. 215, Solution by V. Pambuccian, same journal 94(1987), 794-795. [87] P. Erd¨os, On a Diophantine equation (Hungarian), Mat. Lapok 1(1950), 192210. 82

PERFECT NUMBERS

[88] P. Erd¨os, On amicable numbers, Publ. Math. (Debrecen), 4(1955), 108-111. [89] P. Erd¨os, Remarks on number theory, II, Some problems on the σ function, Acta Arith. 5(1959), 171-177. [90] P. Erd¨os, Some remarks on the iterates of the ϕ and σ functions, Colloq. Math., 17(1967), 195-202. [91] P. Erd¨os, On asymptotic properties of aliquot sequences, Math. Comp. 30 (1976), 641-645. [92] P. Erd¨os and R. L. Graham, Old and new problems and results in combinatorial number theory, Monographies de l’Enseignement Math´ematique, No. 28, Gen`eve (p. 103). [93] P. Erd¨os, A. Granville, C. Pomerance and C. Spiro, On the normal behaviour of the iterates of some arithmetical functions, in: Analytic Number Theory, Allerton Park, 1989, Birkh¨auser, Boston, 1990 (see pp. 165-204). [94] P. Erd¨os and H. J. Rieger, Ein Nachtrag u¨ ber befreundete Zahlen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 273(1975), 220. [95] E. B. Escott, Amicable numbers, Scripta Math. 12(1946), no. 1, 61-72. [96] L. Euler, De numeris amicabilibus, Nova Acta Eruditorum, Lipsiae, 1747, 2679; Comm. Arith. Coll. II, 1849, 637-8. [97] L. Euler, Opera postuma 1(1862), 88. [98] L. Euler, Opera postuma 1(1862), p. 14-15. [99] J. A. Ewell, On the multiplicative structure of odd perfect numbers, J. Number Th. 12(1980), 339-342. [100] J. Fabrykowski and M. V. Subbarao, On e-perfect numbers not divisible by 3, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde (4)4(1986), 165-173. [101] A. Flammenkamp, New sociable numbers, Math. Comp. 56(1991), 871-873. [102] K. Ford, Math. Pages (Sublime numbers), http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath202/kmath202.htm. [103] R. L. Francis, Problem 954, Mathematics Magazine 48(1975), 293, solution by R. E. Giudici in same journal 49(1976), 256. 83

CHAPTER 1

¨ [104] H. A. M. Frei, Uber unitar perfekte Zahlen, Elem. Math. 33(1978), 95-96. [105] M. Garcia, On numbers with integral harmonic mean, Amer. Math. Monthly 61(1954), 89-96. [106] M. Garcia, New unitary amicable pairs, J. Recreational Math. 17(1984-5), 3235. [107] J. Gill, Computational complexity of probabilistic Turing machines, SIAM J. Comput. 6(1977), 675-695. [108] A. A. Gioia and A. M. Vaidya, Amicable numbers with opposite parity, Amer. Math. Monthly 74(1967), no. 8, 969-973. ¨ [109] O. Gmelin, Uber Vollkommene und Befreundete Zahlen, Inaugural Diss. Heidelberg 1917, Saale, Halle, 1917. [110] I. S. Gradstein, Odd perfect numbers, Mat. Sb. 32(1925), 476-510. [111] S. W. Graham, Unitary perfect numbers with squarefree odd part, Fib. Quart. 27(1989), 317-322. ¨ [112] O. Gr¨un, Uber ungerade vollkommene Zahlen, Math. Z. 55(1952), 353-354. [113] A. Grytczuk and M. Wojtowicz, There are no small odd perfect numbers, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´er. Math. 328(1999), no. 12, 1101-1105. Errata: 330(2000), 533. [114] R. K. Guy, Unsolved problems in number theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994 (2nd ed.). [115] P. Hagis, Jr., On relatively prime odd amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 23(1969), 539-543. [116] P. Hagis, Jr., Lower bounds for relatively prime amicable numbers of opposite parity, Math. Comp. 24(1970), 963-968. [117] P. Hagis, Jr., Relatively prime amicable numbers of opposite parity, Math. Mag. 43(1970), 14-20. [118] P. Hagis, Jr., Unitary amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 25(1971), 915-918. [119] P. Hagis, Jr., A lower bound for the set of odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 27(1973), 951-953. 84

PERFECT NUMBERS

[120] P. Hagis, Jr., Every odd perfect number has at least 8 prime factors, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 22(1975), A-60. [121] P. Hagis, Jr., On the second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number, in: Analytic number theory, Proc. Conf. Temple Univ., May 12-15(1980). [122] P. Hagis, Jr., Unitary hyperperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 299-301. [123] P. Hagis, Jr., Sketch of a proof that an odd perfect number relatively prime to 3 has at least eleven prime factors, Math. Comp. 40(1983), no. 161, 399-404. [124] P. Hagis, Jr., Lower bounds for unitary multiperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 22(1984), 140-143. [125] P. Hagis, Jr., The third largest prime factor of an odd multiperfect exceeds 101, Bull. Malaysian Math. Soc. (2)9(1986), 43-49. [126] P. Hagis, Jr., Bi-unitary amicable and multiperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), 144-150. [127] P. Hagis, Jr., A systematic search for unitary hyperperfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), no. 1, 6-10. [128] P. Hagis, Jr., Some results concerning exponential divisors, Intern. J. Math. Math. Sci. 11(1988), 343-349. [129] P. Hagis, Jr., Odd nonunitary perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 28(1990), 11-15. [130] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen, Results concerning odd multiperfect numbers, Bull. Malaysian Math. Soc. (2)8(1985), 23-26. [131] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen, Infinitary harmonic numbers, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 41(1990), 151-158. [132] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. L. Cohen, Every odd perfect number has a prime factor which exceeds 106 , Math. Comp. 67(1998), no. 223, 1323-1330. [133] P. Hagis, Jr. and W. L. McDaniel, A new result concerning the structure of odd perfect numbers, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 32(1972), 13-15. [134] P. Hagis, Jr. and W. L. McDaniel, On the largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number, II. Math. Comp. 29(1975), 922-924. [135] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. Lord, Unitary harmonic numbers, Proc. A.M.S. 51(1975), 1-7. 85

CHAPTER 1

[136] P. Hagis, Jr. and G. Lord, Quasi-amicable numbers, Math. Comp. 31(1977), 608-611. [137] P. Hagis and D. Suryanarayana, A theorem concerning odd perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 8(1970), 337-346. [138] K. Hanawalt, The end of a perfect number, Math. Teacher, 58(1965), 621-622. [139] J. Hanumanthachari, V. V. Subrahmanya Sastri and V. Srinivasan, On e-perfect numbers, Math. Student, 46(1978), no. 1, 71-80. [140] H. Harboth, Eine Bemerkung zu den vollkommenen Zahlen, Elem. Math. 31(1976), no. 5, 115-117. [141] M. Hausman, On norm abundant Gaussian integers, J. Indian Math. Soc. (N.S.) 49(1985), 119-123 (1987). [142] M. Hausman and H. N. Shapiro, On practical numbers, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 37(1984), 705-713. [143] D. R. Heath-Brown, Odd perfect numbers, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 115(1994), 191-196. [144] J. A. Holdener, A theorem of Touchard on the form of odd perfect numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 109(2002), no. 7, 661-663. [145] J. A. Holdener, A generalization of Touchard’s theorem and the form of odd multiply perfect numbers, manuscript (2002). [146] B. Hornfeck, Zur Dichte der Menge der vollkommenen Zahlen, Arch. Math. (Basel) 6(1955), 442-443. [147] B. Hornfeck, Bemerkung zu meiner Note u¨ ber vollkomenen Zahlen, Arch. Math. (Basel) 7(1956), 273. ¨ [148] B. Hornfeck and E. Wirsing, Uber die H¨aufigkeit vollkommener Zahlen, Math. Ann. 133(1957), 431-438. [149] J. L. Hunsucker and C. Pomerance, There are no odd superperfect numbers less than 7 · 1024 , Indian J. Math. 17(1975), 107-120. [150] D. E. Iannucci, The second largest prime divisor of an odd perfect number exceeds ten thousand, Math. Comp. 68(1999), no. 228, 1749-1760. 86

PERFECT NUMBERS

[151] D. E. Iannucci, The third largest prime divisor of ann odd perfect number exceeds one hundred, Math. Comp. 69(2000), no. 230, 867-879. [152] D. E. Iannucci, Problem 10800, Amer. Math. Monthly 107(2000), 368. Solution by K.-W. Lau, same journal 109(2002), 304-305. [153] D. E. Iannucci and R. M. Sorli, On the total number of prime factors of an odd perfect number, Math. Comp., 72(2003), no. 244, 2071-2076 (electronic). [154] K. Ireland and M. Rosen, A classical introduction to modern number theory, Springer Verlag, 1982, Ch. 2. [155] P. M. Jenkins, Odd perfect numbers have a prime factor exceeding 107 , Math. Comp. 72(2003), no. 243, 1549-1554 (electronic). [156] R. P. Jerrard and N. Temperley, Almost perfect numbers, Math. Mag. 46(1973), 84-87. [157] L. Jones, Problem 10869, Amer. Math. Monthly 108(2001), 372; solution by F. Luca and L. Zhou in the same journal 110(2003), p. 160. [158] H.-J. Kanold, Untersuchungen u¨ ber ungerade vollkommene Zahlen, J. Reine Angew. Math., 183(1941), 98-109. [159] H.-J. Kanold, Verscharfung einer notwendigen Bedingung f¨ur die Existenz einer ungeraden volkommenen Zahl, J. f¨ur Math., 184(1942), 116-124. [160] H.-J. Kanold, Folgerungen aus dem Vorkommen einer Gauss’schen Primzahl in der Primfaktorzerlegung einer ungeraden Vollkommenen Zahl, J. Reine Angew. Math. 186(1944), 25-29. [161] H.-J. Kanold, Satze u¨ ber Kreisteilungspolynome und ihre Anwendungen auf einige Zahlentheoretische Probleme, J. f¨ur Math. 187(1950), 169-182; 188(1950), 129-146. ¨ [162] H.-J. Kanold, Uber ein spezielles System vom zwei diophantischen Gleichungen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 189(1952), 243-245. [163] H.-J. Kanold, Untere Schranken f¨ur Teilerfremde Befreundete Zahlen, Arch. Math. 4(1953), 399-401. ¨ [164] H.-J. Kanold, Uber befreundete Zahlen, II, Math. Nachrichten 10(1953), 243248. 87

CHAPTER 1

[165] H.-J. Kanold, Einige neure Bedingung f¨ur die Existenz ungerader vollkommenen Zahlen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 192(1953), 24-34. ¨ [166] H.-J. Kanold, Uber die Dichten der Mengen der vollkommenen und der befreundeten Zahlen, Math. Z. 61(1954), 180-185. ¨ [167] H.-J. Kanold, Uber einen Satz von L. E. Dickson, Math. Ann. 131(1956), 167179. ¨ [168] H.-J. Kanold, Uber einen Satz von L. E. Dickson, II, Math. Ann. 132(1956), 246-255. ¨ [169] H.-J. Kanold, Uber die Verteilung der vollkommenen Zahlen und allgemeinerer Zahlenmengen, Math. Ann. 132(1957), 442-450. ¨ [170] H.-J. Kanold, Uber das harmonische Mittel der Teiler einer nat¨urlichen Zahl, Math. Ann. 133(1957), 371-374. ¨ [171] H.-J. Kanold, Uber ”super perfect numbers”, Elem. Math. 24(1969), 61-62. ¨ [172] H.-J. Kanold, Uber ”quasi-vollkommene Zahlen”, Abh. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges. 40(1988), 17-20. ¨ [173] H.-J. Kanold, Uber eine neue Verallgemeinerung eines Satzes von L. E. Dickson, Arch. Math. (Basel), 54(1990), 448-454. [174] Gy. Kisgergely, The proof of Euler’s theorem on the even perfect numbers (Hungarian), Mat. Lapok (Budapest), 32(1981-1984), pp. 143-144. [175] M. Kishore, Quasiperfect numbers are divisible by at least six distinct divisors, Notices A.M.S. 22(1975), A-441. [176] M. Kishore, Odd integers n with five distinct prime factors for which 2 − 10−12 < σ (n)/n < 2 + 10−12 , Math. Comp. 32(1978), 303-309. [177] M. Kishore, On odd perfect, quasiperfect and almost perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 583-586. [178] M. Kishore, On odd perfect, quasiperfect and almost perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 583-586. [179] M. Kishore, Odd perfect numbers not divisible by 3, II. Math. Comp. 40(1983), 405-411. 88

PERFECT NUMBERS

[180] M. Kishore, Odd triperfect numbers are divisible by eleven distinct prime factors, Math. Comp. 44(1985), 261-263. [181] M. Kishore, Odd triperfect numbers are divisible by twelve distinct prime factors, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 42(1987), 173-182. [182] S. Kravitz, A search for large weird numbers, J. Recreational Math. 9(197677), 82-85. [183] A. Krawczyuk, Uog´olnienie problem Perisastriego, Prace Nauk. Inst. Mat. Fiz. Teoret. Pol. Woclaw No. 6(1972), 67-70. [184] U. K¨uhnel, Versch¨arfung der notwendigen Bedingungen f¨ur die Existenz von ungeraden vollkommen Zahlen, Math. Z. 52(1949), 202-211. [185] M. Lal, G. Tiller and T. Summers, Unitary sociable numbers, Proc. 2nd Manitoba Conf. Numerical Math. 1972, pp. 211-216. [186] E. J. Lee, Amicable numbers and the bilinear diophantine equation, Math. Comp. 22(1968), 181-187. [187] E. J. Lee and J. S. Madachy, The history and discovery of amicable numbers, I-III, J. of Recreat. Math. 5(1972), 77-93, 153-174, 231-249. [188] H. W. Lenstra, Problem 6064, Amer. Math. Monthly 82(1975), 1016. Solution by the proposer 84(1977), 580. [189] R. J. Levit, The non-existence of a certain type of odd perfect number, Bull. A.M.S. 53(1947), 392-396. [190] S. Ligh and Ch. R. Wall, Functions of nonunitary divisors, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), no. 4, 333-338. [191] J. L. Lightfoot, An early reference to perfect numbers? some notes on Euphorion SH417, Classical Quarterly 48(1998), 187-194. [192] E. Lionnet, Nouv. Ann. Math. (2)18(1879), 306-308. [193] G. Lord, Even perfect and superperfect numbers, Elem. Math. 30(1975), 8788. [194] F. Luca, Multiply perfect numbers in Lucas sequences with odd parameters, Publ. Math. Debrecen 58(2001), no. 1-2, 121-155. 89

CHAPTER 1

[195] F. Luca, Problem 10711, Amer. Math. Monthly, 99(1999), 166; solution by F. B. Coghlan, in the same journal 108(2001), 80-81. [196] F. Luca, Problem 10793, Amer. Math. Monthly 107(2000), 278, solution by N. Komanda in 109(2002), 206-207. [197] F. Luca, Perfect Fibonacci and Lucas numbers, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo Ser. II, 49(2000), 651-661. [198] F. Luca, Multiply perfect numbers in Lucas sequences, Publ. Math. (Debrecen), 58(2001), 121-155. [199] F. Luca, Amicable Pell numbers, Math. Pannonica 13(2002), 97-102. [200] F. Luca, On the product of divisors of n and σ (n), J. Ineq. Pure Appl. Math., 4(2003), no. 2, 1-7 (electronic). [201] L. Lucht, On the sum of exponential divisors and its iterates, Arch. Math. (Basel) 27(1976), 383-386. [202] H. Maier, On the third iterates of the ϕ and σ -functions, Colloq. Math. 49(1984), 123-130. [203] A. Makowski, Remarques sur les fonction θ (n), ϕ(n) et σ (n), Mathesis 69(1960), 302-303. [204] A. Makowski, On some equations involving functions ϕ(n) and σ (n), Amer. Math. Monthly 67(1960), 668-670; correction in 68(1961), 650. [205] A. Makowski, Remark on perfect numbers, Elem. Math. 17(1962), no. 5, 109. [206] A. Makowski, On two conjectures of Schinzel, Elem. Math. 31(1976), 140141. [207] A. Makowski and A. Schinzel, On the functions ϕ(n) and σ (n), Colloq. Math. 13(1964-65), 95-99. [208] M. Margenstern, Les nombres pratiques: th´eorie, observations et conjectures, J. Number Theory 37(1991), 1-36. [209] L. V. Marijo, Integer-perfect numbers, J. Natur. Sci. Math. 27(1987), no. 2, 33-50. [210] L. V. Marijo, On the order of ν(n), J. Natur. Sci. Math. 28(1988), no. 1, 165173. 90

PERFECT NUMBERS

[211] Th. E. Mason, On amicable numbers and their generalizations, Amer. Math. Monthly 28(1921), no. 5, 195-200. [212] G. Melfi, A survey on practical numbers, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino, 53(1995), no. 4, 347-359. [213] G. Melfi, On two conjectures about practical numbers, J. Number Theory 56(1996), 205-210. [214] M. D. Miller, A recursively defined divisor function, Fib. Quart. 13 (1975), 199-204. [215] W. H. Mills, On a conjecture of Ore, Proc. Number Theory Conf., Boulder CO, 1972, 142-146. [216] D. Minoli, Issues in nonlinear hyperperfect numbers, Math. Comp. 34(1980), 639-645. [217] D. Minoli and R. Bear, Hyperperfect numbers, Pi Mu Epsilon J. 6(1975), no. 3, 153-157. [218] D. S. Mitrinovi´c and J. S´andor, (in coop. with B. Crstici), Handbook of number theory, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1995. [219] David Moews, http://xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/amicable.html. [220] D. Moews and P. C. Moews, A search for aliquot cycles below 1010 , Math. Comp. 57(1991), 849-855. [221] D. Moews and P. C. Moews, A search for aliquot cycles and amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 61(1993), 935-938. [222] D. Moews and P.C. Moews, http://xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu:8080/amicable2.txt. [223] J. B. Muskat, On divisors of odd perfect numbers, Math. Comp. 20(1966), 141-144. [224] K. Nageswara Rao, On some unitary divisor functions, Scripta Math. 28 (1967), 347-351. [225] M. L. Nankar, History of perfect numbers, Ganita Bharati 1(1-2)(1979), 7-8. [226] J. C. M. Nash, Hyperperfect numbers, Periodica Math. Hung. 45(1-2)(2002), 121-122. 91

CHAPTER 1

[227] D’Ooge (tr.), Nicomachus, Introduction to arithmetic, New York, 1926. [228] O. Ore, On the averages of the divisors of a number, Amer. Math. Monthly 55(1948), 615-619. [229] N. I. Paganini, Atti della R. Accad. Sc. Torino, 2, 1866-7, 362. [230] S. Pajunen, On primitive weird numbers, A collection of manuscripts related to the Fibonacci sequence, 18th anniv. vol., Fibonacci Assoc., 162-166. [231] J. M. Pedersen, Tables of aliquot cycles, http://amicable.adsl.dk/aliquot/infper.txt. [232] J. M. Pedersen, Known amicable pairs, http://www.rejlehs.dk/staff/jmp/aliquot/apstat.htm. [233] M. Perisasti, A note on odd perfect numbers, Math. Student, 26(1958), 179181. [234] B. M. Phong, Perfect numbers concerning Fibonacci sequence, Acta Acad. Paedagog. Agriensis Sect. Mat. (N.S.) 26(1999), 3-8(2000). [235] E. Picutti, Pour l’histoire des sept premiers nombres parfaits, Historia Math. 16(2)(1989), 123-136. [236] C. Pomerance, On a problem of Ore: Harmonic numbers, Abstract 709-A5, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 20(1973), A-648. [237] C. Pomerance, Odd perfect numbers are divisible by at least seven distinct primes, Acta Arith. 25(1973/74), 265-300. [238] C. Pomerance, The second largest prime factor of an odd perfect number, Math. Comp. 29(1975), 914-921. [239] C. Pomerance, Multiply perfect numbers, Mersenne primes and effective computability, Math. Ann. 266(1977), 195-206. [240] C. Pomerance, Problem 6036, 82(1975), p. 671; and 84(1977), p. 225; solution by the University of British Columbia Problems Group, same journal, 85(1978), 830. [241] C. Pomerance, On the distribution of amicable numbers, II, J. Reine Angew. Math. 325(1981), 183-188. 92

PERFECT NUMBERS

[242] C. Pomerance, Problem 10331, Amer. Math. Monthly (1993), 796. Solution by U. Everling, same journal (1996), 701-702. [243] M. A. Popov, On Plato’s periodic perfect numbers, Bull. Sci. Math. 123(1999), 29-31. [244] P. Poulet, La chasse aux nombres, Fascicule I, Bruxelles, 1929. [245] P. Poulet, Nouvelles suites arithm´etiques, Sphinx, 2(1932), 53-54. [246] M. Raghavachari, On the form of odd perfect numbers, Math. Student 34(1966), 85-86. [247] R. Rashed, Ibn al-Haytham et les nombres parfaits, Historia Math. 16(1989), 343-352. ¨ ¨ [248] H. Reidling, Uber ungerade mehrfach willkommene Zahlen, Osterreichische Akad. Wiss. Math.-Natur. 192(1983), 237-266. [249] H. J. J. te Riele, Unitary aliquot sequences, MR139/72, Math. Centrum Amsterdam, 1972. [250] H. J. J. te Riele, Further results on unitary aliquot sequences, NW12/73, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1973. [251] H. J. J. te Riele, A note on the Catalan-Dickson conjecture, Math. Comp. 27(1973), 189-192. [252] H. J. J. te Riele, Four large amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 28(1974), 309-312. [253] H. J. J. te Riele, A theoretical and computational study of generalized aliquot sequences, MCT72, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1976. [254] H. J. J. te Riele, Hyperperfect numbers with three different prime factors, Math. Comp. 36(1981), 297-298. [255] H. J. J. te Riele, Iteration of number theoretic functions, Report NN30/83, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1983. [256] H. J. J. te Riele, On generating new amicable pairs from given amicable pairs, Math. Comp. 42(1984), 219-223. [257] H. J. J. te Riele, Computation of all the amicable pairs below 1010 , Math. Comp. 47(1986), 361-368. 93

CHAPTER 1

[258] H. J. J. te Riele, A new method for finding amicable pairs, in Proc. Sympos. Appl. Math. 43, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994. [259] N. Robbins, The nonexistence of odd perfect numbers with less than seven distinct prime factors, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 19(1972), A-52. [260] N. Robbins, Lower bounds for the largest prime factor of an odd perfect number which is divisible by a Fermat prime, J. Reine Angew. Math. 278/279(1975), 14-21. [261] D. F. Robinson, Egyptean fractions via Greek number theory, New Zeeland Math. Mag. 16(1979), 47-52. [262] H. L. Rolf, Friendly numbers, Math. Teacher, 60(1967), no. 2, 157-160. [263] A. Rotkiewicz, Remarque sur les nombres parfaits pairs de la forme a n ± bn , Elem. Math. 18(1963), no. 4, 76-78. [264] S. M. Ruiz, Smarandache’s function applied to perfect numbers, Smarandache Notions J., 10(1999), no. 1-2-3, 114-115. [265] I. Z. Ruzsa, Personal communication to J. S´andor. [266] E. Saias, Entiers a` diviseurd denses, I, J. Number Theory, 62(1997), no. 1, 163-191. ˇ at and J. Tomanov´a, On the product of divisors of a positive integer, [267] T. Sal´ Math. Slovaca 52(2002), no. 3, 271-278. ¨ [268] H. Sali´e, Uber abundante Zahlen, Math. Nachrichten 9(1953), 217-220. [269] J. S´andor, On Dedekind’s arithmetic function, Seminarul de teoria structurilor, no. 51, Univ. Timis¸oara, 1988, pp. 1-15. [270] J. S´andor, On the composition of some arithmetic functions, Studia Univ. Babes¸-Bolyai 34(1989), no. 1, 7-14. [271] J. S´andor, On even perfect and superperfect numbers (Romanian), Lucr. Semin. Didact. Mat. 8(1992), 167-168. [272] J. S´andor, A note on S(n), where n is an even perfect number, Smarandache Notions J., 11(2000), no. 1-2-3, 139. [273] J. S´andor, On an even perfect and superperfect number, Notes Number Theory Discr. Math. (Sofia), 7(2001), no. 1, 4-5. 94

PERFECT NUMBERS

[274] J. S´andor, Abundant numbers, in: M. Hazewinkel, Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Supplement III, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2001 (see pp. 19-21). [275] J. S´andor, On multiplicatively perfect numbers, J. Ineq. Pure Appl. Math. 2(2001), no. 1 (electronic), 6 pp. [276] J. S´andor, On multiplicatively e-perfect numbers, (to appear). [277] J. S´andor, On Ruzsa’s ”lovely numbers”, (to appear). [278] J. S´andor, The unitary, etc. analogues of Ruzsa’s lovely numbers, in preparation. [279] J. S´andor and A. Bege, The M¨obius function: generalizations and extensions, Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math. 6(2003), no. 2, 77-128. [280] M. Satyanarayana, Odd perfecr numbers, Math. Student, 27(1959), no. 1-2, 17-18. [281] A. Schinzel, Ungel¨oste Probleme Nr. 30, Elem. Math. 14(1959), 60-61. [282] A. Schinzel and W. Sierpinski, Sur certaines hypoth`eses concernant les nombres premiers, Acta Arith. 4(1958), 185-208; corrigendum, ibid., 5(1959), 259. [283] Cl. Servais, Sur les nombres parfaits, Mathesis, 8(1888), 92-93. [284] H. N. Shapiro, Note on a theorem of Dickson, Bull. A.M.S. 55(1949), 450-452. [285] H. N. Shapiro, On primitive abundant numbers, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 21(1968), 111-118. [286] W. Sierpinski, Sur les nombres pseudoparfaits, Mat. Vesnik 2(17)(1965), 212213. [287] S. Singh, Fermat’s Enigma: the epic quest to solve the world’s greatest mathematical problem, New York: Walker, 1997. [288] T. N. Sinha, Note on perfect numbers, Math. Student, XLII, no. 3(1974), 336. [289] V. Sitaramaiah and M. V. Subbarao, On unitary multiperfect numbers, Niuew Arch. Wiskunde 16(1998), no. 1-2, 57-61. [290] V. Sitaramaiah and M. V. Subbarao, On the equation σ ∗ (σ ∗ (n)) = 2n, Util. Math. 53(1998), 101-124. [291] J. Slowak, Odd perfect numbers, Math. Slovaca 49(1999), 253-254. 95

CHAPTER 1

[292] R. Spira, The complex sum of divisors, Amer. Math. Monthly 68(1961), 120124. [293] A. K. Srinivasan, Practical numbers, Current science, 1948, pp. 179-180. [294] P. Starni, On the Euler’s factor of an odd perfect number, J. Number Theory 37(1991), 366-369. [295] P. Starni, Odd perfect numbers: a divisor related to the Euler’s factor, J. Number Theory 44(1993), 58-59. [296] R. Steuerwald, Verscharfung einer notwendigen Bedingung f¨ur die Existenz einer ungeraden volkommenen Zahl, S.-B. Math.-Nat. Abt. Bayer, Akad. Wiss. (1937), 68-72. [297] R. Steuerwald, Ein Satz u¨ ber nat¨urliche Zahlen N mit σ (N ) = 3N , Archiv. der Math. 5(1954), 449-451. [298] B. M. Stewart, Sums of distinct divisors, Amer. J. Math. 76(1954), 779-785. [299] E. G. Straus and M. V. Subbarao, On exponential divisors, Duke Math. J. 41(1974), 465-471. [300] M. V. Subbarao, Are there an infinity of unitary perfect numbers? Amer. Math. Monthly 77(1970), 389-390. [301] M. V. Subbarao, Odd perfect numbers: some new issues, Periodica Math. Hungar. 38(1999), no. 1-2, 103-109. [302] M. V. Subbarao, T. J. Cook, R. S. Newberry and J. M. Weber, On unitary perfect numbers, Delta 3(1972), no. 1, 22-26. [303] M. V. Subbarao and L. J. Warren, Unitary perfect numbers, Canad. Math. Bull. 9(1966), 147-153. [304] D. Suryanarayana, On odd perfect numbers, II. Proc. A.M.S. 14(1963), 896904. [305] D. Suryanarayana, On odd perfect numbers. III, Proc. A.M.S. 18(1967), 933939. [306] D. Suryanarayana, The number of k-ary divisors of an integer, Monatsh. Math. 72(1968), 445-450. [307] D. Suryanarayana, Super perfect numbers, Elem. Math. 24(1969), 16-17. 96

PERFECT NUMBERS

[308] D. Suryanarayana, There is no odd super perfect number of the form p 2α , Elem. Math. 28(1973), 148-150. [309] D. Suryanarayana, Research problems # 22, Periodica Math. Hungar. 8(1977), 193-196. [310] J. J. Sylvester, Collected papers, 4(1912), 611-614. [311] J. Touchard, On prime numbers and perfect numbers, Scripta Math. 19(1953), 35-39. [312] H. S. Uhler, Full values of the first seventeen perfect numbers, Scripta Math. 20(1954), 240. [313] A. M. Vaidya, Comment on: ”History of perfect numbers”, Ganita Bharati 1(3-4)(1979), 22. [314] R. C. Vaughan, Adventures in arithmetic, or: how to make good use of a Fourier transform, Math. Intellig. 9(1987), no. 2, 53-60. [315] B. Volkmann, A theorem on the set of perfect numbers, Bull. A.M.S. 62(1956), Abstract 180. [316] R. W. Van der Waall, On a theorem of Leopoldt and on perfect numbers, Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde (3) 18(1970), 159-161. [317] S. Wagon, Perfect numbers, Math. Intellig. 7(1985), no. 2, 66-68. [318] Ch. Wall, Topics related to the sum of unitary divisors of an integer, Univ. of Tennessee, 1970. [319] Ch. R. Wall, A new unitary perfect number, Notices A.M.S. 16(1969), 825. [320] Ch. R. Wall, Bi-unitary perfect numbers, Proc. A.M.S., 33(1972), 39-42. [321] Ch. R. Wall, The fifth unitary perfect number, Canad. Math. Bull. 18(1975), 115-122. [322] Ch. R. Wall, On the largest odd component of unitary perfect numbers, Fib. Quart. 25(1987), 312-316. [323] Ch. R. Wall, New unitary perfect numbers have at least nine odd components, Fib. Quart. 26(1988), 312-317. [324] G. C. Webber, Nonexistence of odd perfect numbers of the form 2β 2β 2β 32β p α s1 1 s2 2 s3 3 , Duke Math. J. 18(1951), 741-749. 97

CHAPTER 1

[325] E. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AmicablePair.html. [326] E. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SociableNumbers.html. [327] E. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnitaryAmicablePair.html. [328] E. Wirsing, Bemerkung zu der Arbeit u¨ ber vollkommene Zahlen, Math. Ann. 137(1959), 316-318. [329] B. F. Yanney, Another definition of amicable numbers and some of their relation to Dickson’s amicables, Amer. Math. Monthly, 30(1923), 311-315. [330] A. and E. Zachariou, Perfect, semi-perfect and Ore numbers, Bull. Soc. Math. Gr`ece (N.S.) 13(1972), 12-22. [331] Perfect numbers and imperfect mathematicians (Persian), Bull. Iranian Math. Soc. 9(1)(1981/82), 84-79. [332] http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/mersenne/index.html.

98