Are All Perfect Numbers Even?Date: 01/16/97 at 10:48:35 From: Anonymous Subject: Perfect Numbers Are all perfect numbers even? Has it been proved that perfect numbers MUST be even? I believe they must be, which I'll discuss below, but I saw your "Ask Dr. Math" service, and this question immediately came to mind. About ten years ago, I discovered on my own a formula for generating perfect numbers, which are natural numbers whose proper factors add up to the number itself. (Proper factors of a number are factors less than the number itself.) If I recall properly, the formula is: P = [2^(n-1)] x [(2^n) - 1], where n is a prime number. I was a bit disappointed to read within a few months that Gauss or Euler had already discovered the same formula several hundred years earlier, but I was still pleased with my own discovery. It seems to me that a structural examination of why the proper factors of perfect numbers add up to the number itself reveals that it has to do with the perfect number apparently needing to have as one of its factors a number that is exactly half of itself, which means that the perfect number must of necessity be an even number. Anything you can provide on this would be great. I teach junior high math in St. Paul, MN. Thanks, Bob Hazen Date: 01/27/97 at 10:40:54 From: Doctor Lorenzo Subject: Re: Perfect Numbers No one knows whether all perfect numbers are even, which I will talk more about below. In your formula P = 2^(n-1) x (2^n - 1), you actually want (2^n)-1 to be prime, not n to be prime. A prime number of the form M_n = 2^n -1 is called a Mersenne Prime. M_2, M_3, M_5 and M_7 are prime, which led Mersenne to conjecture that all such numbers were prime, but that's not the case. For example, M_11 = 2047 = (23)(89). As of the late 60's (when my reference was written), there were only 23 known Mersenne primes, the largest being M_11213. (I think they've found a couple more since then, but the list is still short). Let me quote a paragraph from Oystein Ore's _Invitation to Number Theory_: "This result shows that each Mersenne prime gives rise to a perfect number. In Section 2.2 we mentioned that so far 23 Mersenne primes are known, so we also know 23 perfect numbers. Are there any other types of perfect numbers? All the perfect numbers of the form 3.4.1 [your formula] are even, and it is possible to prove that if a perfect number is even it is of the form (3.4.1). This leaves us with the question: ARE THERE ANY ODD PERFECT NUMBERS? Presently we know of none and it is one of the outstanding puzzles of number theory to determine whether an odd perfect number can exist. It would be quite an achievement to come up with one and you may be tempted to try out various odd numbers. We should advise against it; according to a recent announcement by Bryant Tuckerman at IBM (1968), an odd perfect number must have at least 36 digits." A result that's NOT hard to prove is that an odd perfect number must be of the form (odd prime) x (perfect square), but that doesn't narrow things down much. -Doctor Lorenzo, The Math Forum Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Date: 01/30/97 at 05:37:39 From: Anonymous Subject: Re: Perfect Numbers Thank you for your reply about perfect numbers. Here are some of my ideas about a proof regarding the existence of odd perfect numbers. A look at the known perfect numbers suggests to me a global approach to why perfect numbers must be even. Consider the proper factors of 28 and 496: 28: {1,2,4,7, 14} 496: {1,2,4,8,16,31,62,124,248} The largest proper factor of 496 is 248, which gets us sum-wise halfway to our desired sum of 496. Observation 1: Any perfect number P that is not even has a smallest factor of n not equal to 2, so n = 3 at least. This means that the largest factor of P is the number P/n, which (if n = 3) is only 1/3 of P, which sumwise doesn't "get far" toward the desired sum of P. At least with even P, the largest proper factor gets us halfway to P. Another way of saying this is to think of the sequence P = P/2 + P/4 + P/8 + ... + P/(2^m), plus exactly another of the last term "P/(2^m)" to get us that last missing part of the desired sum. 496's next proper factor of 124, when added to 248, gets us sumwise 3/4 of the way, leaving 1/4 to add. Then 62 gets us 7/8 of the way, and the 31 (which is 1/16 of 496) gets us 15/16 of the way. Thus we are "missing" 31 = 1/16 of the desired sum of 496. But quite nicely, we can sum all the consecutive powers of 2 that are less than 31 to actually get a sum of the missing 31: 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = 31. A similar process happens with the perfect number 28. The factors of 14 + 7 = 21, so we are "missing" a 7, for which we can use all the consecutive powers of 2 that are less than 7, to obtain the sum of 7: 1 + 2 + 4 = 7. Observation 2: These desired powers of 2, which always add up to 1 less than the next power of 2 (1 + 2 + 4 = 7, which is 8 - 1 = (2^3) - 1, and 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = 31, which is 32-1 = (2^5) - 1, will be unavailable to sum up that last missing chunk of the partial sum equal to P UNLESS that P is an even number in the first place, or unless P has lots of factors that are consecutive powers of 2, as made available by the Mersenne prime formula for perfect numbers. The part I'll keep brief is that the first factor higher than the highest power of 2 must be a prime number, in order to avoid the proper factor sum from being so large that P becomes an abundant number (see definition below). This is not a rigorous appraoch, and I'm sure it's somewhat sketchy, but at a global level, it convinces me that perfect numbers must be even, and moreover, must be of that Mersenne form, in order to avoid being either deficient (having a proper factor sum less than P) or abundant (having a proper factor sum greater than P). Date: 01/30/97 at 08:50:15 From: Doctor Steven Subject: Re: Perfect Numbers Your global approach is nice but it doesn't really contain enough. It seems you're trying to show that odd numbers "can't" (read not as can't but as improbable) be perfect numbers, because the factors will sum up to less than the number. Say 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are all factors of our number, Q. So: 3R = Q 5T = Q 7S = Q 9U = Q 11V = Q 13W = Q 15Z = Q. So R, S, T, U, V, W, and Z are also factors. Solve these equations for the unknown factors: R = Q/3 T = Q/5 S = Q/7 U = Q/9 V = Q/11 W = Q/13 Z = Q/15 This means that: R + T + S + U + V + W + Z = (Q/3) + (Q/5) + (Q/7) + (Q/9) + (Q/11) + (Q/13) + (Q/15) = (15015Q/45045) + (9009Q/45045) + (6435Q/45045) + (5005Q/45045) + (4095Q/45045) + (3465Q/45045) +(3003Q/45045) Add these fractions up to get: R + T + S + U + V + W + Z = 46027Q/45045 > Q So we should have no problem finding an odd number Q whose factors will add up to at least Q. Likewise we should have no problem finding odd numbers whose factors won't add up to Q. -Doctor Steven, The Math Forum Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Date: 01/30/97 at 21:50:24 From: Anonymous Subject: Re: Perfect Numbers Thanks for your reply. Your remark that "trying to show that odd numbers "can't" be perfect numbers, because the factors will sum up to less than the number" isn't quite accurate. I am aware that some odd numbers are deficient while others are abundant, so I'm not trying to show that the proper factors of odd numbers will sum up to less than the number. I'm also aware that my global approach indeed doesn't do it at all because it definitely is not a proof as such. Perhaps what my remarks and insights were getting at is that a detailed analysis of the nature of the factors of these known perfect numbers - about "half" of which are powers of two, and the other "half" begin with a prime number that is 1 less than the next higher power of 2, along with doubles (and quadruples and octuples...) of that prime number. This analysis helped me see why the sum of the various factors of the known perfect numbers actually sum to be precisely, no more and no less, the perfect number itself! It can't be a strict power of 2, because the sum of any consecutive powers of 2 is always going to be 1 less than the next power of 2. However, the powers of 2 get us close to summing to the original number. By now, I may be rambling. I checked a few high odd numbers (3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13) and the sum of the proper factors gets close to the number. I think my insight into the marvelous structure of perfect numbers, and how their proper factors so neatly sum to the number, became overgeneralized in my mind. I'll fiddle sometime with some odd numbers and examine their structure. Fear not - I recall your comment about how long an odd perfect number must be! In the meantime, I have papers to correct, lesson plans to write, and kids to feed dinner to. Kind regards |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994-2013 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/