17 views

Uploaded by Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris

Part 1 of a series of papers of Arnie Dris, investigating Sorli's conjecture on odd perfect numbers

save

- Booklet (1)
- Writing Equations for Lines
- 132819680 Quantitative Aptitude
- CAT Quant - Factorials by Ashank Dubey (CAT 16 100%iler)
- Matlab code for Plate Diffusion Report
- The DeJong
- PNAS-1971-Tuckerman-2319-20
- DC5e Errata
- IJETR011923
- 2013 Math Challenge Review
- Generalized Andrica Conjecture
- Discussion for Programming
- inequality review
- Belajar Dynamic 2
- Types of Numbers, Part IV
- 2008 MTAP GR5
- 12 Easy Pieces With Solutions
- LYM Inequality
- AP Calculus Ab Calendar 2014
- Round 5
- Semi-finitely Euclidean, Freely
- MATLAB Session 1
- Leordeanu PhD Thesis
- NUMERICAL METHODS FOR THE NONLINEAR SCHRÖDINGER EQUATION
- Pn-ESTII
- Mathmaticious Lyrics
- 1503301397A997.pdf
- Lecture 7 Jacobi Method for Nonlinear First-Order PDEs.pdf
- Number Theory W
- Tutorial 03_s.pdf
- CSTRENDS IT1041 - Long Quiz 1, Trends in IT, FEU Manila
- A Criterion for Deficient Numbers Using the Abundancy Index and Deficiency Functions
- Math Invs - Problem Set 1
- NNTDM_-_ISSN_1310-5132_eISSN_2367-82_25
- Dris Conjecture ArXiv Submit1853544
- OPNPaper_2017
- IndexOutlaw_arXiv_submit1874825
- New Results for the Descartes-Frenicle-Sorli Conjecture on Odd Perfect Numbers
- Deficiency ArXiv Submit1843147
- OPNPaper_2017.pdf
- How To Login From an Internet Cafe Without Worrying About Keyloggers.pdf
- DrisPaper2017 Prefinaldraft Ver3 ArXiv Submit1977864
- Dris.spoof
- Linear Algebra - Problem Set 1 Solutions - Arnie Dris
- 4th Shaping the Future Forum (2013) - Accenture PH - Notes
- New Results on Odd Perfect Numbers
- Euclid-Euler Heuristics for (Odd) Perfect Numbers
- NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI'S CONJECTURE ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART III
- OPNPaper17 - On a Conjecture of Dris Regarding Odd Perfect Numbers
- A Sufficient Condition for Disproving Descartes's Conjecture on Odd Perfect Numbers
- Solving the Odd Perfect Number Problem: Some Old and New Approaches
- On Sorli’s Conjecture Regarding Odd Perfect Numbers - Part II
- First Responders Guide to Computer Forensics
- A short proof for the Descartes-Frenicle-Sorli conjecture on odd perfect numbers
- The Abundancy Index of Divisors of Odd Perfect Numbers - Part II
- CRITERIA FOR ALMOST PERFECT AND DEFICIENT NUMBERS
- The Abundancy Index of Divisors of Spoof Odd Perfect Numbers
- Some New Results on Bounds for the Abundancy Indices of the Components of Odd Perfect Numbers - V1.7
- Math 1 - Chapter 2 - Algebraic Expressions
- On Sorli’s Conjecture Regarding Odd Perfect Numbers

You are on page 1of 16

r

X

i

v

:

1

3

0

2

.

5

9

9

1

v

6

[

m

a

t

h

.

N

T

]

1

2

J

u

n

2

0

1

3

New Results for Sorli’s Conjecture

on Odd Perfect Numbers

Jose Arnaldo B. Dris

Far Eastern University

Nicanor Reyes Street, Sampaloc

Manila, Philippines

jabdris@yahoo.com.ph

June 14, 2013

Abstract

If N = q

k

n

2

is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form,

then Sorli’s conjecture predicts that k = ν

q

(N) = 1. In this article,

we give a strategy for trying to prove that the inequality n < q is

equivalent to this conjecture. We conclude with some remaining

open questions regarding k and a conjectured relationship between

the components q

k

and n.

AMS Subject Classiﬁcation: Primary 11A05; Secondary

11J25, 11J99

Key Words and Phrases: odd perfect number, Sorli’s

conjecture, Euler prime

1 Introduction

If N is a positive integer, then we write σ(N) for the sum of the divisors

of N. A number N is perfect if σ(N) = 2N. It is currently unknown

whether there are inﬁnitely many even perfect numbers, or whether any

odd perfect numbers (OPNs) exist. Ochem and Rao recently proved

[10] that, if N is an odd perfect number, then N > 10

1500

and that the

largest component (i.e., divisor p

a

with p prime) of N is bigger than 10

62

.

This improves on previous results by Brent, Cohen and te Riele [2] in

1991 (N > 10

300

) and Cohen [3] in 1987 (largest component p

a

> 10

20

).

An odd perfect number N = q

k

n

2

is said to be given in Eulerian

form if q is prime with q ≡ k ≡ 1 (mod 4) and gcd(q, n) = 1. (The

number q is called the Euler prime, while the component q

k

is referred

to as the Euler factor. Note that, since q is prime and q ≡ 1 (mod 4),

then q ≥ 5.)

1

We denote the abundancy index I of the positive integer x as

I(x) =

σ(x)

x

.

In his Ph. D. thesis, Sorli [11] conjectured that k = ν

q

(N) = 1.

In the M. Sc. thesis [7], it was conjectured that the components q

k

and n are related by the inequality q

k

< n. This conjecture was made

on the basis of the result I(q

k

) <

3

√

2 < I(n).

2 Conditions Suﬃcient for Sorli’s Conjecture

Some suﬃcient conditions for Sorli’s conjecture were given in [5]. We

reproduce these conditions here.

Lemma 1. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If n < q, then k = 1.

Remark 2. The proof of Lemma 1 follows from the inequality

q

k

< n

2

and the congruence k ≡ 1 (mod 4) (see [5]). (Note the related

inequality

I(q

k

) <

√

2 < I(n

2

)

for the abundancy indices of the components q

k

and n

2

.)

Lemma 3. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If

σ(n) ≤ σ(q),

then k = 1.

Lemma 4. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If

σ(n)

q

<

σ(q)

n

,

then k = 1.

Remark 5. Notice that, if

σ(n)

q

<

σ(q)

n

,

then it follows that

σ(n)

q

k

≤

σ(n)

q

<

σ(q)

n

≤

σ(q

k

)

n

.

2

Consequently, by the contrapositive, if

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

,

then

σ(q)

n

≤

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

≤

σ(n)

q

.

Remark 6. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Suppose that

σ(q)

n

=

σ(n)

q

.

Then we know that:

qσ(q) = nσ(n).

Since gcd(q, n) = 1, then q | σ(n) and n | σ(q). Therefore, it follows

that

σ(q)

n

and

σ(n)

q

are equal positive integers.

This is a contradiction, as:

1 < I(q) =

σ(q)

q

= 1 +

1

q

≤

6

5

<

_

5

3

< I(n) < I(q)I(n) = I(qn) < 2

which implies that:

1 <

_

5

3

< I(n) < I(q)I(n) = I(qn) =

_

σ(q)

q

_ _

σ(n)

n

_

=

_

σ(q)

n

_ _

σ(n)

q

_

< 2

Consequently,

σ(n)

q

=

σ(q)

n

.

Therefore, either:

σ(q)

n

<

σ(n)

q

,

which implies σ(q) < σ(n) and

σ(q)

n

<

√

2,

4

_

5

3

<

σ(n)

q

or

σ(n)

q

<

σ(q)

n

,

which implies n < q and

σ(n)

q

<

√

2,

4

_

5

3

<

σ(q)

n

.

3

Lemma 7. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Then n < q if and only if N < q

3

.

Remark 8. A recent result by Acquaah and Konyagin [1] almost

disproves n < q. They obtain (under the assumption k = 1) the inequal-

ity q < n

√

3.

3 New Results Related to Sorli’s Conjecture

First, we reproduce the following lemma from [5], as we will be using

these results later.

Lemma 9. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. The following series of inequalities hold:

1. If k = 1, then 1 < I(q

k

) = I(q) ≤

6

5

<

_

5

3

< I(n) < 2.

2. If k ≥ 1, then 1 < I(q

k

) <

5

4

<

_

8

5

< I(n) < 2.

We have the following (slightly) stronger inequality from [5].

Lemma 10. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Then

_

I(q

k

)

_

2

< I(n

2

).

Proof. The proof follows from the inequality I(q

k

) <

3

√

2 and the

equation 2 = I(q

k

)I(n

2

).

Remark 11. Another proof of Lemma 10 is as follows:

I(q

k

) <

5

4

=⇒

_

I(q

k

)

_

2

<

25

16

= 1.5625 < 1.6 =

8

5

< I(n

2

).

In fact, if

_

I(q

k

)

_

y

<

_

5

4

_

y

≤

8

5

< I(n

2

)

then

y ≤

3 log 2 −log 5

log 5 −2 log 2

.

Thus, if we let

z =

3 log 2 −log 5

log 5 −2 log 2

≈ 2.1062837195,

then

_

I(q

k

)

_

z

<

8

5

< I(n

2

).

4

Next, we derive the following improved lower bound for I(q) + I(n)

(i.e., a lower bound for I(q

k

) + I(n) when k = 1). (The proof is due

to Abhra Abir Kundu, a student of the Indian Statistical Institute in

Bangalore.)

Lemma 12. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If k = 1, then

I(q

k

) + I(n) = I(q) + I(n) >

3

3

√

2

.

Proof. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian

form. If k = 1, then

I(q

k

) + I(n) = I(q) + I(n) ≥ 1 +

1

q

+

¸

2

I(q)

= 1 +

1

q

+

_

2q

q + 1

.

But

1 +

1

q

+

_

2q

q + 1

= 1 +

1

q

+

1

2

_

2q

q + 1

+

1

2

_

2q

q + 1

.

Applying the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, we have

1 +

1

q

+

1

2

_

2q

q + 1

+

1

2

_

2q

q + 1

≥ 3

3

¸

_

1 +

1

q

__

1

2

_

2q

q + 1

_

2

=

3

3

√

2

.

Equality holds if and only if

1 +

1

q

=

1

2

_

2q

q + 1

which gives q = −2 −

3

√

4 −

3

√

2 < 0. But since q is prime and q ≡ 1

(mod 4), then q ≥ 5. Therefore, equality does not hold, and we obtain

I(q

k

) + I(n) = I(q) + I(n) >

3

3

√

2

.

Remark 13. Notice how the sharper lower bound

I(q) + I(n) >

3

3

√

2

≈ 2.3811

from Lemma 12 improves on the lower bound

I(q) + I(n) > 1 +

_

5

3

≈ 2.29099

from Lemma 9.

5

Remark 14. Since 1 < I(q) < I(n) < 2, we have

I(q) + I(n) −1 < I(q)I(n) = I(qn).

Thus, we have the sharper lower bound

_

σ(q)

n

__

σ(n)

q

_

= I(q)I(n) >

3

3

√

2

−1 ≈ 1.3811

from Lemma 12, which improves on the lower bound

I(qn) = I(q)I(n) >

_

5

3

≈ 1.29099

from Lemma 9.

We now state and prove the following theorem, which provides con-

ditions equivalent to the conjecture mentioned in the introduction.

Theorem 15. If N = q

k

n

2

is an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form, then the following biconditional is true:

q

k

< n ⇐⇒σ(q

k

) < σ(n).

In preparation for the proof of Theorem 15, we derive the following

results.

Lemma 16. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If

I(q

k

) + I(n) <

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

,

then

q

k

< n ⇐⇒σ(q

k

) < σ(n).

Proof. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian

form. Assume that

I(q

k

) + I(n) <

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

.

It follows that

I(q

k

) + I(n) <

_

q

k

n

_

I(q

k

) +

_

n

q

k

_

I(n).

6

Consequently,

q

k

n

_

I(q

k

) + I(n)

_

< q

2k

I(q

k

) + n

2

I(n).

Thus,

n

_

q

k

−n

_

I(n) < q

k

_

q

k

−n

_

I(q

k

).

If q

k

< n, then q

k

−n < 0. Hence,

q

k

< n =⇒q

k

I(q

k

) < nI(n) =⇒σ(q

k

) < σ(n).

If n < q

k

, then 0 < q

k

−n. Hence,

n < q

k

=⇒nI(n) < q

k

I(q

k

) =⇒σ(n) < σ(q

k

).

Consequently, we have

q

k

< n ⇐⇒σ(q

k

) < σ(n),

as desired.

Lemma 17. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

< I(q

k

) + I(n),

then

q

k

< n ⇐⇒σ(n) < σ(q

k

).

Proof. The proof of Lemma 17 is very similar to the proof of Lemma

16.

Now, assume that

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

< I(q

k

) + I(n).

Consider the conclusion of the implication in Lemma 17 in light of the

result I(q

k

) < I(n):

q

k

< n ⇐⇒σ(n) < σ(q

k

).

If q

k

< n, then since I(q

k

) < I(n) implies that

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

q

k

n

,

7

we have

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

q

k

n

< 1,

which further implies that σ(q

k

) < σ(n). This contradicts Lemma 17.

Similarly, if σ(n) < σ(q

k

), then

1 <

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

q

k

n

,

from which it follows that n < q

k

. Again, this contradicts Lemma 17.

Consequently, the inequality

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

< I(q

k

) + I(n)

cannot be true. Therefore, the reverse inequality

I(q

k

) + I(n) ≤

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

must be true.

It remains to consider the case when

I(q

k

) + I(n) =

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

.

Notice that this is true if and only if

σ(q

k

) = σ(n),

which, since I(q

k

) < I(n), implies that n < q

k

. Consequently, from

σ(q

k

) = σ(n)

we have

σ(n)

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

.

Since

σ(n)

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

implies n < q

k

, we now have the biconditional

n < q

k

⇐⇒

σ(n)

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

8

under the initial assumption

I(q

k

) + I(n) =

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

.

In other words (by Lemma 16), we have Theorem 15 (and the corol-

lary that follows).

Corollary 18. If N = q

k

n

2

is an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form, then the following biconditional is true:

q

k

< n ⇐⇒

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

.

We now give another condition that is equivalent to the author’s

conjecture (mentioned in the introduction).

Theorem 19. If N = q

k

n

2

is an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form, then the following biconditional is true:

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

⇐⇒

q

k

n

+

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

.

Proof. Let N be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form.

Then N = q

k

n

2

where q ≡ k ≡ 1 (mod 4) and gcd(q, n) = 1.

First, we show that

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

implies

q

k

n

+

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

.

Since I(q

k

) < I(n), we have that

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

q

k

n

.

On the other hand, the inequality

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

gives us that

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

n

q

k

.

9

This in turn implies that

q

k

n

<

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

.

Putting these inequalities together, we have the series

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

q

k

n

<

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

.

Now consider the product

_

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

−

q

k

n

__

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

−

q

k

n

_

.

This product is negative. Consequently we have

_

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

__

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

_

−

_

q

k

n

__

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

_

+

_

q

k

n

_

2

< 0,

from which it follows that

1 +

_

q

k

n

_

2

<

_

q

k

n

__

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

_

.

Therefore, we obtain

n

q

k

+

q

k

n

<

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

as desired.

Next, assume that

σ(n)

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

.

Since I(q

k

) < I(n), we obtain

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

q

k

n

.

Now consider the product

_

n

q

k

−

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

__

q

k

n

−

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

_

.

This product is negative. Therefore, we obtain

_

n

q

k

__

q

k

n

_

−

_

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

__

n

q

k

+

q

k

n

_

+

_

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

_

2

< 0,

10

from which we get

1 +

_

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

_

2

<

_

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

__

n

q

k

+

q

k

n

_

.

Consequently, we have

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

+

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

<

n

q

k

+

q

k

n

.

Together with the result in the previous paragraph, this shows that

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

is equivalent to

q

k

n

+

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

.

Remark 20. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form.

Note that, in general, it is true that

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

<

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

,

and

q

k

n

+

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

.

Therefore,

σ(q

k

)

n

<

σ(n)

q

k

is equivalent to

q

k

n

+

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

<

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

,

while

σ(n)

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

is equivalent to

σ(q

k

)

σ(n)

+

σ(n)

σ(q

k

)

<

q

k

n

+

n

q

k

<

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

.

11

At this point, we dispose of the following lemma:

Lemma 21. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Then at least one of the following sets of inequalities is

true:

1. q

k

< σ(q

k

) < n < σ(n)

2. n < σ(n) < q

k

< σ(q

k

)

3. q

k

< n < σ(q

k

) < σ(n)

4. n < q

k

< σ(n) < σ(q

k

)

Lemma 21 is proved by listing all possible permutations of the set

{q

k

, σ(q

k

), n, σ(n)},

subject to the abundancy index constraint 1 < I(q

k

) < I(n) and the

biconditional in Theorem 15.

Now, note from Lemma 21 that if either one (but not both) of the

following scenarios hold:

q

k

< n < σ(q

k

) < σ(n)

n < q

k

< σ(n) < σ(q

k

),

then Sorli’s conjecture cannot follow (i.e., k = 1), because otherwise

these scenarios would then violate the fact that q and σ(q) = q + 1 are

consecutive (positive) integers. That is,

{q

k

< n < σ(q

k

) < σ(n)} ∨ {n < q

k

< σ(n) < σ(q

k

)} =⇒k = 1.

In other words,

{n < σ(q

k

)} ∧ {q

k

< σ(n)} =⇒k = 1.

If we consider the contrapositive of the last statement, we get the

following implication:

k = 1 =⇒¬{{n < σ(q

k

)} ∧ {q

k

< σ(n)}}.

The conclusion from this last implication can be simpliﬁed as follows:

k = 1 =⇒{(σ(q

k

) < n) ∨ (σ(n) < q

k

)}.

If σ(q

k

) < n and σ(n) < q

k

are both true, then the following lemma

is violated:

12

Lemma 22. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Then

σ(q

k

)

n

+

σ(n)

q

k

> 2

4

_

8

5

.

Proof. The proof follows by a simple application of the arithmetic-

geometric mean inequality, and by using the lower bounds for I(q

k

) and

I(n) from Lemma 9, for k ≥ 1.

Thus, by Lemma 21 and our previous considerations, we have the

following result:

Theorem 23. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. If k = ν

q

(N) = 1, then either σ(q

k

) < n or σ(n) < q

k

is

true, but not both.

Now, suppose that Sorli’s conjecture is true. Then k = 1, and q

k

= q.

Since q and σ(q) = q+1 are consecutive integers, we have three cases

to consider:

1. Case I: q < σ(q) < n < σ(n)

2. Case II: n < q < σ(q) < σ(n)

3. Case III: n < σ(n) < q < σ(q)

Note that Theorem 23 eliminates Case II. Thus, we consider the

remaining cases:

1. Case I: q < σ(q) < n < σ(n)

2. Case III: n < σ(n) < q < σ(q).

Remark 24. Note that these can be rewritten as:

1. Case I: q

k

< σ(q

k

) < n < σ(n)

2. Case III: n < σ(n) < q

k

< σ(q

k

)

if we consider k = ν

q

(N) = 1 as a “place-holder”.

4 Final Analysis of the New Results

The new results presented in this article seem to imply the following

conjecture (see [6]).

13

Conjecture 25. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Then the following biconditional is true:

k = ν

q

(N) = 1 ⇐⇒n < q.

Remark 26. Notice that if we could prove the implication

k = ν

q

(N) = 1 =⇒σ(n) < q

k

,

then Conjecture 25 would follow. One way to do this is to show that

the implication

k = ν

q

(N) = 1 =⇒σ(q

k

) < n

is not true. (Therefore, it suﬃces to disprove the conjunction k = 1 and

q = q

k

< n

in order to prove Conjecture 25.)

Nonetheless, we now have the following theorem.

Theorem 27. Let N = q

k

n

2

be an odd perfect number given in

Eulerian form. Then exactly one of the following conditions hold:

1. k = ν

q

(N) = 1 ⇐⇒n < q

2. q

k

< n.

5 Conclusion

By focusing on the considerations surrounding Sorli’s conjecture, the

analysis of what would have been more than three cases is greatly

simpliﬁed. An improvement to the currently known upper bound of

I(n) < 2 will be considered a major breakthrough, and in conjunction

with the results contained herein, may successfully rule out either one

of σ(n) < q

k

∨ σ(q

k

) < n.

In the sequel (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2329), a viable approach

towards improving the inequality I(n) < 2 will be presented, which may

necessitate the use of ideas from the paper [12].

6 Acknowledgments

The author sincerely thanks the anonymous referee(s) who have made

several corrections and suggestions, which helped in improving the style

14

of the paper. The author would like to thank Abhra Abir Kundu

(http://math.stackexchange.com/users/48639) for his help in the

proof of Lemma 12. The author also wishes to thank Carl Pomerance

for pointing out the relevance of the paper [1]. The author also expresses

his gratitude to Peter Acquaah for helpful e-mail exchanges on the topic.

Lastly, the author expresses his gratitude to an anonymous reader “Pas-

cal” who pointed out some “errors” in an earlier version of [5] (see [6]),

thus encouraging him to come up with this sequel.

References

[1] P. Acquaah, S. Konyagin, On prime factors of odd per-

fect numbers, Int. J. Number Theory, 08 (2012), 1537,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793042112500935.

[2] R. P. Brent, G. L. Cohen, H. J. J. te Riele, Im-

proved techniques for lower bounds for odd per-

fect numbers, Math. Comp., 57 (1991), 857-868,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1991-1094940-3.

[3] G. L. Cohen, On the largest component of an odd perfect

number, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A, 42 (1987), 280-286,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1446788700028251.

[4] G. G. Dandapat, J. L. Hunsucker, C. Pomerance, Some new re-

sults on odd perfect numbers, Paciﬁc J. Math., 57 (1975), 359-364,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/pjm.1975.57.359.

[5] J. A. B. Dris, The abundancy index of divisors of odd per-

fect numbers, J. Integer Seq., 15 (Sep. 2012), Article 12.4.4,

https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Dris/dris8.html,

ISSN 1530-7638.

[6] J. A. B. Dris, The abundancy index of divisors of odd per-

fect numbers, J. Integer Seq., 15 (Apr. 2012), Article 12.4.4,

http://www.emis.de/journals/JIS/VOL15/Dris/dris6.html,

ISSN 1530-7638.

[7] J. A. B. Dris, Solving the Odd Perfect Number Problem: Some Old

and New Approaches, M. Sc. thesis, De La Salle University, Manila,

Philippines, 2008, http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1450.

[8] J. A. B. Dris, A quick question on general mathematics,

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/303756.

15

[9] J. A. B. Dris, A follow-up question on an arith-

metic function satisfying a certain inequality,

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/306190.

[10] P. Ochem, M. Rao, Odd perfect numbers are greater

than 10

1500

, Math. Comp., 81 (2012), 1869-1877,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-2012-02563-4.

[11] R. M. Sorli, Algorithms in the Study of Multi-

perfect and Odd Perfect Numbers, Ph. D. The-

sis, University of Technology, Sydney, 2003,

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/handle/10453/20034.

[12] J. Ward, Does Ten Have a Friend?,

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.1001v2.pdf.

16

- Booklet (1)Uploaded byMymoon Moghul
- Writing Equations for LinesUploaded byJoca Rivera
- 132819680 Quantitative AptitudeUploaded byRishabh Vasu
- CAT Quant - Factorials by Ashank Dubey (CAT 16 100%iler)Uploaded byAnonymous ETg9woW5
- Matlab code for Plate Diffusion ReportUploaded byMax Kondrath
- The DeJongUploaded byhikol
- PNAS-1971-Tuckerman-2319-20Uploaded bykumar
- DC5e ErrataUploaded byNihar Kuchroo
- IJETR011923Uploaded byerpublication
- 2013 Math Challenge ReviewUploaded byAshley Lamor Kanaku Nishimura
- Generalized Andrica ConjectureUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- Discussion for ProgrammingUploaded byDevbrat Singh
- inequality reviewUploaded byapi-293308991
- Belajar Dynamic 2Uploaded byHandriToarPangkerego
- Types of Numbers, Part IVUploaded byuttamsaxena
- 2008 MTAP GR5Uploaded byConrad Dela Cruz
- 12 Easy Pieces With SolutionsUploaded byFaysal Riyad
- LYM InequalityUploaded byjulianmscl
- AP Calculus Ab Calendar 2014Uploaded byDorothy Dwyer
- Round 5Uploaded byIwan Irawan
- Semi-finitely Euclidean, FreelyUploaded byGath
- MATLAB Session 1Uploaded byVenugopal Konapala
- Leordeanu PhD ThesisUploaded byGoutam Kumar
- NUMERICAL METHODS FOR THE NONLINEAR SCHRÖDINGER EQUATIONUploaded by"señor de las bestias"
- Pn-ESTIIUploaded byAnwar Ul Haq
- Mathmaticious LyricsUploaded byBrianna Sorensen
- 1503301397A997.pdfUploaded byNitu Singh
- Lecture 7 Jacobi Method for Nonlinear First-Order PDEs.pdfUploaded bySrinivas Jangili
- Number Theory WUploaded byirayo
- Tutorial 03_s.pdfUploaded byPhuong Le

- CSTRENDS IT1041 - Long Quiz 1, Trends in IT, FEU ManilaUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- A Criterion for Deficient Numbers Using the Abundancy Index and Deficiency FunctionsUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Math Invs - Problem Set 1Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- NNTDM_-_ISSN_1310-5132_eISSN_2367-82_25Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Dris Conjecture ArXiv Submit1853544Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- OPNPaper_2017Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- IndexOutlaw_arXiv_submit1874825Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- New Results for the Descartes-Frenicle-Sorli Conjecture on Odd Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Deficiency ArXiv Submit1843147Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- OPNPaper_2017.pdfUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- How To Login From an Internet Cafe Without Worrying About Keyloggers.pdfUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- DrisPaper2017 Prefinaldraft Ver3 ArXiv Submit1977864Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Dris.spoofUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Linear Algebra - Problem Set 1 Solutions - Arnie DrisUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- 4th Shaping the Future Forum (2013) - Accenture PH - NotesUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- New Results on Odd Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Euclid-Euler Heuristics for (Odd) Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI'S CONJECTURE ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART IIIUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- OPNPaper17 - On a Conjecture of Dris Regarding Odd Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- A Sufficient Condition for Disproving Descartes's Conjecture on Odd Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Solving the Odd Perfect Number Problem: Some Old and New ApproachesUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- On Sorli’s Conjecture Regarding Odd Perfect Numbers - Part IIUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- First Responders Guide to Computer ForensicsUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- A short proof for the Descartes-Frenicle-Sorli conjecture on odd perfect numbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- The Abundancy Index of Divisors of Odd Perfect Numbers - Part IIUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- CRITERIA FOR ALMOST PERFECT AND DEFICIENT NUMBERSUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- The Abundancy Index of Divisors of Spoof Odd Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Some New Results on Bounds for the Abundancy Indices of the Components of Odd Perfect Numbers - V1.7Uploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- Math 1 - Chapter 2 - Algebraic ExpressionsUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
- On Sorli’s Conjecture Regarding Odd Perfect NumbersUploaded byJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris