You are on page 1of 11

# MATHEMATICS OF COMPUTATION Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 000–000 S 0025-5718(XX)0000-0

NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI’S CONJECTURE ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART II

arXiv:submit/0759047 [math.NT] 15 Jul 2013

JOSE ARNALDO B. DRIS Abstract. If N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form, then Sorli’s conjecture predicts that k = νq (N ) = 1. In this article, we give some further results related to this conjecture and those contained in the papers [4] 5 and [5]. In particular, we prove that I (n) < 3 .

1. Introduction If N ∈ N, then we denote the sum of the divisors of N by σ (N ). The positive integer N is said to be perfect if σ (N ) = 2N . It is currently an open problem to determine whether there are inﬁnitely many even perfect numbers, or if there are any odd perfect numbers. Ochem and Rao recently obtained the lower bound N > 101500 for an odd perfect number’s magnitude, and a lower bound of 1062 for its largest component (i.e., divisor pa ||N with p prime). This improves on previous results by Brent, Cohen and te Riele [2] in 1991 and Cohen [3] in 1987, respectively. An odd perfect number N = q k n2 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 In his Ph. D. thesis, Sorli [7] conjectured that k = νq (N ) = 1. The author conjectured in [4] that the components q k and n are related by the inequality q k < n. We denote the abundancy index I of the positive integer x as I (x) = σ (x) . x

2. New Results Related to Sorli’s Conjecture - Part II Three conditions equivalent to the inequality q k < n were given in [5]. We collect all these conditions in the following theorem. Theorem 2.1. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. The following inequalities are equivalent: • qk < n • σ (q k ) < σ (n)
Received by the editor July 8, 2013. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcation. Primary 11A05; Secondary 11J25, 11J99. 1Key Words and Phrases: odd perfect number, Sorli’s conjecture, Euler prime
c XXXX American Mathematical Society

1

2

JOSE ARNALDO B. DRIS

σ (n) σ (q k ) < k n q σ (q k ) n σ (n) qk + k < + • n q σ (n) σ (q k ) • Remark 2.2. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. Using Theorem 2.1, it can be shown that q k < n is equivalent to qk σ (q k ) n σ (n) σ (q k ) σ (n) + k < + < + k . k n q σ (n) σ (q ) n q Likewise, we can show that n < q k is equivalent to σ (q k ) σ (q k ) σ (n) σ (n) qk n + < + k < + k . k σ (n) σ (q ) n q n q Remark 2.3. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. By Theorem 2.1, we have the biconditional: q k < n ⇐⇒ Suppose that q k < n. Consequently: σ (q k ) σ (n) qk n = I (q k ) < k I (n) = k , n n q q from which it follows that 2 I (n) qk < <2 n I (q k ) √ qk < 2. Hence: since 1 < I (q k ) < I (n) < 2. Therefore, n √ 1 qk n 4 < 2− √ − . 4 k n q 2 Squaring both sides of the last inequality, we get: √ qk 3 n 1 + k < 2 + √ = √ ≈ 2.12132. n q 2 2 qk n + k for the case q k < n, k > 1 n q later. (Note that, in general, this upper bound can be improved if we can obtain a sharper upper bound for I (n).) Now assume that n < q k . Consequently: We will get an improved upper bound for n qk σ (q k ) σ (n) k = I ( n ) < I ( q ) = , qk qk n n from which it follows that 2 I (q k ) n < . qk I (n) If k = 1, then 2 6 108 n I (q ) < < 5 = ≈ 0.929516 q I (n) 125 5
3

σ (n) σ (q k ) < k . n q

NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI’S CONJECTURE

ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART II 3

since I (q ) ≤

6 5

<

5 3

< I (n) (see [5]). Hence, we have n < q
4

108 , 125 125 − 108 108 . 125

from which it follows that q − n n q + > n q If k > 1, then n qk since I (q k ) <
5 4 2

n > q

8

8

Squaring both sides of the last inequality, we get:
4

125 + 108

4

108 ≈ 2.00133573154771263. 125
5 4 8 5

<
8 5

I (q k ) < I (n)

=

125 ≈ 0.9882117688. 128

<

< I (n) (see [5]). Hence, we have n < qk
4

125 , 128 128 − 125 125 . 128

from which it follows that qk − n n qk + k > n q n > qk 128 + 125
8 8

Squaring both sides of the last inequality, we get: 125 ≈ 2.0000351547. 128 √ Recall that we have the inequality I (q k ) < 3 2 < I (n). (See [5] for two improvements to this inequality.) In particular, it follows from I (q k ) < I (n) that
4 4

σ (q k ) qk < . σ (n) n By the biconditional q k < n ⇐⇒ σ (q k ) < σ (n) in Theorem 2.1 and the contrapositive k > 1 =⇒ q < n of the implication n < q =⇒ k = 1 from [4], we have two cases to consider: Case 1: q k < n In this case, we have (for k = 1, q k = q ) q σ (q ) n σ (q ) < < <1< , σ (n) n n q and 5 σ (n) σ (n) σ (n) < I (n) = < < . 3 n σ (q ) q since σ (q ) < n.

4

JOSE ARNALDO B. DRIS

Otherwise, we get (for k > 1) I (q k ) + qn I (q k ) σ (q k ) 1 < < = n 2 σ (n) qk I (n) + I (n) σ (q k ) qk 1 < < < 1, 2 σ (n) n 4 5 qk n < <1< k < , 5 n q 4 σ (q k ) σ (q k ) σ (n) n σ (n) < I (n) = < k < I (q k ) = < k < 2, n q qk n q 5 . since n < σ (q k ), q k < σ (n) and I (q k ) < 4 1< Case 2: n < q k In this case, we have (for k = 1, q k = q ) 1 < I (q ) = √ σ (n) q σ (q ) σ (q ) < I (n) = < < < 2 3, q n n n n σ (n) σ (n) 1 < < < < 1, 3 q σ (q ) q √ q σ (q ) < < 3, 1< σ (n) n √ σ (q ) q σ (q ) 1< < < < 2 3, σ (n) n n √ n q 1 3 5 < < < < < 3, 3 q 5 3 n √ since σ (n) < q , and k = 1 =⇒ q < n 3 (see [1]). Otherwise, we get (for k > 1) 1 σ (n) n < k < < 1, 2 q σ (q k ) n 1 < k < 2 q 4 1+ 13 and
8 5
4 k

125 , 128

and

and

125 < 128

4

qk 128 < < 2, 125 n ,
8 5

<

σ (n) σ (q k ) 13 <1< < k σ (q ) σ (n) 4 1+

σ (n) σ (q k ) σ (n) σ (q k ) < I (q k ) = < I (n) = < < 2, k k q q n n since q k < σ (n) and n < σ (q k ). 1< Remark 2.4. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If n < q k and k > 1, then it is currently unknown which of the following is true:

NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI’S CONJECTURE

ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART II 5

• I (q k ) <

• I (q k ) >

qk n qk n . qk n ,

Note that I (q k ) =

because otherwise we have nσ (q k ) = q 2k ,

whereupon we have the lefthand side is even while the righthand side is odd, a contradiction. k If qn < I (q k ), then we have the bounds 4 qk n 5 < k <1< < . 5 q n 4 We summarize the results in the preceding discussion in the following theorem. (The two succeeding corollaries also summarize further results.) Theorem 2.5. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. Then at least one of the following cases hold: • • • • k k k k =1 >1 =1 >1 and and and and q = q k < σ (q k ) = σ (q ) = q + 1 < n < σ (n) q < q k < n < σ (q k ) < σ (n) n < σ (n) < q = q k < σ (q k ) = σ (q ) = q + 1 q < n < q k < σ (n) < σ (q k ).

Corollary 2.6. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If k > 1, then exactly one of the following cases hold: 5 σ (q k ) < < n 4 σ ( n ) 5 • q < n < q k and 1 < k < < q 4 • q < q k < n and 1 < σ (n) 8 < k <2 5 q 8 σ (q k ) < < 2. 5 n

Proof. If q k < n and k > 1, then by Theorem 2.5, we have q k < n < σ (q k ) < σ (n). From the biconditional mentioned in Remark 2.3, we have particular, since q k < n implies 1< 1 1 < k , we get n q σ (n) σ (q k ) . In < n qk

5 σ (q k ) σ (q k ) = I (q k ) < < < n qk 4

σ (n) σ (n) 8 < I (n) = < k < 2. 5 n q

σ (q k ) σ (n) < 2 follows from 1 < and k q n I (q k n) < 2 (since q k n is deﬁcient). The proof of the second part is very similar to the ﬁrst. Note that the inequality Note the rational approximation 8 ≈ 1.264911. 5 From Corollary 2.6, we can obtain the following result.

6

JOSE ARNALDO B. DRIS

Lemma 2.7. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If k > 1, then σ (q k ) σ (n) 4 8 < + k < 3. 2 5 n q Proof. It suﬃces to prove the result for the case q k < n, as the proof for n < q k is very similar. To this end, suppose that N is an odd perfect number given in the Eulerian form N = q k n2 . Let k > 1 and q k < n. By Corollary 2.6, we have 1< and 8 σ (n) < k < 2. 5 q Taking square roots, we get 1< and 8 σ (n) √ < 2. < 5 qk Subtracting the last two inequalities, we obtain
4 4

σ (q k ) 5 < n 4

σ (q k ) < n

5 4

8 − 5

5 < 4

σ (n) − qk

σ (q k ) √ < 2 − 1. n

Squaring both sides of the last inequality and then adding 2 I (q k )I (n), we have 5 8 √ + − 10 + 2 4 5 But we also know that I (q k )I (n) < √ σ (q k ) σ (n) + k < 3 − 2 2 + 2 I (q k )I (n). n q

2 Consequently, we get

4

√ 8 < 2 I (q k )I (n) < 2 2. 5

5 σ (q k ) σ (n) 8 √ 4 8 + − 10 + 2 < + k < 3. 4 5 5 n q Note the rational approximation 8 √ 5 4 8 + − 10 + 2 ≈ 1.60199870466. 4 5 5 Therefore, a sharper lower bound for σ (q k ) σ (n) + k n q when k > 1 is 2
4

8 < 2 I (q k )I (n) = 2 5

σ (q k ) n

σ (n) qk

<

σ (q k ) σ (n) + k , n q

by using the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.

NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI’S CONJECTURE

ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART II 7

Note the rational approximation 2
4

8 ≈ 2.2493653. 5

By employing a method similar to the proof of Lemma 2.7, we obtain the following results. Lemma 2.8. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If k > 1, then the following inequalities hold: • If q k < n, then 2 < • If n < q k , then
4

41 n qk + k < = 2.05. n q 20 5 qk n 128 4 125 + < + k < = 2 .5 . 125 128 n q 2

Remark 2.9. Let N = q k n2 be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. Suppose that k > 1. Taking oﬀ from Remark 2.2, and by applying Theorem 2.5, it can be shown that • The inequality q k < n is equivalent to qk σ (q k ) n σ (n) σ (q k ) σ (n) σ (q k ) σ (n) + + k < + < ≤ + k . n q σ (n) σ (q k ) qk n n q • The inequality n < q k is equivalent to σ (n) σ (q k ) σ (n) σ (q k ) σ (n) qk n σ (q k ) ≤ k + + < + k < + . k k σ (n) σ (q ) n q n q q n Note from Remark 2.9 that σ (q k ) σ (n) + = I (q k ) + I (n), qk n and qk n σ (q k ) σ (n) + k = I (q k ) + k I (n). n q n q Corollary 2.10. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If k = 1, then exactly one of the following cases hold: σ (q ) <1< n σ (n) <1< • n < q = q k and q • q = q k < n and σ (n) 5 < 3 q σ (q ) 5 < . 3 n
5 3

Proof. The proof uses the lower bounds 1 < I (q ) and Note the rational approximation 5 ≈ 1.2909944487358. 3

< I (n).

8

JOSE ARNALDO B. DRIS

3. Improved Upper Bounds for the Abundancy Index I (n) In the conclusion to the paper [5], it was hinted that an improved upper bound for I (n) will be considered a (major) breakthrough. To this end, we derive the following results. Theorem 3.1. Let N = q k n2 be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. 5 is true. Then the inequality I (n) < 3 Proof. Suppose that N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. Since n | n2 and 1 < n, we know that 2 I (n) < I (n2 ) = . I (q k ) But we also have the inequality q+1 = I (q ) ≤ I (q k ), q since q | q k and 1 ≤ k . In particular, we have 2 2 2q I (n) < I (n2 ) = ≤ = . k I (q ) I (q ) q+1 But q is the Euler prime (i.e., q satisﬁes q ≡ 1 (mod 4)), which implies that 1 6 5 ≤ q . Therefore, 1 q ≤ 5 , which implies that I (q ) ≤ 5 . 2q 2 Note the increasing trend in the values of the upper bound I (n) < I ( q) = q+1 for (successively larger) possible Euler primes q : 2 5 = = 1.6, I (5) 3 13 2 = = 1.857142, I (13) 7 2 17 = = 1.8, I (17) 9 2 29 = = 1.93, I (29) 15 2 37 = = 1.947368421052631578, I (37) 19 2 41 = = 1.952380, I (41) 21 2 53 = = 1.962, I (53) 27 2 61 = = 1.967741935483870, I (61) 31 2 73 = = 1.972, I (73) 37 2 89 = = 1.97, I (89) 45 97 2 = = 1.979591836734693877551020408163265306122448, I (97) 49

NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI’S CONJECTURE

ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART II 9

101 2 = = 1.9803921568627450, I (101) 51 ......... ......... ......... etc. In particular, we have proved that I (n) < 2q 2 = ≤ inf I (q ) q+1 2 I (q ) = 2 5 = . I (5) 3

Remark 3.2. The list in the proof of Theorem 3.1 gives all the possible Euler primes less than 105 = 3 · 5 · 7. Notice that the exact values of the fractions appearing as upper bounds for I (n) (which are actually particular values for I (n2 ) when k = 1) have repeating decimal representations. We can now state the following corollary to Theorem 3.1. Corollary 3.3. Let N = q k n2 be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If k = 1, then we have the chain of inequalities 3 43 √ < I (q k ) + I (n) < ≤ I (q k ) + I (n2 ) < 3. 3 15 2 Proof. The ingredients are contained in the papers [4] and [5], and of course, Theorem 3.1. If we assume an upper bound Q for the Euler prime q , then we get the following results. Lemma 3.4. Let N = q k n2 be an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. If q 2Q +1 ≤ I (q ) ≤ I (q k ) < I (n) < q2 q ≤ Q, then QQ +1 ≤ Q+1 . Proof. Suppose N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form, and assume that q ≤ Q. +1 1 1 First, we show that QQ ≤ I (q ). To this end, note that q ≤ Q implies Q ≤ q . Adding one to both sides of the last inequality gives the required result. From the proof of Theorem 3.1, we have the inequality 2 2 2q I (n) < ≤ = . I (q k ) I (q ) q+1 At this point, it suﬃces to prove that 2Q 2q ≤ q+1 Q+1 if q ≤ Q. To this end, assume to the contrary that 2q 2Q < . Q+1 q+1 This assumption implies that 2 2 . 1 < 1+ Q 1+ 1 q

10

JOSE ARNALDO B. DRIS

Cancelling 2 from both sides and cross-multiplying, we get 1 1 1+ <1+ . q Q Subtracting 1 from both sides and cross-multiplying again, we ﬁnally have Q < q , which is a contradiction. Remark 3.5. Note that, since q prime with q ≡ 1 (mod 4) implies that
2Q 5 we have inf( Q +1 ) ≥ 3 , where 2Q other hand, sup( Q +1 ) < 2.

equality occurs if and only if Q = q = 5. On the

5 ≤ q ≤ Q,

Remark 3.6. Since N > 101500 by [6] and q k < n2 by [4], if n < q k , we easily obtain the lower bounds n > 10375 and q k > 10500 . (Note that, in this case, k = 1 then implies that q > 10500 .) Similarly, if q k < n, we get n > 10500 . However, under the latter case, we still could not completely rule out q = 5, k = 1. 4. Conclusion In this article, we have given an improved upper bound for the abundancy index I (n), if N = q k n2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form. The penultimate goal (see the theorem - page 14 in [5]) is to derive a contradiction from assuming either of the following: • k = 1 =⇒ σ (n) < q k • k = 1 =⇒ σ (q k ) < n. If (1) is ruled out, then the original conjecture q k < n from [4] is proved. On the other hand, if (2) disproved, then the conjecture k = 1 ⇐⇒ n < q from [5] follows. Either one is a signiﬁcant improvement to currently known results in research on odd perfect numbers. 5. Acknowledgments The author sincerely thanks the anonymous referees who have made several suggestions, which helped in improving the style of the paper. References
1. P. Acquaah, S. Konyagin, On prime factors of odd perfect 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, Improved techniques for lower bounds for odd perfect 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. J. A. B. Dris, The abundancy index of divisors of odd perfect numbers, J. Integer Seq., 15 (Sep. 2012), Article 12.4.4, https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Dris/dris8.html , ISSN 1530-7638. 5. J. A. B. Dris, New results for Sorli’s conjecture on odd perfect numbers, to appear in Int. J. Pure Appl. Math., preprint:http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5991 . 6. P. Ochem, M. Rao, Odd perfect numbers are greater than 101500 , Math. Comp., 81 (2012), 1869-1877, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-2012-02563-4 7. R. M. Sorli, Algorithms in the Study of Multiperfect and Odd Perfect Numbers, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, 2003, http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/handle/10453/20034 .

NEW RESULTS FOR SORLI’S CONJECTURE

ON ODD PERFECT NUMBERS - PART II 11

8. J. Ward, Does Ten Have a Friend?, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.1001v2.pdf . Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes Street, Sampaloc, Manila, Philippines E-mail address : jadris@feu.edu.ph, jabdris@yahoo.com.ph