mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-01-02, 05:55   #1
George M
 
Dec 2017

2×52 Posts
Lightbulb So how must we be able to prove the following?

I made a conjecture, but don’t know how to prove it. Perhaps it could be related to Mersenne Primes?

Consider A =\{all \ divisors \ of \ x \in \mathbb{N}\}.

If x = \prod_{m=1}^{k}p_m then n(A) = 2^k.

This is to say, if a natural number (positive integer) x is equal to the product of the 1st prime, the 2nd prime, the 3rd prime, and so on, until the k-th prime, then the amount of all the divisors of x (including 1 and x) will be equal to 2^k.

How must we go about proving this? If we do, perhaps we could build an algorithm to find a prime value for k such that 2^k - 1 is prime.
George M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-02, 06:28   #2
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·5·1,013 Posts
Default

This thread was originally in the Riesel and Sierpinski conjectures project (CRUS). I have moved it to Miscellaneous Math. If one of the supermods feels that it should be moved somewhere else, please feel free.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2018-01-02 at 06:41
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-02, 06:44   #3
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

10110111001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George M View Post
I made a conjecture, but don’t know how to prove it. Perhaps it could be related to Mersenne Primes?

Consider A =\{all \ divisors \ of \ x \in \mathbb{N}\}.

If x = \prod_{m=1}^{k}p_m then n(A) = 2^k.

This is to say, if a natural number (positive integer) x is equal to the product of the 1st prime, the 2nd prime, the 3rd prime, and so on, until the k-th prime, then the amount of all the divisors of x (including 1 and x) will be equal to 2^k.

How must we go about proving this?
By induction. If there are 2^k divisors for the product P, and you multiply P by some prime not in P (call it q), the divisors of the new number Pq are the divisors of P, together with q times the divisors of P. Since there is no overlap (why?), there are 2^k + 2^k = 2^(k+1) divisors. Now just test the base case and you can add QED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George M View Post
Perhaps it could be related to Mersenne Primes?
No.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-02, 08:11   #4
George M
 
Dec 2017

2·52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
This thread was originally in the Riesel and Sierpinski conjectures project (CRUS). I have moved it to Miscellaneous Math. If one of the supermods feels that it should be moved somewhere else, please feel free.
I didn’t mean to put this thread there so sorry about that, but thank you for moving it :)
George M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-02, 08:13   #5
George M
 
Dec 2017

3216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
By induction. If there are 2^k divisors for the product P, and you multiply P by some prime not in P (call it q), the divisors of the new number Pq are the divisors of P, together with q times the divisors of P. Since there is no overlap (why?), there are 2^k + 2^k = 2^(k+1) divisors. Now just test the base case and you can add QED.



No.
I was able to use induction? I didn’t think that I could use induction on an equation like this. It was simpler than I thought. Well, thank you very much! I perhaps should have posted this on the Mathematics Stack Exchange but figured it was related to mersenne primes since we have prime numbers and 2^k.
George M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-01-02, 11:11   #6
gophne
 
Feb 2017

A516 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George M View Post
I made a conjecture, but don’t know how to prove it. Perhaps it could be related to Mersenne Primes?

Consider A =\{all \ divisors \ of \ x \in \mathbb{N}\}.

If x = \prod_{m=1}^{k}p_m then n(A) = 2^k.

This is to say, if a natural number (positive integer) x is equal to the product of the 1st prime, the 2nd prime, the 3rd prime, and so on, until the k-th prime, then the amount of all the divisors of x (including 1 and x) will be equal to 2^k.

How must we go about proving this? If we do, perhaps we could build an algorithm to find a prime value for k such that 2^k - 1 is prime.
Hi George M

When I was working/playing around with "perfect even numbers" related to mersenne numbers and Euclid's related proof -

that when 2^k-1 is prime, the equation 2^(k-1)*(2^k-1) would produce an (even) perfect number, e.g for M5, this would give the perfect number (31)*(16)=496 [Euler proved the converse...that all perfect numbers have that form.....source https://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/EvenPerfect.html ]

Definition of a perfect number being......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_number

Breaking this up a bit, I tabulated the following listing of this equation of Euclid, for all mersenne (odd) numbers to any selected odd number;

(2^1-1)*[2^(1-1)] = 00001* 00001 = 00001
(2^2-1)*[2^(2-1)] = 00003* 00002 = 00006.....prf factors(006) 1,2 -- 3,6...................004 terms ~ 2x n
(2^3-1)*[2^(3-1)] = 00007* 00004 = 00028.....prf factors(028) 1,2,4 -- 7,14,28.........006 t
(2^5-1)*[2^(5-1)] = 00031* 00016 = 00496.....prf factors(496) 1,2,4,8,16 -- 31,62,124,248,496..010 t
(2^7-1)*[2^(7-1)] = 00127* 00064 = 08128.....prf factors(8128)1,2,4,8,16,32,64 -- 127,254,508,1016,2032,4064,8128................014 t
(2^9-1)*[2^(9-1)] = 00511* 00256 = 130816...prf factors(1308168128) ................<>018 t, however, ignoring the additional factors introduced by the fact that "511" is not prime, this formulaic expansion would allways produce a perfect number! bar the additional factors introduced by the fact that 2^9-1 (511) is prime...I think this was the essence of Euclids proof?

In the tabulation, the first string of factors are the factors of (2^k-1) and the second string of factors are the first set of factors multiplied by the mersenne number ~ 2^k-1, bar when 2^k-1 is not prime.

Interestingly, the first set of factors (bar additional factors introduced when 2^k-1<>prime) adds up to 2^k-1, and the sum of the second set of factors (bar additional factors when 2^k-1<>prime) = (2^k-1)^2

Not sure if the above has any bearing on your conjecture.


Caveat: I am not sure if anybody has already stated any of the above, bar of course the consequences flowing from the Euclid-Euler theorem

Last fiddled with by gophne on 2018-01-02 at 11:13 Reason: spelling/typo's
gophne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I have to prove everything PawnProver44 Miscellaneous Math 40 2016-03-19 07:33
How can I prove this PRP prime? siegert81 Math 2 2014-11-19 10:24
Why is RH so difficult to prove? Damian Math 31 2008-10-03 02:11
Is this to prove/already known? MatWur-S530113 Math 4 2007-06-27 05:35
why not stop when composite is prove? mdjvz Software 4 2003-09-28 17:13

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:20.

Tue Jun 2 21:20:22 UTC 2020 up 69 days, 18:53, 2 users, load averages: 1.93, 2.13, 2.13

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.