mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-07-20, 07:07   #1
isaac
 
"Isaac"
Jul 2014
Israel

616 Posts
Default Odd Perfect Number is 36k+9 ?

can someone review my work

Odd Perfect Number is 36k+9

viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1407.0143, Odd Perfect Number is 36k+9

PDF link:

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1407.0143v1.pdf

i asked around on the internet a lot of people and no one is yet to reply

if i have a mistake then people should have said by now where it is

and if this proof is valid then i don't get it ... why don't they say its ok?

can someone take a look please?
isaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-21, 02:16   #2
wblipp
 
wblipp's Avatar
 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven

22×32×5×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaac View Post
Odd Perfect Number is 36k+9
I haven't looked at your paper yet. Are you aware of Jacques Touchard's proof in 1953 that an odd perfect number is either 12k+1 or 36k+9? If not, then the lack of response you have received is probably the result of a perception of unprofessionalism.
wblipp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-21, 09:44   #3
Pascal Ochem
 
Pascal Ochem's Avatar
 
Apr 2006

2×47 Posts
Default

Your mistake is page 3 when you say

3 | (P^{alpha+1}/(2*(P-1)))

Take P=13 and alpha=1.
Then P^{alpha+1}/(2*(P-1)) = (13^2-1)/(2*(13-1)) = (13+1)/2 = 7.
And 7 is not divisible by 3.

This is because in the previous line r = 3*t/w,
you missed the case where w is divisible by 3,
so that the factor 3 is canceled.
Pascal Ochem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-21, 13:30   #4
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

10111001100102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal Ochem View Post
Your mistake is page 3 when you say

3 | (P^{alpha+1}/(2*(P-1)))
Oh good, this is just the mistake I found when he brought up the same proof on http://mymathforum.com/ .
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-22, 20:43   #5
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000101100012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
Oh good, this is just the mistake I found when he brought up the same proof on http://mymathforum.com/ .
Congrats on you supermod privileges. on the side of odd perfect numbers where's the thread where we talked about them and what's changed from:
Quote:
In 1896, Stuyvaert stated that an odd perfect number must be a sum of two squares (Dickson 2005, p. 28). In 1887, Sylvester conjectured and in 1925, Gradshtein proved that any odd perfect number must have at least six distinct prime factors (Ball and Coxeter 1987). Hagis (1980) showed that odd perfect numbers must have at least eight distinct prime factors, in which case, the number is divisible by 15 (Voight 2003).
I know it was significantly increased last time I asked, I just thought that since I realized a condition for when 2n+1 divides 2k+1 ( not to confuse these with any variables used in the mathworld page I quoted) that it might be able to thin out the values in 36k+9 that were possible in my head because we could say if 2n+1 divides 36k+9 then k fits into this modulo class for each individual n or come up to a value that we can use as a higher modulus and remainder value to help out with.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-22, 22:18   #6
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000101100012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
Congrats on you supermod privileges. on the side of odd perfect numbers where's the thread where we talked about them and what's changed from: I know it was significantly increased last time I asked, I just thought that since I realized a condition for when 2n+1 divides 2k+1 ( not to confuse these with any variables used in the mathworld page I quoted) that it might be able to thin out the values in 36k+9 that were possible in my head because we could say if 2n+1 divides 36k+9 then k fits into this modulo class for each individual n or come up to a value that we can use as a higher modulus and remainder value to help out with.
I just realized that this only helps if we take the value of k in 36k+9 realize it equates to n=(k*18+4) expressed in 2n+1, as equal to another equation for all the n_i for the  2n_i+1 but this gives a modulus of 36k+9 and at best gives an equation that n fits based on the other n values.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this a Perfect Number ? Godzilla Miscellaneous Math 8 2016-09-05 05:56
Down to a perfect number fivemack Aliquot Sequences 0 2014-12-23 09:47
perfect number proof toilet Homework Help 12 2012-10-17 13:42
Odd Perfect Number, when will numbers go beyond ecm? jasong Factoring 1 2006-05-14 11:28
What's up with the odd perfect number server? jasong GMP-ECM 6 2006-02-18 02:42

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:11.

Tue Nov 24 01:11:05 UTC 2020 up 74 days, 22:22, 4 users, load averages: 2.86, 3.58, 3.55

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.