5
$\begingroup$

A Ruth-Aaron pair is two numbers $(n,n+1)$ such that their sum of prime factors is equal, counting repeated prime factors. (The name refers to Hank Aaron's 715 homeruns surpassing Babe Ruth's 714!) So $$15 = 3 \cdot 5 \;;\; 3+5 = 8$$ $$16 = 2^4 \;;\; 2+2+2+2 = 2 \cdot 4 = 8$$ The notion can be generalized: $$417,162 = 2 \cdot 3 \cdot 251 \cdot 277 \;;\; 2+3+251+277 = 533$$ $$417,163 = 17 \cdot 53 \cdot 463 \;;\; 17+53+463 = 533$$ $$417,164 = 2^2 \cdot 11 \cdot 19 \cdot 499 \;;\; 2+2+11+19+499 = 533$$ My question is:

Q. Are there $k$-tuples, for all $k \ge 2$, for which there exists at least one $n$ such that $(n, n+1, n+2, \ldots, n+k)$ has the same sum of prime factors (counting repeated prime factors as above)?


Addendum. I was out of date, relying on a "claimed proof by Erdős" that there were an infinite number of R-A pairs, which turned out not to be sound, as Benjamin Dickman explained. So the problem is open even for pairs, let alone $k$-tuples.

Apparently no Ruth-Aaron quadruple is known. David Stork wrote Mathematica search code and found there are no such quadruples up to $10^{10}$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did Erdos ever meet either Ruth or Aaron? $\endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Dec 24, 2014 at 0:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @WillJagy Actually, Erdos is known (in a piece of mathematical folklore) as having met Aaron and signed a baseball together, as reported by Pomerance (mentioned in my answer below). See here: "Carl Pomerance (now at Dartmouth College), who had a long and fruitful collaboration with Paul, reports having a baseball autographed by both of them, occasioned by their both having received honorary degrees at Emory University in 1995" in connection with the Ruth-Aaron numbers asked about. $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 0:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ JO'R: Apparently only two triples are known. Besides what you list in your post, the other known one is: 6913943284, 6913943285, 6913943286 (source). That link checks up to at least 532,320,600,592 (I had to "stop" the page because it was very slow to load!) so I think you would need to look pretty far to find a quadruple. $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 1:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Apparently, here's a picture of Erdos and Aaron: www2.math.ou.edu/~jalbert/courses/hank_erdos.png $\endgroup$
    – verret
    Dec 24, 2014 at 7:38
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It seems that, contra Hoffman, Erdos never claimed to prove the infinitude of Ruth--Aaron pairs. After the original Ruth--Aaron paper appeared in the Journal of Recreational Mathematics, Pomerance learned of Erdos's interest from a letter (not a phone call). In the letter, Erdos says he can prove that the Ruth--Aaron numbers have density $0$. Far from claiming a proof that there are infinitely many Ruth--Aaron numbers, Erdos says that problem "seems hopeless" ! The original letter is available online --- see the very first scan at cah.utexas.edu/collections/math_erdos.php $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 17:41

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Observe that a positive answer to your question would imply that there are infinitely many Ruth-Aaron pairs; however, this infinitude already constitutes an open question.

Consult:

De Koninck, J. M. (2004). Computational Results and Queries in Number Theory. Annales Univ. Sci. Budapest., 23. pp. 149-161. Link (no paywall).

Excerpt (p. 152):

enter image description here

The paper does go on to provide a heuristic argument for a generalized problem in the same direction as your question, though it is in the context of $\beta$ rather than $S$.

Another excerpt (pp. 153-154):

enter image description here

(See the aforelinked citation for the argument.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ah, I was out of date, due to "an erroneous claimed proof by Erdős" that there were an infinite number of Ruth-Aaron pairs. Thanks for the correction and update! $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 0:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Note that I was "counting repeated prime factors," which increases the solutions, but still leaves matters quite open.) $\endgroup$ Dec 24, 2014 at 0:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.