0
$\begingroup$

What are some alternative methods of proof for the necessity direction of the above theorem, ie $n$ an even perfect number $\Rightarrow n$ is of form $2^{a-1} (2^a - 1)$ where $2^a - 1$ is a Mersenne prime, which follow a different approach from those commonly found online ?

A survey of six current proofs is given in [1], along with references to original sources - reproduced here to prevent potential link-rot [2-7]. A further proof is described in Proof 2 of this answer. A proof attributed to Euler [8] is available on Wikipedia.

References

[1] John Voight (1998) Perfect numbers: an elementary introduction, https://math.dartmouth.edu/~jvoight/notes/perfelem.pdf

[2] Leonard Eugene Dickson, History of the theory of numbers, vol. 1, pp. 3–33, Chelsea Pub. Co., New York (1971).

[3] L. E. Dickson, Notes on the theory of numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 18 (1911), 109.

[4] Wayne L. McDaniel, On the proof that all even perfect numbers are of Euclid’s type, Math. Mag. 48 (1975), 107–108.

[5] Graeme L. Cohen, Even perfect numbers, Math. Gaz. 65 (1981), 28–30.

[6] R. D. Carmichael, Multiply perfect numbers of four different primes, Annals of Math. 8 (1906-1907), 149–158.

[7] J. Knopfmacher, A note on perfect numbers, Math. Gazette 44 (1960), 45.

[8] Stillwell, John (2010), Mathematics and Its History, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, p. 40, ISBN 978-1-4419-6052-8.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ How is one to know whether a proof follows a different approach from those commonly found online, when we're not told which approaches are commonly found online? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2023 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerry Myerson: I have updated my question to reference an article giving six proofs of the theorem plus references to two other proofs. These appear to constitute the totality of methods found from a reasonable search online (excluding my own method below), HTH. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:28

1 Answer 1

-2
$\begingroup$

The following proof begins by considering some simple cases, and then extends to the general case. The general case taken alone gives a short proof of the theorem, but the simple cases provide a motivation for it.

The general idea is to make use of the identity for multiplying out a product of bracketed terms, in which terms are selected one from each bracket and multiplied, and then these products summed over all the possible selections (applies to any ring) : $$ (a^{(1)}_1 + \cdots + a^{(1)}_{l_1}) \cdots (a^{(n)}_1 + \cdots + a^{(n)}_{l_n}) = \sum_{1 \leq i_r \leq l_r,\; \forall r \in [1, n]} a^{(1)}_{i_1} \cdots a^{(n)}_{i_n}. \tag{1} \label{eq:mult-brackets} $$

We also make use of the multiplicative property of the divisor sum function $\sigma$, which is readily derived using equation \eqref{eq:mult-brackets} : $\sigma(mn) = \sigma(m) \sigma(n)$, whenever $\gcd(m, n) = 1$.

Consider even perfect number $n = 2^{a-1}m$, where $m$ is odd and $a \geq 2$. Firstly note $m$ cannot be $1$ since $\sigma(n) = 2n$ then implies $2^a - 1 = 2^a$.

If $m$ is a prime $p$ then we must have $p = 2^a - 1$ since $2^a p = 2n = \sigma(n) = \sigma(2^{a-1}) \sigma(p) = (2^a - 1) (p + 1)$ giving $2^a = p + 1$.

Thus we only need to prove that $n$ cannot contain any more than a single odd prime of multiplicity 1.

Consider the case of 2 odd primes, ie $n = 2^{a-1} p q$ :

Then $2^a p q = 2n = \sigma(n) = (2^a - 1)(p + 1)(q + 1) \Rightarrow pq = (2^a - 1)(p + q + 1)$
$\Rightarrow p + q + 1 \mid pq \Rightarrow p + q + 1 = pq$ (since $p + q + 1$ is too big to be any other factor of $pq$). Then $2^a - 1 = 1$, a contradiction.

For the case of 3 odd primes, ie $n = 2^{a-1} p q s$, similarly we obtain :

$2^a p q s = 2n = \sigma(n) = (2^a - 1)(p + 1)(q + 1)(s + 1) \Rightarrow$
$pqs = (2^a - 1)(1 + p + q + s + pq + qs + ps) \Rightarrow (1 + p + q + s + pq + qs + ps) \mid pqs \Rightarrow (1 + p + q + s + pq + qs + ps) = pqs$, (since $1 + p + q + s + pq + qs + ps$ is too big to be any other factor of $pqs$). Then $2^a - 1 = 1$, a contradiction.

This leads to a general method for $r$ $(\geq 2)$ odd primes (each of multiplicity 1), ie $n = 2^{a-1}p_1p_2 \cdots p_r$. Then $2^ap_1 \cdots p_r = 2n = \sigma(n) = (2^a - 1)(1 + p_1) \cdots (1 + p_r)$. Then cancelling out the $2^ap_1 \cdots p_r$ term and bringing the $p_1 \cdots p_r$ term to the lhs and expanding the brackets we obtain : \begin{eqnarray*} p_1 \cdots p_r & = & (2^a - 1)(1 + \sum p_i + \sum p_i p_j + \cdots + \sum p_{i_1} \cdots p_{i_{r-1}}) \\ & = & (2^a - 1) \cdot l, \hspace{2em} \mbox{say.} \end{eqnarray*}

Then $l \mid p_1 \cdots p_r$. But since $r \geq 2$, $l$ is strictly too large to be any other divisor of $p_1 \cdots p_r$ than $p_1 \cdots p_r$ itself, implying $2^a - 1 = 1$, a contradiction.

Finally we can extend to a general odd number $m = p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r}$ ($a_i \geq 1$), that is not a prime, ie $r \geq 2$ (or $r = 1$ with $a_1 \geq 2$). We have $2^a p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r} = 2n = \sigma(n) = (2^a - 1)(1 + \cdots + p_1^{a_1}) \cdots (1 + \cdots + p_r^{a_r})$. Thus multiplying out the brackets involving the $p_i$ (as in (\ref{eq:mult-brackets}) above) and separating out the top term : $$ 2^a p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r} = (2^a - 1)(l + p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r}) $$

where since $r \geq 2$ (or $r = 1$ with $a_1 \geq 2$ ), the number $l > p_1^{b_1} \cdots p_r^{b_r}$ for all powers $b_i \in [0, a_i]$, with at least one $b_i <a_i$. (Note in the case where $r = 1$ with $a_1 \geq 2$, we have $l = 1 + p_1 + \cdots + p_1^{a_1-1}$, which contains at least 2 terms.)

Then $p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r} = (2^a - 1) \cdot l \Rightarrow l \mid p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r} \Rightarrow l = p_1^{a_1} \cdots p_r^{a_r}$ since $l$ is strictly too large to be any other divisor. Then $2^a - 1 = 1$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ The standard proof is much shorter. If $n = 2^{a-1}m$ is a perfect number, with $a\geq 2$ and with $m\geq 1$ odd, then $2^a m=2n=\sigma(n)=\sigma(2^{a-1})\sigma(m)=(2^a-1)\sigma(m)$. This implies that $2^a-1$ divides $m$, say $m=(2^a-1)k$. Then the previous equation becomes $2^a k=\sigma((2^a-1)k)$. However, this means that $k$ and $(2^a-1)k$ are the only divisors of $(2^a-1)k$, because their sum is already $2^a k$. Hence $2^a-1$ is prime and $k=1$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Sep 7, 2022 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ @GH from MO : That's a good proof. However please note my proof above is fairly short, comprising only the text of the last 2 paras. Most of the post is to provide a heuristic. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2022 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proof given by GH from MO above and the condensed version of my proof without the additional heuristic info are presented in this answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 7, 2023 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on MathOverflow Meta, or in MathOverflow Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 3 at 22:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My position is to keep that chat in place for the historical record. Moving forward, please keep in mind the norms that have developed over the history of this site, which before 2013 was not part of the SE network. If you ask a question and then decide to answer with something you had in mind all along, hitting the CW button would probably go a good distance in maintaining good will with the community, especially if you recognize and support other answers that contain insights you hadn't considered. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5 at 0:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .