Strange (or stupid) arithmetic derivation Let us consider the following operation on positive integers:  $$n=\prod_{i=1}^{k}p_i^{\alpha_i} \qquad f(n):= \prod_{i=1}^{k}\alpha_ip_i^{\alpha_i-1}$$ (Is it true that if we apply this operation to any integer multilpe times, it will eventually get into a finite cycle?) Is there a constant $K$ such that any integer will fall into a cycle after $K$ steps?
Edit4: We managed to settle affirmatively the question of Mark Sapir, whether a cycle of arbitrary length exists: http://www.math.bme.hu/~kovacsi/Pub/arithmetic_derivation_v04.pdf
Edit3: I proposed two questions (in retrospect, it was a minor mistake), one of them was answered. To appreciate this, i accept Mark Sapir's answer, and alter the original text by putting the unanswered stuff into parentheses. Making the answered one the main question.
Edit2: István Kovács pointed out that there is a nice formula for $f(n)$ using the 'number of divisors' function: $$ f(n):= d \left( \frac{n}{ \prod_{i=1}^{n}p_i } \right) \frac{n}{ \prod_{i=1}^{n}p_i } $$ from which it fillows that for any $\varepsilon >0 , \quad f(n)=o(n^{1+\varepsilon})$.
I think that the answer to the first question is yes, but to the second no. We tested the first $10000$ integers and every integer fell into a cycle after at most $6$ steps.
Edit: @MarkSapir proved that the answer to the second question is no. His proof raises the (third) question: How long can such a cycle be?
 A: While working on the first question, i managed to get another solution to the second, different from Mark's. 
Consider the formal product: $$P_0=\prod_{p_i \, prime} p_{i}^{p_i}.$$ Note that it is the fixed point of the formal derivation. Then the formal derivative of $2P_0$ is $f(2P_0)=3P_0$. In general it is true that $f^{(k)}(2P_0)=c_k f^{(k-1)}(2P_0)$ for a $c_k>1$. Indeed as every exponent is at least as big as its base. Thus lets formally derive $2P_0$, k-times. Then there are only finitely many primes which had their exponents changed during the process. Removing every other prime from $2P_0$ we obtain a finite product which has its first $k$  derivatives strictly increasing.
A: Here's an elementary observation inspired by Felipe's insightful comment.
Let's attack a simpler version of this problem and try to engineer long cycles when the starting point is $n = p^{k_0}$ for some $k_0 > 1$. Starting with such an $n$, we immediately see that $f(n) = k_0p^{k_0-1}$ and so we try to establish some control over the prime factors of $k_0$. In order to keep things as simple as possible, we might want $k_0$ to again be a power of $p$, say $k_0 = p^{k_1}$ so that we are left with $f(n) = p^{k_1 + k_0 -1}$. So long as $k_1 > 1$, we are guaranteed $f(n) \neq n$.
Proceeding in this fashion, it seems as though we are after a sequence $k_j$ of integers which satisfy the following property: denoting the partial sums as $K_j = \sum_{0 \leq i < j}k_j$, we want
$$k_j = p^{K_j - j}.$$
In order to ensure a cycle of length $L+1$, we would want a contiguous subsequence $k_j, \ldots , k_{j+L}$ so that the set of shifted partial sums
$$\{K_{j+i} - (j+i) \mid 0 \leq i \leq L\}$$ 
has cardinality $L+1$. I'm not sure how one goes about finding such a sequence $k_j$, but hopefully there are number theory wizards out there who know such things...
A: I will show that the answer to the second question is "no". Note that if the answer to the first question is "no", we are done. Hence assume that the answer is "yes" and for every number $n$, the chain eventually turns into a cycle. Take any number $n$ and consider a sequence of numbers $n, f(n)(n-1), f(f(n)(n-1))(n-2),...$, that is $a_1=n, a_{m+1}=f(a_m)(n-m)$, for every $m=1,...,n-1$. Let $A=a_n$. Let $p$ be a prime that is bigger than any number that occurs in the chain for $A$. Consider $p^n$. Then the chain for $p^n$ looks like $p^n\to a_1p^{n-1}\to ...\to a_n\to...$ and the chain for $A=a_n$ follows. That chain will never hit the first $n$ of the numbers in the chain for $p^n$, hence the chain for $p^n$ does not go into a cycle before the step number $n$. Since $n$ was arbitrary, we are done. This answers the second question. The first question seems more difficult. 
 Edit. As  @DanielSoltész pointed out, I answered a harder question about bounding the length of a pre-cycle in the chain $m\to f(m)\to\ldots$. If we want to show that there is no bound for the number of different elements in a chain, then assuming $p>n^{2^n-1}$ is enough. This leads to another reasonable question about bounding the lengths of cycles $m\to...\to m$. That question is open. 
