3
$\begingroup$

This question is pretty basic, so I apologize in advance if it is unsuitable for MO. If so, please do let me know and I will migrate it over to MSE.

Essentially, by work of Kanold, we know that the natural density of the perfect numbers $N$ for which $$\sigma(N) = 2N$$ is $0$. Now my question is: Is it known that a similar result holds for almost perfect numbers $M$, whereby $$\sigma(M) = 2M - 1$$ holds?

I tried searching for an answer via Google, but it did not return any relevant results.

If this problem is currently open, I would appreciate it very much if you could point me to recent literature on research work done in this area.

Thanks!

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

11
$\begingroup$

The natural density is $0$. This is due to the function $\sigma(n)/n$ possessing a continuous distribution, i.e. there exists a continuous function $\Phi:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ such that for all $a<b$ real numbers one has $$\lim_{x\to \infty}\frac{1}{x}\#\Big\{1\leq n \leq x: a<\frac{\sigma(n)}{n} \leq b\Big\}=\Phi(b)-\Phi(a).$$ Fix any $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Considering any $\epsilon>0$ we see that for $n>\frac{|k|}{\epsilon}$ the natural density of integers $n$ such that $\sigma(n)=2n+k$ is at most the density of integers $n$ with $$-\epsilon+2<\frac{\sigma(n)}{n}\leq 2$$ which equals $\Phi(2)-\Phi(2-\epsilon).$ Now since $\Phi$ is continuous we see that taking arbitrarily small $\epsilon$ the density of your integers $M$ is smaller than any positive number so it must vanish. Obviously for a specific choice of $k$ one can do better but the approach here does in fact provide density $0$ in very general situations.
EDIT:(references) According to this paper of Erdős the first published proof was given by Davenport in a 1934 paper not listed in Mathscinet but the method was identically the same as Schoenberg's earlier result that $\phi(n)/n$ has a continuous distribution.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Interesting. Could you edit in a good reference for the second sentence of your answer? $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    May 14, 2015 at 12:09
7
$\begingroup$

In fact, $\sigma(N)$ is odd only if $N$ is a square or twice a square, which already occurs only a set of density $0$. So the `right' problem is to do significantly better than $x^{1/2}$ for the count of almost perfect $N \le x$. One could modify the approach in Captain Darling's answer to get a bound of $o(X^{1/2})$, by looking at the distribution function of $\sigma(N^2)/N^2$.

This can be further improved using different ideas. The count of almost perfect $N \le x$ is known to be at most $x^{\frac14+\epsilon}$, for any $\epsilon > 0$ and all $x > x_0(\epsilon)$. See Theorem 1.1 in "On the distribution of some integers related to perfect and amicable numbers" in Colloq. Math, by Pollack and Pomerance. Here's a link to a PDF: https://math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/pollack-pomerance-preprint.pdf

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The real density should be logarithmic rather than polynomial. Even if I had a proof the margin is too small. $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Pi
    May 14, 2015 at 13:31

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.