1
$\begingroup$

Let $n>36$ be some colossally abundant number. Then $n$ must have a prime factorisation of the form $2^{a_1}3^{a_2}\cdots {p_i}^{a_i}$, where $a_{1} \geq a _{2} \geq \cdots \geq a_i \geq 1$. What is the best known upper bound for $a_1$ in terms of $n$ ?

Naively, one finds that $a_1 < \log_{2}n$ since $2^{a_1} < n$, but surely there should be a far much better bound than this ?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The following gives a very weak bound. Set $h(n) = \frac{\sigma(n)}{n}$, and $$H(n) = \prod_{p|n} \frac{p}{p-1}.$$ Note that it is not hard to show that $h(n) \leq H(n)$ with equality if and only if $n=1$. This inequality is best possible in the sense that $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty } h(n^k) = H(n)$, so $H(n)$ is the best bound we can have when we only know the prime factors of $n$. \

There is a constant $c$ such that for all sufficiently large colossally abundant $n$, we have $\sigma(n) \geq c n \log \log n$. So $$H(n) \geq h(n) = \frac{\sigma(n)}{n} = c \log \log n. $$ Now, we know that $$H(n) = \prod_{p \leq x} \frac{p}{p-1}$$ for some $x$. We can use Mertens' Theorem to estimate that $e^\gamma \log x \approx \log \log n$. So our minimum $x$ is about $(\log n)^{\frac{1}{e^\gamma}}$. By the prime number theorem then $$\prod_{p|n} p \approx e^{(\log n)^{\frac{1}{e^\gamma}}}.$$

This will give you an upper bound on $a_1$ by giving you a weak lower bound on the product of all the distinct prime divisors of $n$. I haven't gone through and been careful about the exact error bounds, but since there are a lot of explicit bounds on the PNT and Merten's Theorem such as those of Dusart, and earlier those of Rosser and Schoenfeld, one should be able to get an explicit bound. Since this doesn't deal with the fact that for any fixed $i$, for large $n$, $a_2, a_3 \cdots a_i$ will themselves all be large, this is likely a pretty severe underestimate.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Would you be able to give a lower bound for the power of 2? $\endgroup$
    – EGME
    Commented Aug 4, 2023 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ @EGME Lower bound should not be that hard to get. In particular if one has some number n with $2^k$ is small, then removing the largest prime divisors of n, and throwing in another power of 2 should give you a number with a higher h value. That should be able to be turned into an argument for a lower bound on powers of 2. $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Commented Aug 5, 2023 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ One more question. One can see that in general $a_1 < p_i$, but how does one prove this? I am able to prove this with a computer algebra system. $\endgroup$
    – EGME
    Commented Aug 15, 2023 at 10:17
  • $\begingroup$ @EGME Hmm, that is not obvious to me, but certainly looks like it is true. Maybe pose it as another Mathoverflow question, and link here for context and see if someone can prove it? $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Commented Aug 15, 2023 at 14:36

You must log in to answer this question.