Perfect number

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:For

Illustration of the perfect number status of the number 6

In number theory, a perfect number is a positive integer that is equal to the sum of its positive proper divisors, that is, divisors excluding the number itself.[1] For instance, 6 has proper divisors 1, 2, and 3, and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6, so 6 is a perfect number. The next perfect number is 28, because 28 has proper divisors 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, and 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28.

The first seven perfect numbers are 6, 28, 496, 8128, 33550336, 8589869056, and 137438691328 Template:OEIS.[2]

The sum of proper divisors of a number is called its aliquot sum, so a perfect number is one that is equal to its aliquot sum. Equivalently, a perfect number is a number that is half the sum of all of its positive divisors; in symbols, σ1(n)=2n where σ1 is the sum-of-divisors function.

This definition is ancient, appearing as early as Euclid's Elements (Book VII, Definition 22) where it is called Template:Lang (Template:Tlit; 'perfect', 'ideal', or 'complete number'). Euclid also proved a formation rule (Book IX, Proposition 36) whereby q(q+1)2 is an even perfect number whenever Template:Tmath is a prime of the form 2p−1 for positive integer Template:Tmath—what is now called a Mersenne prime.Template:Efn Two millennia later, Leonhard Euler proved that all even perfect numbers are of this form.[3] This is known as the Euclid–Euler theorem.

It is not known whether there are any odd perfect numbers, nor whether infinitely many perfect numbers exist.

History

In about 300 BC Euclid showed that if 2p−1 is prime then 2p−1(2p−1) is perfect. The first four perfect numbers were the only ones known to early Greek mathematics, and the mathematician Nicomachus noted 8128 as early as around AD 100.[4] In modern language, Nicomachus states without proof that Template:Em perfect number is of the form 2n−1(2n−1) where 2n−1 is prime.[5][6] He seems to be unaware that Template:Mvar itself has to be prime. He also says (wrongly) that the perfect numbers end in 6 or 8 alternately (the first five perfect numbers end with digits 6, 8, 6, 8, 6; but the sixth also ends in 6). Philo of Alexandria in his first-century book "On the creation" mentions perfect numbers, claiming that the world was created in 6 days and the moon orbits in 28 days because 6 and 28 are perfect. Philo is followed by Origen,[7] and by Didymus the Blind, who adds the observation that there are only four perfect numbers that are less than 10,000. (Commentary on Genesis 1. 14–19).[8] Augustine of Hippo defines perfect numbers in The City of God (Book XI, Chapter 30) in the early 5th century AD, repeating the claim that God created the world in 6 days because 6 is the smallest perfect number. The Egyptian mathematician Ismail ibn Fallūs (1194–1252) mentioned the next three perfect numbers (33,550,336; 8,589,869,056; and 137,438,691,328) and listed a few more which are now known to be incorrect.[9] The first known European mention of the fifth perfect number is a manuscript written between 1456 and 1461 by an unknown mathematician.[10] In 1588, the Italian mathematician Pietro Cataldi identified the sixth (8,589,869,056) and the seventh (137,438,691,328) perfect numbers, and also proved that every perfect number obtained from Euclid's rule ends with a 6 or an 8.[11][12][13]

Even perfect numbers

Template:See also Template:Unsolved Euclid proved that 2p−1(2p−1) is an even perfect number whenever 2p−1 is prime in Elements (Book IX, Proposition 36).

For example, the first four perfect numbers are generated by the formula Template:Tmath, with Template:Mvar a prime number, as follows: p=2:21(22−1)=2×3=6p=3:22(23−1)=4×7=28p=5:24(25−1)=16×31=496p=7:26(27−1)=64×127=8128.

Prime numbers of the form 2p−1 are known as Mersenne primes, after the seventeenth-century monk Marin Mersenne, who studied number theory and perfect numbers. For 2p−1 to be prime, it is necessary that Template:Mvar itself be prime. However, not all numbers of the form 2p−1 with a prime Template:Mvar are prime; for example, 211−1=2047=23×89 is not a prime number.Template:Efn In fact, Mersenne primes are very rare: of the approximately 4 million primes Template:Mvar up to 68,874,199, 2p−1 is prime for only 48 of them.[14]

While Nicomachus had stated (without proof) that Template:Em perfect numbers were of the form 2n−1(2n−1) where 2n−1 is prime (though he stated this somewhat differently), Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) circa AD 1000 was unwilling to go that far, declaring instead (also without proof) that the formula yielded only every even perfect number.[15] It was not until the 18th century that Leonhard Euler proved that the formula 2p−1(2p−1) indeed yields all the even perfect numbers. Thus, there is a one-to-one correspondence between even perfect numbers and Mersenne primes; each Mersenne prime Template:Mvar generates one even perfect number Template:Math, and vice versa. This result is often referred to as the Euclid–Euler theorem.

An exhaustive search by the GIMPS distributed computing project has shown that the first 50 even perfect numbers are 2p−1(2p−1) for

Template:Mvar = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 61, 89, 107, 127, 521, 607, 1279, 2203, 2281, 3217, 4253, 4423, 9689, 9941, 11213, 19937, 21701, 23209, 44497, 86243, 110503, 132049, 216091, 756839, 859433, 1257787, 1398269, 2976221, 3021377, 6972593, 13466917, 20996011, 24036583, 25964951, 30402457, 32582657, 37156667, 42643801, 43112609, 57885161, 74207281, 77232917 Template:OEIS2C.[14]

Two higher perfect numbers have also been discovered, namely those for which Template:Mvar = 82589933 and 136279841. Although it is still possible there may be others within this range, initial but exhaustive tests by GIMPS have revealed no other perfect numbers for Template:Mvar below 138277717. Template:As of, 52 Mersenne primes are known,[16] and therefore 52 even perfect numbers (the largest of which is 2136279840×(2136279841−1) with 82,048,640 digits). It is not known whether there are infinitely many perfect numbers, nor whether there are infinitely many Mersenne primes.

Proof without words that even perfect numbers are triangular

Template:Annotated image As well as having the form Template:Tmath, each even perfect number is the Template:Tmath-th triangular number (and hence equal to the sum of the integers from 1 to Template:Tmath) and the Template:Tmath-th hexagonal number. Furthermore, each even perfect number except for 6 is the Template:Tmath-th centered nonagonal number and is equal to the sum of the first 2p−12 odd cubes (odd cubes up to the cube of Template:Tmath):

6=21(22−1)=1+2+3,28=22(23−1)=1+2+3+4+5+6+7=13+33496=24(25−1)=1+2+3+⋯+29+30+31=13+33+53+738128=26(27−1)=1+2+3+⋯+125+126+127=13+33+53+73+93+113+133+15333550336=212(213−1)=1+2+3+⋯+8189+8190+8191=13+33+53+⋯+1233+1253+1273

Even perfect numbers (except 6) are of the form T2p−1=1+(2p−2)×(2p+1)2=1+9×T(2p−2)/3

with each resulting triangular number Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, T127=8128 (after subtracting 1 from the perfect number and dividing the result by 9) ending in 3 or 5, the sequence starting with Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, et cetera.[17] It follows that by adding the digits of any even perfect number (except 6), then adding the digits of the resulting number, and repeating this process until a single digit (called the digital root) is obtained, always produces the number 1. For example, the digital root of 8128 is 1, because Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, and Template:Tmath. This works with all perfect numbers 2p−1(2p−1) with odd prime Template:Mvar and, in fact, with Template:Em numbers of the form 2m−1(2m−1) for odd integer (not necessarily prime) Template:Mvar.

Owing to their form, Template:Tmath, every even perfect number is represented in binary form as Template:Mvar ones followed by Template:Math zeros; for example:

610=22+21=11022810=24+23+22=11100249610=28+27+26+25+24=1111100002812810=212+211+210+29+28+27+26=11111110000002

Thus every even perfect number is a pernicious number.

Every even perfect number is also a practical number.

Odd perfect numbers

Template:Unsolved It is unknown whether any odd perfect numbers exist, though various results have been obtained. In 1496, Jacques Lefèvre stated that Euclid's rule gives all perfect numbers,[18] thus implying that no odd perfect number exists, but Euler himself stated: "Whether ... there are any odd perfect numbers is a most difficult question".[19] More recently, Carl Pomerance presented a heuristic argument suggesting that indeed no odd perfect number should exist.[20] All perfect numbers are also harmonic divisor numbers, and it has been conjectured as well that there are no odd harmonic divisor numbers other than 1.

Any odd perfect number N must satisfy the following conditions:

Furthermore, several minor results are known about the exponents Template:Tmath:

In 1888, Sylvester stated:[48] Template:Blockquote

On the other hand, some odd integers come close to being perfect. René Descartes observed that the number Template:Math would be an odd perfect number if only Template:Math were a prime number. The odd numbers with this property (they would be perfect if one of their composite factors were prime) are the Descartes numbers. Many of the properties proven about odd perfect numbers also apply to Descartes numbers, and Pace Nielsen has suggested that sufficient study of these numbers may lead to a proof that no odd perfect numbers exist.[49]

Minor results

  • The only even perfect number of the form n3+1 is 28 Template:Harv.[50]
  • 28 is also the only even perfect number that is a sum of two positive cubes of integers.[51]
  • The reciprocals of the divisors of a perfect number Template:Tmath must add up to 2 (to get this, take the definition of a perfect number, Template:Tmath, and divide both sides by Template:Tmath):
    • For 6, we have 16+13+12+11=16+26+36+66=1+2+3+66=2⋅66=2;
    • For 28, we have 128+114+17+14+12+11=2, etc.
  • The number of divisors of a perfect number (whether even or odd) must be even, because Template:Tmath cannot be a perfect square.[52]
  • The even perfect numbers are not trapezoidal numbers; that is, they cannot be represented as the difference of two positive non-consecutive triangular numbers. There are only three types of non-trapezoidal numbers: even perfect numbers, powers of two, and the numbers of the form 2n−1(2n+1) formed as the product of a Fermat prime 2n+1 with a power of two in a similar way to the construction of even perfect numbers from Mersenne primes.[53]
  • The number of perfect numbers less than n is less than Template:Tmath, where Template:Math is a constant.[54] In fact it is Template:Tmath, using little-o notation.[55]
  • Every even perfect number ends in 6 or 28 in base ten and, with the only exception of 6, ends in 1 in base 9.[56][57] Therefore, in particular the digital root of every even perfect number other than 6 is 1.
  • The only square-free perfect number is 6.[58]

Template:Euler diagram numbers with many divisors.svg The sum of proper divisors gives various other kinds of numbers. Numbers where the sum is less than the number itself are called deficient, and where it is greater than the number, abundant. These terms, together with perfect itself, come from Greek numerology. A pair of numbers which are the sum of each other's proper divisors are called amicable, and larger cycles of numbers are called sociable. A positive integer such that every smaller positive integer is a sum of distinct divisors of it is a practical number.

By definition, a perfect number is a fixed point of the restricted divisor function Template:Tmath, and the aliquot sequence associated with a perfect number is a constant sequence. All perfect numbers are also Template:Tmath-perfect numbers, or Granville numbers.

A semiperfect number is a natural number that is equal to the sum of all or some of its proper divisors. A semiperfect number that is equal to the sum of all its proper divisors is a perfect number. Most abundant numbers are also semiperfect; abundant numbers which are not semiperfect are called weird numbers.

See also

Notes

Template:Notelist

References

Template:Reflist

Sources

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Further reading

  • Nankar, M.L.: "History of perfect numbers", Ganita Bharati 1, no. 1–2 (1979), 7–8.
  • Template:Cite journal
  • Riele, H.J.J. "Perfect Numbers and Aliquot Sequences" in H.W. Lenstra and R. Tijdeman (eds.): Computational Methods in Number Theory, Vol. 154, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 141–157.
  • Riesel, H. Prime Numbers and Computer Methods for Factorisation, Birkhauser, 1985.
  • Template:Cite book

Template:Divisor classes Template:Classes of natural numbers

Template:Authority control

  1. ↑ Template:Cite web
  2. ↑ Template:Cite web
  3. ↑ Caldwell, Chris, "A proof that all even perfect numbers are a power of two times a Mersenne prime".
  4. ↑ Template:Cite book
  5. ↑ Template:Cite web
  6. ↑ In Introduction to Arithmetic, Chapter 16, he says of perfect numbers, "There is a method of producing them, neat and unfailing, which neither passes by any of the perfect numbers nor fails to differentiate any of those that are not such, which is carried out in the following way." He then goes on to explain a procedure which is equivalent to finding a triangular number based on a Mersenne prime.
  7. ↑ Commentary on the Gospel of John 28.1.1–4, with further references in the Sources Chrétiennes edition: vol. 385, 58–61.
  8. ↑ Template:Cite conference
  9. ↑ Roshdi Rashed, The Development of Arabic Mathematics: Between Arithmetic and Algebra (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994), pp. 328–329.
  10. ↑ Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14908. See Template:Cite book
  11. ↑ Template:Cite book
  12. ↑ Template:Cite book
  13. ↑ Template:Cite book
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Template:Cite web
  15. ↑ Template:MacTutor
  16. ↑ Template:Cite web
  17. ↑ Template:MathWorld
  18. ↑ Template:Cite book
  19. ↑ Template:Cite web
  20. ↑ Oddperfect.org. Template:Webarchive
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Template:Cite journal
  22. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  23. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  24. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  25. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  26. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  27. ↑ Template:Cite journal.
  28. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  29. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  30. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  31. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Template:Cite journal
  33. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  34. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  35. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  36. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  37. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  38. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  39. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  40. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 Template:Cite journal
  42. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  43. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Template:Cite journal
  45. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  46. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  47. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  48. ↑ The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester p. 590, tr. from "Sur les nombres dits de Hamilton", Compte Rendu de l'Association Française (Toulouse, 1887), pp. 164–168.
  49. ↑ Template:Cite news
  50. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  51. ↑ Template:Cite journal.
  52. ↑ Template:Citation.
  53. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  54. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  55. ↑ Template:Cite journal
  56. ↑ H. Novarese. Note sur les nombres parfaits Texeira J. VIII (1886), 11–16.
  57. ↑ Template:Cite book
  58. ↑ Template:Cite book.