I did a little test today looking for all the numbers such as their even divisors are exactly all of them a prime number minus 1, to verify possible properties of them. These are the first terms, it is not included at OEIS:

2, [2]

4, [2, 4]

6, [2, 6]

10, [2, 10]

12, [2, 4, 6, 12]

18, [2, 6, 18]

22, [2, 22]

30, [2, 6, 10, 30]

36, [2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 36]

46, [2, 46]

58, [2, 58]

I tried to look for the one with the longest list of even divisors, but it seems that the longest one is $36$, at least up to $10^6$:

$36$, even divisors $[2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 36]$, so the primes are $[3, 5, 7, 13, 19, 37]$.

For instance, for the same exercise for the even divisors being exactly all of them a prime number plus 1 (except $1$ in the case of the even divisor $2$) it seems to be $24$

$24$, $[2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24]$, so the primes are $[3, 5, 7, 11, 23]$.

And for instance for the case in which both minus and plus one are a prime (or $1$ for the even divisor $2$) the longest one seems to be $12$: $[2, 4, 6, 12]$.

I would like to ask the following question:

These are heuristics, but I do not understand why it seems impossible to find a greater number than those small values such as all the even divisors comply with the property and that list of divisors is longer than the list of $36$. Is there a theoretical reason behind that or should it be possible to find a greater number (maybe very big) complying with the property? The way of calculating such possibility is related somehow with Diophantine equations?

Probably the reason is very simple, but I can not see it clearly. Thank you very much in advance!


Sieving with small primes reveals the following.

Assume that $$ n=2^a\cdot3^bp_1^{a_1}p_2^{a_2}\cdots p_k^{a_k}\qquad(*) $$ has the property that $d+1$ is a prime whenever $d$ is an even factor of $n$. Here $(*)$ gives the prime factorization of $n$, so $p_i$ are all distinct primes $>3$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $a>0$ and that $a_i>0$ for all $i$.

If any of the primes $p_i$ satisfies the congruence $p_i\equiv1\pmod 3$, then $2p_i+1$ is divisible by three, and $d=2p_i\mid n$ is in violation of the assumption. We can conclude that $p_i\equiv-1\pmod 3$ for all $i$.

If $k\ge 2$ then $2p_1p_2+1$ is divisible by three, so $d=2p_1p_2$ is in violation. Therefore $k\le1$. But also if $a_1\ge2$, then $2p_1^2+1$ is divisible by three and $d=2p_1^2$ is a violating factor.

At this point we know that either (call this case A) $$ n=2^a\cdot3^bp $$ for some prime $p\equiv-1\pmod3$, or (call this case B) $$ n=2^a3^b. $$

In case A we make the following further observations. First we see that $4p+1$ is again divisible by three, so $d=4p$ is in violation. Therefore in case A we must have $a=1$. Also, $2\cdot 3^3+1$ is a multiple of five, so we similarly conclude that $b\le 2$.

In case B we observe that $2^3+1$ and $2\cdot 3^3+1$ are no primes, and therefore $a\le2$ and $b\le2$.

So we are left with the possibilities

  • $n=2\cdot 3^b p$ with $b\le2$. This $n$ has $2(b+1)$ even factors, so there are at most six of them.
  • $n=2^a\cdot 3^b$ with $a,b\le2$. This $n$ has $a(b+1)$ even factors, so again there are at most six of them.
| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ very appreciated! thank you very much for this kind explanation. $\endgroup$ – iadvd Jan 4 '16 at 12:30

Suppose that $n$ has the property that $d+1$ is prime for each even divisor $d$ of $n$, and let $k$ be the number of powers of $2$ that divide $n$.

  • If $k=0$, there is nothing to say.

  • $k\geq 3$ is impossible, since $2^3 + 1$ is not prime.

  • Suppose that $k=2$, and let $p$ be an odd prime divisor of $n$. Then $2p+1$ and $4p+1$ are prime. But working modulo $3$, we can see that this is only possible if $p=3$. So $n=4\cdot 3^l$ for some $l\geq 0$. But $2\cdot 3^3 + 1$ is not prime, so the only possibilities are $n=4,12,36$.

The remaining case is $k=1$. If $p\geq 5$ is a prime factor of $n$, then $p^2$ does not divide $n$, because $2p^2+1$ is divisible by $3$. As above, $3^3$ cannot divide $n$, so $n=2\cdot 3^l\cdot \prod_{i=1}^t q_i$, where $0\leq l \leq 2$ and the $q_i$ are distinct primes $\geq 5$.

  • If $t=0$, we have the cases $n=2,6,18$.

  • If $t=1$, we have the cases $n=2p, 6p, 18p$, none of which have more than six even factors.

  • $t\geq 2$ is impossible: at least one of $2p+1$, $2q+1$, and $2pq+1$ must be divisible by $3$.

We conclude that $n$ cannot have more than six even factors, and it has precisely six only when $n=18p$ for some prime $p$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slade thank you very much for your time! It is easy to follow, answers like this are a good reason to love MSE. $\endgroup$ – iadvd Jan 4 '16 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slade: I checked $n = 18p$ for the first $10^5$ primes and we have $p = 2, 11, 1451, 1931, 2741, 3761,\dots$ Is it true that for $p>2$, all have form $10m+1$? (It was for the range that I checked.) $\endgroup$ – Tito Piezas III Jan 7 '16 at 5:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TitoPiezasIII Yes, it's true. If $p\equiv 2\pmod{5}$, then $5$ divides $2p+1$. If $p\equiv 3\pmod{5}$, then $5$ divides $18p+1$. If $p\equiv 4\pmod{5}$, then $5$ divides $6p+1$. So if $p\neq 2,5$, we must have $p\equiv 1\pmod{5}$ and $p\equiv 1\pmod{2}$, so $p\equiv 1\pmod{10}$. $\endgroup$ – Slade Jan 7 '16 at 5:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TitoPiezasIII We also have $p\equiv 2\pmod{3}$ for all such primes, otherwise $p=3$ or $3$ divides $2p+1$. So $p\equiv 11\pmod{30}$. I believe that this should be the best we can say, since our conditions can only eliminate three residue classes for higher moduli. $\endgroup$ – Slade Jan 7 '16 at 5:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slade: Ah, so $p \equiv 11(mod\, 30)$. And I was just going to ask was else these $p$ have in common. :) There's quite a lot of them. For the first $10^5$ primes, there's $141$ that qualify. And they're not in the OEIS. $\endgroup$ – Tito Piezas III Jan 7 '16 at 5:37

I made a program that calculates numbers, that you are searching, but only found $$198,26118,347\color{brown}58,49338,67698,79038,109818,...$$ which has only $6$ '$prime-1$' divisors like $36$. The range was $10^8$.

It shows that a number with even, $7$ '$prime-1$' divisors like these does not exist or they are very big to calculate...

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the review and confirmation! $\endgroup$ – iadvd Jan 4 '16 at 13:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I found the typo. The digit should have been a $5$. :) $\endgroup$ – Tito Piezas III Jan 7 '16 at 5:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.