6
$\begingroup$

It is fairly easy to show that a perfect number $\Gamma$ cannot be written in the form $\Gamma=n^2$ for integer values of $n$. However, does this property hold true for multi-perfect numbers---that is, integers $R$ such that $\sigma(R)=kR,$ for $k>2$? This question is out of pure curiosity, as I can not find an answer online.

UPDATE:

I now know that for even $k$ and/or an even $k$-perfect number $R$ the answer is no, as it follows from contradiction by assuming $R=n^2$ and then computing $$\sigma(R)=\prod_{i=1}^{l}\sigma(p_i^{2a_i}), $$ where $n=\prod_{i=1}^lp_i^{a_i}$ (here all $p_i$ are distinct primes and all $a_i\geq1$).

Given this result, my question is now whether the same is true for odd $k$ and, assuming they exist, an odd $k$-perfect number $Q$. That is, if both $k$ and $Q$ are odd in $\sigma(Q)=kQ,$ is there a way to show that $Q$ cannot be a perfect square? I believe this could be done by considering the number of divisors of $Q=\prod_{i=1}^rp_i^{a_i}$---given by $$d(Q)=\prod_{i=1}^r(a_i+1)$$ and showing that at least one $a_i\equiv1\pmod2,$ but I have not found any results similar to this online.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your statement about the number of divisors of $Q$ is equivalent to saying all the primes $p_i$ in $Q$'s decomposition are have even powers (which is a more intuitive way of thinking about square numbers, IMO). $\endgroup$ – Alexis Olson Sep 23 '16 at 23:51
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed it is more intuitive to think of squares that way. This is why the number of divisors function above returns an odd value for perfect squares. $\endgroup$ – fruitegg Sep 24 '16 at 0:37
2
+50
$\begingroup$

I have found references to a proof that any odd triperfect is a square.

See here and here. They both reference the following German paper:

H.-J. Kanold, "Über mehrfach vollkommene Zahlen. II," J. Reine Angew. Math., v. 197, 1957, pp. 82-96. MR 18, 873.

I'm in the process of translating and extracting the relevant portion and will edit that in soon.


Update:

From p. 88-89, here's what I have extracted:

Lemma 1. Let $\displaystyle n = \prod_{i=1}^k p_i^{\alpha_i}$ be an $(s-1)$-fold perfect number and also let $sn \equiv 1 \pmod 2$. Then $n > 10^{20}$.

Proof: We start from the relationship

$$sn = s \prod_{i=1}^k p_i^{\alpha_i} = \prod_{i=1}^k \sigma\bigl(p_i^{\alpha_i}\bigr).$$

From this, we see that

$$\alpha_i \equiv 0 \pmod 2 \text{ for } i = 1, \ldots, k$$

must be true.

[Remainder of proof excluded as this is all we need.]

This is what we want since $sn \equiv 1 \pmod 2$ means $n$ is odd (since $sn$ is odd implies both $s$ and $n$ are odd) and $\alpha_i \equiv 0 \pmod 2$ means that $n$ is a perfect square (since each prime power is even).

To explain this a bit more, suppose some $\alpha_j$ is odd and use the following formula (reference):

$$\sigma\bigl(p_j^{\alpha_j}\bigr) = 1 + p_j + p_j^2 + \cdots + p_j^{\alpha_j}.$$

Since $n$ is odd, we know $p_j$ must be odd and hence any power of $p_j$ is also odd. Thus we have an odd number of odd integers plus the remaining $1$. Thus the sum is even, which implies $sn$ is even. This is a contradiction. Therefore, all the $\alpha_i$ must be even and hence $n$ is a perfect square.


Edit: (Clarification of $(s-1)$-fold perfect number notation)

This is the first couple sentences from the paper:

Wir schließen uns in dieser Arbeit der Bezeichnungsweise einer früheren an Danach heißt eine naturliche Zahl $\displaystyle n=\prod_{x=1}^k p_x^{\alpha_x}$ eine $(s-1)$-fach vollkommene Zahl, wenn sie der Bedingung $\sigma(n) = s \cdot n$ genügt. Die $p_x$ bedeuten Primzahlen, $\sigma(n)$ bezeichnet die Summe aller positiven Teiler von $n$.

I have translated this as:

We agree in this work with earlier notation used before by calling a natural number $\displaystyle n=\prod_{x=1}^k p_x^{\alpha_x}$ an $(s-1)$-fold perfect number if satisfies the condition $\sigma(n) = s \cdot n$. The $p_x$ denote primes and $\sigma(n)$ denotes the sum of all positive divisors of $n$.

This means what they refer to as a "$(s-1)$-fold perfect number" is what we would call an "$s$-perfect number". This understanding also agrees with the proof.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting articles for sure! I'm curious to see your extraction from the German manuscript. $\endgroup$ – fruitegg Sep 24 '16 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ @fruitegg I've got it. It was rather simpler than I anticipated. $\endgroup$ – Alexis Olson Sep 24 '16 at 2:39
  • $\begingroup$ How is the relationship in the proof established? The author states $n$ is an $(s-1)$-fold perfect number, which implies $\sigma(n)=\prod_{i=1}^k\sigma(p_i^{a_i})=n(s-1)\neq ns$... $\endgroup$ – fruitegg Sep 24 '16 at 2:51
  • $\begingroup$ They have a rather odd definition. In the opening paragraph of the paper, they define $(s-1)$-fold perfect to mean $\sigma(n) = sn$ rather than what you assumed. $\endgroup$ – Alexis Olson Sep 24 '16 at 3:00
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Does this also generalize to any $s$-fold (or ($s-1$)-fold in Kanold's case) where $s$ is odd? That is, if $s$ is odd then all $Q$ in $\sigma(Q)=sQ$ must be perfect squares? $\endgroup$ – fruitegg Sep 24 '16 at 3:05
2
$\begingroup$

A paper by Chen and Luo (2012) published in the Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society seems to contain most of the details that you need. A preprint is available in arXiv.

In particular, Chen and Luo's theorem on the explicit structure for odd $k$-perfect numbers $n$ (for any $k \geq 2$) imply that $n$ cannot be a square. (At the same time, $n$ cannot also be squarefree. With regard to this latter consideration, there is a related MO question here.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am guessing some information may have been lost in translation. For instance, I am a bit doubtful about that $(s-1)$-fold perfect number. You have to keep in mind that the parity of $s$ and $s-1$ are different. The explicit structure theorem for all odd $k$-perfect numbers (for all $k \geq 2$) by Chen and Luo is in page 4 (Theorem 2.2) of their preprint. (continued...) $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Sep 25 '16 at 1:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (... continued) There, they implicitly state that the exponents of the primes in the factorization of what they call as the Euler part of an odd $k$-perfect number, are all odd. Since the non-Euler part is $M^2$ (a square!), this means that odd multiperfect numbers cannot be squares. $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Sep 25 '16 at 1:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do agree the $(s-1)$-fold definition is suspect. However, having just skimmed over the mentioned theorem, they restrict $k$ under the condition $\nu(k)\geq1$, where $\nu(m)$ is the highest power of 2 dividing $m$. Does this not imply $k$ is even? $\endgroup$ – fruitegg Sep 25 '16 at 1:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes it does. However, I would just like to point out the paragraph on page 3, immediately before Theorem 2.2, which says: "As an application of Theorem 2.1, we will establish the explicit structure theorem of $k$-perfect numbers for any integer $k \geq 2$." $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Sep 25 '16 at 1:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @fruitegg, I would suggest that you contact Chen and Luo directly, as the published version of their paper might contain some difference(s) from the preprint. =) $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Sep 25 '16 at 1:40

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.