2
$\begingroup$

Let $\sigma(n)$ be the divisor sum of $n$: $$ \sigma(n) = \sum_{d|n} d. $$ I was interested in the parity of $\sigma(n)$ and tried to check whether $\sigma(n)$ is unexpected often even for odd $n$ and vice versa. No result.

Thus I conjectured that $$ \lim_{x\longrightarrow\infty} \dfrac{|\{1:n\leq x,~ Parity(n) \not = Parity(\sigma(n)) \}|}{|\{1:n\leq x, ~Parity(n) = Parity(\sigma(n)) \}|} = 1.$$

I checked this fraction for $x$ up to $100000$ and the conjecture seems to be true. Here are some values:

x        Fraction
---      ---
10,000   1.02799
50,000   1.01264
100,000  1.00898

However I am not able to prove it. Can you prove that $\sigma(n)$ does not prefer any parity?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would look at the formula for the sigma function (as referred by @FabianSchn ). It shouldn't be too hard from there. $\endgroup$ – marlasca23 Sep 21 '17 at 22:01
  • $\begingroup$ @marlasca23 Thanks, can you please elaborate how you would proceed? Of course I dont know any reason why $\sigma(n)$ should prefer some parity but how to prove it...? $\endgroup$ – Fabian Schn. Sep 21 '17 at 22:09
4
$\begingroup$

$\sigma(n)$ is a multiplicative function such that $$ \sigma(p^k) = 1+p+\ldots+p^k = \frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1} $$ for any prime $p$ and any $k\geq 1$. If $p=2$ we have that $\sigma(p^k)$ is certainly odd, while if $p>2$ the parity of $\sigma(p^k)$ only depends on the parity of $k$. In particular $\sigma(n)$ is odd iff $n$ is a number of the form $2^k(2m+1)^2$. The set of these numbers has asymptotic density zero (since in the interval $[1,M]$ there are less than $3\sqrt{M}$ numbers of this kind), hence the parity of $n$ and the parity of $\sigma(n)$ are essentially unrelated (loosely speaking, $\sigma(n)$ is almost surely even), as stated by your claim.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, great answer. $\endgroup$ – Fabian Schn. Sep 21 '17 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @FabianSchn. Now $f(n) = (-1)^{1+\sum_{p^k \| n} \sigma(p^k)}$ is more interesting. It is multiplicative and equally distributed. $\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n) n^{-s} = \frac{(1-2^{1-s})(1+2^{-s})}{1-2^{-s}}\frac{\zeta(2s)}{\zeta(s)}$ which is analytic for $\Re(s) \ge 1$ so that (with the same method as for the prime number theorem) $\sum_{n \le x} f(n) = o(x)$. The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to $\sum_{n \le x} f(n) = O(\sqrt{x}\log^2 x)$ $\endgroup$ – reuns Sep 22 '17 at 7:31

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.