Is there a counterexample ( other than $n=1$) for this divisibility relation:

$$\vartheta _{{n}}=\min(\mathcal D(n\cdot\bigl\lfloor \frac{p_n}{n} \bigr\rfloor) \backslash {\{1}\})$$

$${\Biggl\{\frac {\bigl\lfloor \sqrt {n} \bigr\rfloor\gcd(n ,\vartheta _{{n}})}{\gcd(\bigl\lfloor \sqrt {n} \bigr\rfloor ,\vartheta _{{n}})}\Biggr\}}=0\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad(A0)$$


$\mathcal D(n)$ is the set of all divisors of $n$

$p_n$ is the $n^{th}$ prime.

${\{x}\}$ is the fractional part of $x$

The following are additional problems that require explicit proof in order for the first to be considered true:

The substitution of $n$ and $\bigl\lfloor \sqrt {n} \bigr\rfloor$ aside from the minimum divisor term holds:

${\Biggl\{\frac {n \cdot \gcd(\bigl\lfloor \sqrt {n} \bigr\rfloor\ ,\vartheta _{{n}})}{\gcd(n ,\vartheta _{{n}})}\Biggr\}}=0$ $ \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad (A1)$

The factorials as follows are divisible:

${\Biggl\{\frac { \left( n-2 \right) !}{ \left( \bigl\lfloor \sqrt {n} \bigr\rfloor\ \right) !}}\Biggr\}=0 \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad(A2) $

And this was what seems to be why that is so for the general case, but I may terribly embarass myself here again because I don't have the explicit proof:

${\Biggl\{\frac { k !}{ \left( \bigl\lfloor k^{n/m}\bigr\rfloor\ \right) !}}\Biggr\}=0 \land k \geq 1 \Rightarrow n \leq m\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad (A3.1)$

${\Biggl\{\frac { \left( \bigl\lfloor k^{n/m}\bigr\rfloor\ \right) !}{ k !}}\Biggr\}=0 \land k \geq 1 \Rightarrow n \geq m\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad (A3.2)$

  • $\begingroup$ I have tested it up to $n=2000$. $\endgroup$ – Adam Jun 10 '18 at 11:26

For $n>2$, we already have $$ 2\gcd(\lfloor\sqrt n\rfloor, \ldots)\mid \phi(n)\lfloor \sqrt n\rfloor$$ because the gcd of two numbres divides each of these two numbers and because $\phi(n)$ is even.

  • $\begingroup$ Correct yes I should have simplified this further I'm sorry for that, I have too many problems that are very similar to one another, some of which involve only the numerator and denominator of the Euler product, and this follows from those and I hadn't thought of this yet $\endgroup$ – Adam Jun 10 '18 at 11:43
  • $\begingroup$ I added the relevant information so you can see why I had the totient present in the first sir $\endgroup$ – Adam Jun 10 '18 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Adam The added observations are trivial for similar reasons (e.g., the $\mathfrak d(\ldots)$ expression is trivially a divisor of $n$) $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Jun 10 '18 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ True, the two gcd terms not being divisible can only mean that is true for a n $\endgroup$ – Adam Jun 10 '18 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ When you say trivially, what is the difference between a non trivial and trivial divisor? $\endgroup$ – Adam Jun 10 '18 at 12:47

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.