7
$\begingroup$

I need to prove the following, though I'm not 100% certain I understand the definition of a perfect number.

Prove that no perfect number is a power of a prime.

First of all, I'm assuming that the question is asking me to prove that for any prime $p$ and for all natural numbers\positive integers $n$, $p^n$ is not a perfect number. Am I correct in this understanding of the problem?

Based on this, I've come up with the following to prove this theorem...

Let $p$ be a prime number. Assume that $p^n$ is a perfect number for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Therefore, $$p^n=\underbrace{p\cdot p\cdot p\cdots p}_{n\text{ prime numbers}}=\underbrace{1+p+p^2+p^3+\cdots +p^{n-1}}_{\text{sum of all divisors of $p^n$ except itself}}=\frac{p^n-1}{p-1}.$$

As $\frac{p^n-1}{p-1}\leq p^n-1<p^n$ for all $p\geq 2$, this is a contradiction, thus proving that no power of a prime can be a perfect number.

Without elaborating too much, I'm assuming that my proof ends here, because the definition I was given for a perfect number is that it is equal to the sum of all of its divisors except itself. Since the only valid divisors of a number of the form $p^n$ are 1 and all powers of $p$ from $1$ to $n-1$, this is what I come up with. And since $1$ is not a prime number by convention, this seems to hold.

Note: I used the identity $1+x+x^2+x^3+\cdots +x^{n-1}=\frac{x^n-1}{x-1}$ because it was conveniently proven in my textbook.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ All fine. For completeness you should say why that fraction is not $p^n$. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Sep 24 '13 at 0:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Find some integer which is a divisor of one and not the other. $\endgroup$ – Zvi Rosen Sep 24 '13 at 0:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another hint is to observe that $p^{n+1} +1 > 2p^n $. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Lin Sep 24 '13 at 0:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An alternative way of proving that $p^n$ cannot be perfect is to note that the sum of divisors of $p^n$ must necessarily be congruent to 1 mod $p$, while $p^n$ itself is clearly congruent to 0. $\endgroup$ – Dennis Meng Sep 24 '13 at 0:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another quick way through is to note that $\frac{p^n-1}{p-1}\leq p^n-1\lt p^n$, since $p\geq 2$. $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Sep 24 '13 at 0:45
4
$\begingroup$

As André Nicolas your reasoning is good an it's enough to prove the that no perfect number is a prime of power, but you should prove that $p^n \neq \frac{p^n - 1}{p-1}$ to complete the answer, because it's not so obivous and something we take for granted. Here's some help.

Try to prove using contradiction. Assume that:

$p^n = \frac{p^n - 1}{p-1}$

$p-1$ is obviously not 0, so we multiply by it.

$$p^n(p-1) = p^n - 1$$ $$p^{n+1} - p^n - p^n = -1$$ $$p^{n+1} - 2p^n = -1$$ $$p^n(p-2) = -1$$

Because both terms are integers, that means that we have two separate cases:

$$ \left\{\begin{aligned} &p^n = 1\\ &p-2 = -1 \end{aligned} \right.$$

This implies that $p=1$, but because p is a prime, it can't be 1.

$$ \left\{\begin{aligned} &p^n = -1\\ &p-2 = 1 \end{aligned} \right.$$

The second equation implies that $p=3$, but $3^n = -1$ isn't possible in any case. So because we exhausted all the possibilites and we didn't find a solution, that means that our initial assumption is wrong.

Q.E.D.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This is the long way around. Much easier to go $p\geq 2$ so $p-1\geq 1$ and $\frac{p^n-1}{p-1}\leq p^n-1\lt p^n$. $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Sep 24 '13 at 0:42
  • $\begingroup$ I first thought of this and I didn't try thinking about another easier solution. $\endgroup$ – Stefan4024 Sep 24 '13 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ @DennisMeng As an alternate solution, could you show the proof of that? I know what congruence is, but I'm not quite following your reasoning why that is. $\endgroup$ – agent154 Sep 24 '13 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ Sure. The basic idea is that since the sum of the divisors is $1 + p + p^2 + ... + p^n$, it has to leave a remainder of 1 when divided by $p$. $p^n$ on the other hand, leaves a remainder of 0. Since the two leave different remainders, they can't be equal (since if two numbers are equal, they must have the same remainder when divided by $p$). $\endgroup$ – Dennis Meng Sep 24 '13 at 0:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An easy way to finish is to write $p^n(p-1)=p^n-1$. If $n\gt 0$, $p$ divides the left but not the right. We need to deal separately with $n=0$ anyway. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Sep 24 '13 at 1:07
6
$\begingroup$

A quick way to prove that no prime power is perfect is to notice that, if $p$ is a prime, then $p \geq 2$, so that

$$\frac{\sigma(p^k)}{p^k} = \frac{1 + p + \ldots + p^k}{p^k} = \frac{p^{k+1} - 1}{p^k(p - 1)} < \frac{p^{k+1}}{p^k(p - 1)} = \frac{p}{p - 1}.$$

Now, since $p \geq 2$, we get that

$$\frac{1}{p} \leq \frac{1}{2} \Longrightarrow -\frac{1}{p} \geq -\frac{1}{2} \Longrightarrow 1 - \frac{1}{p} \geq 1 - \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}.$$

Consequently, we have:

$$\frac{p - 1}{p} \geq \frac{1}{2} \Longrightarrow \frac{p}{p - 1} \leq 2.$$

We conclude that:

$$\frac{\sigma(p^k)}{p^k} < \frac{p}{p - 1} \leq 2.$$

In fact, this inequality shows that all prime powers are deficient. Hence, no prime power is perfect.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In fact, no power of any natural number can be perfect. This is straightforward to show, although the proof is somewhat more involved than that for prime powers. $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Jul 4 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ See this hyperlink for a reference to the assertion in my last comment. $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Jul 4 at 20:58
1
$\begingroup$

An easier proof involving no inequalities may go as follows:

Let p be a prime number. Assume p^n is a perfect number where n is some natural number.

This means the sum of the factors of p^n can be written as p^n

As the top proof says, the sum of the factors of p^n can be shown as the sum of the powers of p below it all the way down to the power of zero(otherwise known as 1).

Consider the sum of the factors of p^n other than 1. One can see intuitively that it is some quantity of p, but it can also be shown with the converse of the distributive property.

That is, {p^(n-1)+p^(n-2)+...+p^2+p} can also be written as

p(p^(n-2)+p^(n-3)+...+p+1)

With this one can see this sum is divisible by p, for p is one of its factors.

Now consider the 1 we left out. If we include it in the sum, we can now say the sum of the factors of p^n are indivisible by p, for there is now a remainder of 1.

But recall the assumption that the sum of the factors of p^n can be shown to be p^n.

With the same converse as before we can show this to be equal to

p(p^(n-1))

This shows that it is also divisible by p, for it has p as a factor

But this is a contradiction, as it was just shown that the sum of the factors of p^n are not divisible by p, and therefore the original assumption was incorrect. A power of a prime cannot be perfect, exactly as it was meant to be shown.

$\endgroup$

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.