I decided to prove both of these statements as an exercise and so that I may better understand Euler's proof.
The first of two statements is the following:
"Euler's proof is short and depends on the fact that the sum of divisors function $\sigma$ is multiplicative; that is, if $a$ and $b$ are any two relatively prime integers, then $\sigma(ab) = \sigma(a)\sigma(b)$."The sum of divisors function $\sigma$ sums all factors of its input. For example,
$\sigma(6) = 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 = 12$
The numbers summing to $12$ are all the positive integers that divide $6$.
Let $a$ and $b$ be two co-prime integers. Then we have:
$\sigma(a) = 1 + a_1 + a_2 + ... + a_n$
$\sigma(b) = 1 + b_1 + b_2 + ... + b_n$
Where $a_i$ and $b_i$ represents the factors besides $1$ (for prime numbers, there will be no other factors). Now I will define two new variables:
$A = \sigma(a) - 1$
$B = \sigma(b) - 1$
$A$ represents all of the factors of $a$ that are not factors of $b$ and vice versa. Since $a$ and $b$ are co-prime, we only need to subtract one from each since that's the only factor they share.
Now consider the product $ab$. What will its factors be? Well, it will inherit all the factors of $a$ and all the factors of $b$ since anything that can divide $a$ can also divide $ab$. Also $ab$ will be divisible by the product $a_i b_i$ which is any factor from $a$ times any factor from $b$.
Thanks to the distributive rules of multiplication, we can express the sum of all factors of $ab$ that can be expressed as $a_i b_i$ by the product:
$AB = (a_1 + a_2 + ... + a_n)(b_1 + b_2 + ... + b_n)$
$= a_1 b_1 + a_1 b_2 + ... + a_1 b_n\\
+ a_2 b_1 + a_2 b_2 + ... + a_2 b_n\\
+ ...\\
+ a_n b_1 + a_n b_2 + ... + a_n b_n$
This will result in every product between the factors of $a$ and $b$ except $1$, then we sum them together.
And now we have all the information we need! Consider:
$\sigma(ab) = 1 + A + B + AB$
This must be true, since we account for all factors of $ab$ and we sum them together, following the definition of the $\sigma$ function. And expressing it in this form makes it obvious that:
$\sigma(a)\sigma(b) = (1 + A)(1 + B) = 1 + A + B + AB = \sigma(ab)$
And so the $\sigma$ function is multiplicative.
The second statement that the Wikipedia article mentions is the following:
"The sum of divisors for $2^{p − 1}$ is $2^{p} − 1$, e.g. for $p=5$ we get $16$ $(2^{5 − 1})$ and the sum of its divisors is $31$ $(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 = 31 = 2^{p} − 1)$."In the article, $p$ is any prime number, however for this particular statement it's not necessary that $p$ be prime, as you will see.
Consider the number $2^{p}$. Conveniently, this number is already in the form of its prime-factorization since $2$ is a prime number. We can easily convert a prime factorization of a number into its normal factorization by multiplying together every combination of its prime factors.
In this case we get:
$2^{0}, 2^{1}, 2^{2}, ... , 2^{p} = 1, 2, 4, ... , 2^{p}$
Now let's take the sum of all the factors:
$\sigma(2^{p}) = 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^{p}$
Notice that:
$\sigma(2^{0}) = 2^{1} - 1$
So then we know for at least one value of $k$ it's true that:
$\sigma(2^{k-1}) = 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^{k-1} = 2^{k} - 1$
Then with that assumption we can prove that it's true for $k + 1$
$\sigma(2^{k}) = 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^{k-1} + 2^{k}$
$= (2^{k} - 1) + 2^{k}$
$= 2(2^{k}) - 1$
$= 2^{k+1} - 1$
Then it's true for all integers $p \geq 0$ that $\sigma(2^{p-1}) = 2^{p} - 1$
how do you extend it for more than 2 prime factors of a number
ReplyDeletethis proof feels insufficient. why must the set of all factors of ab that can be expressed as aibi include all factors of ab, and why can that set not include any?
ReplyDelete