Prove that $4| sigma(4k+3)$ for each positive integer $k$












2














I am struggling with a part of Apostol concerning divisor functions of $sigma_alpha(n)$, when $alpha =1$, this denotes the sum of divisors of $n$



I wish to prove that $4| sigma(4k+3)$ for each positive integer $k$



I started:
Since $alpha$ is multiplicative we have:
$alpha(p_1^{a_1}...p_k^{a_k}) = sigma(p_1^{a_1})... sigma(p_k^{a_k})$



The divisors of a prime power $p^a$ are: $1,p, p^2,...p^a$



This is a geometric series: Hence: $sigma(p^a) = frac{p^{a+1}-1}{p-1}$



But I guess I started the wrong way....
Any help appreciated










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 4




    Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
    – user10354138
    Dec 1 at 12:53
















2














I am struggling with a part of Apostol concerning divisor functions of $sigma_alpha(n)$, when $alpha =1$, this denotes the sum of divisors of $n$



I wish to prove that $4| sigma(4k+3)$ for each positive integer $k$



I started:
Since $alpha$ is multiplicative we have:
$alpha(p_1^{a_1}...p_k^{a_k}) = sigma(p_1^{a_1})... sigma(p_k^{a_k})$



The divisors of a prime power $p^a$ are: $1,p, p^2,...p^a$



This is a geometric series: Hence: $sigma(p^a) = frac{p^{a+1}-1}{p-1}$



But I guess I started the wrong way....
Any help appreciated










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 4




    Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
    – user10354138
    Dec 1 at 12:53














2












2








2


4





I am struggling with a part of Apostol concerning divisor functions of $sigma_alpha(n)$, when $alpha =1$, this denotes the sum of divisors of $n$



I wish to prove that $4| sigma(4k+3)$ for each positive integer $k$



I started:
Since $alpha$ is multiplicative we have:
$alpha(p_1^{a_1}...p_k^{a_k}) = sigma(p_1^{a_1})... sigma(p_k^{a_k})$



The divisors of a prime power $p^a$ are: $1,p, p^2,...p^a$



This is a geometric series: Hence: $sigma(p^a) = frac{p^{a+1}-1}{p-1}$



But I guess I started the wrong way....
Any help appreciated










share|cite|improve this question













I am struggling with a part of Apostol concerning divisor functions of $sigma_alpha(n)$, when $alpha =1$, this denotes the sum of divisors of $n$



I wish to prove that $4| sigma(4k+3)$ for each positive integer $k$



I started:
Since $alpha$ is multiplicative we have:
$alpha(p_1^{a_1}...p_k^{a_k}) = sigma(p_1^{a_1})... sigma(p_k^{a_k})$



The divisors of a prime power $p^a$ are: $1,p, p^2,...p^a$



This is a geometric series: Hence: $sigma(p^a) = frac{p^{a+1}-1}{p-1}$



But I guess I started the wrong way....
Any help appreciated







number-theory elementary-number-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 1 at 12:28









Joe Goldiamond

537216




537216








  • 4




    Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
    – user10354138
    Dec 1 at 12:53














  • 4




    Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
    – user10354138
    Dec 1 at 12:53








4




4




Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
– user10354138
Dec 1 at 12:53




Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
– user10354138
Dec 1 at 12:53










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















2





+50









Suppose $4k+3=p^{alpha}$, where $p$ is a prime. Then $p equiv 3 mod 4$ (otherwise $p^{alpha}equiv 1mod 4$). Thus, $3equiv p^{alpha}equiv 3^{alpha} mod 4 Longrightarrow alpha$ is odd. Thus, $$sigma(p^{alpha})= 1+p+p^2+...+p^{alpha}equiv 1+3+3^2+...+3^{alpha}equiv 1+(-1)+(-1)^2+...+(-1)^{alpha}mod 4$$
Since $alpha$ is odd, the above sum is $0$.



Now if $n=4k+3$ is not a prime power, then it can be written as a product of prime powers. Since $nequiv 3mod 4$, atleast one of the prime powers must be $3mod 4$, and since $sigma$ is multiplicative the result follows.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    2














    This is a repeat of Oscar Lanzi's answer but with more words and an example.



    If $d$ divides $4k+3$ then $dq=4k+3$ but then $d$ has a remainder of $0,1,2,3$ after we divide by $4$ and actually we can rule out $0,2$ because otherwise $4k+3$ would be even. Then if $d$ is congruent to $1 mod 4$ then $q$ must be congruent to $3 mod 4$. This is because $1times 3 =3$ and $dq=3 mod 4$. Note then that $d+q mod 4=0$. Likewise, if $dequiv 1 mod 4implies q equiv 3 mod 4$.



    This is true for every divisor of $4k+3$ so like it says in the comments: We can pair them up!



    Let's take $63$ as an example.



    $63=1 times 63$ and $1+63$ is a multiple of $4$ because $1$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and 63 is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



    $63=3 times 21$ and $3+21$ is a multiple of $4$ because $21$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $3$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



    $63=7 times 9$ and $7+9$ is a multiple of $4$ because $9$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $7$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      1














      Let $4k+3=pq$. Then the only way the product is $equiv 3bmod 4$ is if one factor is $equiv 3$ and then other is $equiv 1$. Add this pair of factors together, repeat to cover all factors.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
        – Joe Goldiamond
        Dec 1 at 13:39










      • It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
        – Erick Wong
        Dec 3 at 19:51



















      1














      You are good so far.



      Notice that $4k+3$ is odd number, so none of $p_i$s will be $2$.



      Also, if all of $p_i^{a_i}$ satisfies $p_i^{a_i} equiv 1pmod 4$, then their product will be also $1$ modulo $4$. Therefore, there exists $i$ satisfying $p_i^{a_i} equiv 3pmod 4$. Let's say $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$.



      If $p_k equiv 1pmod 4$, then $p_k^n equiv 1pmod 4$ for all positive integer $n$. Therefore $p_k equiv 3pmod 4$.



      Since $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$, $a_k$ must be odd number. In other words, $p_k^{a_k+1}$ is square of odd number. Therefore $p_k^{a_k+1} equiv 1pmod 8$.



      Now, $p_k-1 equiv 2pmod 4$ and $p_k^{a_k+1}-1 equiv 0pmod 8$. It follows that $sigma(p^k) = frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1}$ is multiple of $4$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        1














        This may be (definitely is) overkill and not what you're looking for, but we can actually prove a more general and much more interesting theorem:




        If $ninmathbb N$ cannot be expressed as a sum of two squares (that is, if the diophantine equation $a^2+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions), then $4|sigma(n).$




        The proof contains a bit of machinery with which you are not familiar; if so, this answer will serve mainly to amuse other observers of this question.



        Proof: Define the function $f:mathbb Nmapsto {0,1}$ as evaluating to $1$ if its argument is a sum of two squares and evaluating to $0$ if its argument cannot be written as a sum of two squares. It is a well-known fact in number theory that this function is multiplicative (though I will not provide proof of this unless it is specifically requested, as it requires a lengthy dive into the Gaussian Integers). Thus, if $n$ cannot be written as a sum of squares, then $f(n)=0$. If we expand $n$ into its prime factorization
        $$n=p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k}$$
        we may see that
        $$f(n)=f(p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k})=f(p_1^{m_1})...f(p_k^{m_k})=0$$
        from which it follows that $f(p^m)=0$ for some $p^m$ in the prime factorization of $n$. Then, we clearly have that $m$ is odd, since if this were not the case, $p^m=(p^{m/2})^2+0^2$ could be written as a sum of two squares. Using another theorem from number theory, which states that any prime congruent to $1$ modulo $4$ is a sum of two squares, we have that $pequiv 3pmod 4$. Thus,
        $$begin{align}sigma(p^m)
        &=p^m+p^{m-1}+...+p+1\
        &equiv 3+1+...+3+1\
        &equiv 4+...+4\
        &equiv 0bmod 4
        end{align}$$

        and so $4|sigma(p^m)$. From the multiplicativity of $sigma$, it follows that $4|sigma(n)$. $blacksquare$



        Your exercise is a direct corollary of this much more difficult theorem; it is easy to see that any number in the form $4k+3$ is not a sum of two squares, so we have that $4|sigma(4k+3)$.



        There exists an interesting analogue of this theorem regarding divisibility by $3$ rather than by $4$, but I will not prove it here:




        If $ninmathbb N$ is such that the diophantine equation $a^2+ab+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions, then $3|sigma(n)$.




        This tantalizing result requires the use of the Eisenstein Integers $mathbb Z[e^{2pi i/3}]$ rather than the Gaussian Integers.






        share|cite|improve this answer





















          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021276%2fprove-that-4-sigma4k3-for-each-positive-integer-k%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2





          +50









          Suppose $4k+3=p^{alpha}$, where $p$ is a prime. Then $p equiv 3 mod 4$ (otherwise $p^{alpha}equiv 1mod 4$). Thus, $3equiv p^{alpha}equiv 3^{alpha} mod 4 Longrightarrow alpha$ is odd. Thus, $$sigma(p^{alpha})= 1+p+p^2+...+p^{alpha}equiv 1+3+3^2+...+3^{alpha}equiv 1+(-1)+(-1)^2+...+(-1)^{alpha}mod 4$$
          Since $alpha$ is odd, the above sum is $0$.



          Now if $n=4k+3$ is not a prime power, then it can be written as a product of prime powers. Since $nequiv 3mod 4$, atleast one of the prime powers must be $3mod 4$, and since $sigma$ is multiplicative the result follows.






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            2





            +50









            Suppose $4k+3=p^{alpha}$, where $p$ is a prime. Then $p equiv 3 mod 4$ (otherwise $p^{alpha}equiv 1mod 4$). Thus, $3equiv p^{alpha}equiv 3^{alpha} mod 4 Longrightarrow alpha$ is odd. Thus, $$sigma(p^{alpha})= 1+p+p^2+...+p^{alpha}equiv 1+3+3^2+...+3^{alpha}equiv 1+(-1)+(-1)^2+...+(-1)^{alpha}mod 4$$
            Since $alpha$ is odd, the above sum is $0$.



            Now if $n=4k+3$ is not a prime power, then it can be written as a product of prime powers. Since $nequiv 3mod 4$, atleast one of the prime powers must be $3mod 4$, and since $sigma$ is multiplicative the result follows.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              2





              +50







              2





              +50



              2




              +50




              Suppose $4k+3=p^{alpha}$, where $p$ is a prime. Then $p equiv 3 mod 4$ (otherwise $p^{alpha}equiv 1mod 4$). Thus, $3equiv p^{alpha}equiv 3^{alpha} mod 4 Longrightarrow alpha$ is odd. Thus, $$sigma(p^{alpha})= 1+p+p^2+...+p^{alpha}equiv 1+3+3^2+...+3^{alpha}equiv 1+(-1)+(-1)^2+...+(-1)^{alpha}mod 4$$
              Since $alpha$ is odd, the above sum is $0$.



              Now if $n=4k+3$ is not a prime power, then it can be written as a product of prime powers. Since $nequiv 3mod 4$, atleast one of the prime powers must be $3mod 4$, and since $sigma$ is multiplicative the result follows.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              Suppose $4k+3=p^{alpha}$, where $p$ is a prime. Then $p equiv 3 mod 4$ (otherwise $p^{alpha}equiv 1mod 4$). Thus, $3equiv p^{alpha}equiv 3^{alpha} mod 4 Longrightarrow alpha$ is odd. Thus, $$sigma(p^{alpha})= 1+p+p^2+...+p^{alpha}equiv 1+3+3^2+...+3^{alpha}equiv 1+(-1)+(-1)^2+...+(-1)^{alpha}mod 4$$
              Since $alpha$ is odd, the above sum is $0$.



              Now if $n=4k+3$ is not a prime power, then it can be written as a product of prime powers. Since $nequiv 3mod 4$, atleast one of the prime powers must be $3mod 4$, and since $sigma$ is multiplicative the result follows.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Dec 3 at 15:58









              Prathyush Poduval

              2,251922




              2,251922























                  2














                  This is a repeat of Oscar Lanzi's answer but with more words and an example.



                  If $d$ divides $4k+3$ then $dq=4k+3$ but then $d$ has a remainder of $0,1,2,3$ after we divide by $4$ and actually we can rule out $0,2$ because otherwise $4k+3$ would be even. Then if $d$ is congruent to $1 mod 4$ then $q$ must be congruent to $3 mod 4$. This is because $1times 3 =3$ and $dq=3 mod 4$. Note then that $d+q mod 4=0$. Likewise, if $dequiv 1 mod 4implies q equiv 3 mod 4$.



                  This is true for every divisor of $4k+3$ so like it says in the comments: We can pair them up!



                  Let's take $63$ as an example.



                  $63=1 times 63$ and $1+63$ is a multiple of $4$ because $1$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and 63 is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                  $63=3 times 21$ and $3+21$ is a multiple of $4$ because $21$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $3$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                  $63=7 times 9$ and $7+9$ is a multiple of $4$ because $9$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $7$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                    2














                    This is a repeat of Oscar Lanzi's answer but with more words and an example.



                    If $d$ divides $4k+3$ then $dq=4k+3$ but then $d$ has a remainder of $0,1,2,3$ after we divide by $4$ and actually we can rule out $0,2$ because otherwise $4k+3$ would be even. Then if $d$ is congruent to $1 mod 4$ then $q$ must be congruent to $3 mod 4$. This is because $1times 3 =3$ and $dq=3 mod 4$. Note then that $d+q mod 4=0$. Likewise, if $dequiv 1 mod 4implies q equiv 3 mod 4$.



                    This is true for every divisor of $4k+3$ so like it says in the comments: We can pair them up!



                    Let's take $63$ as an example.



                    $63=1 times 63$ and $1+63$ is a multiple of $4$ because $1$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and 63 is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                    $63=3 times 21$ and $3+21$ is a multiple of $4$ because $21$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $3$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                    $63=7 times 9$ and $7+9$ is a multiple of $4$ because $9$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $7$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                      2












                      2








                      2






                      This is a repeat of Oscar Lanzi's answer but with more words and an example.



                      If $d$ divides $4k+3$ then $dq=4k+3$ but then $d$ has a remainder of $0,1,2,3$ after we divide by $4$ and actually we can rule out $0,2$ because otherwise $4k+3$ would be even. Then if $d$ is congruent to $1 mod 4$ then $q$ must be congruent to $3 mod 4$. This is because $1times 3 =3$ and $dq=3 mod 4$. Note then that $d+q mod 4=0$. Likewise, if $dequiv 1 mod 4implies q equiv 3 mod 4$.



                      This is true for every divisor of $4k+3$ so like it says in the comments: We can pair them up!



                      Let's take $63$ as an example.



                      $63=1 times 63$ and $1+63$ is a multiple of $4$ because $1$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and 63 is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                      $63=3 times 21$ and $3+21$ is a multiple of $4$ because $21$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $3$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                      $63=7 times 9$ and $7+9$ is a multiple of $4$ because $9$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $7$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      This is a repeat of Oscar Lanzi's answer but with more words and an example.



                      If $d$ divides $4k+3$ then $dq=4k+3$ but then $d$ has a remainder of $0,1,2,3$ after we divide by $4$ and actually we can rule out $0,2$ because otherwise $4k+3$ would be even. Then if $d$ is congruent to $1 mod 4$ then $q$ must be congruent to $3 mod 4$. This is because $1times 3 =3$ and $dq=3 mod 4$. Note then that $d+q mod 4=0$. Likewise, if $dequiv 1 mod 4implies q equiv 3 mod 4$.



                      This is true for every divisor of $4k+3$ so like it says in the comments: We can pair them up!



                      Let's take $63$ as an example.



                      $63=1 times 63$ and $1+63$ is a multiple of $4$ because $1$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and 63 is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                      $63=3 times 21$ and $3+21$ is a multiple of $4$ because $21$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $3$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.



                      $63=7 times 9$ and $7+9$ is a multiple of $4$ because $9$ is one more than a multiple of $4$ and $7$ is $3$ more than a multiple of $4$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Dec 3 at 16:57









                      Mason

                      1,9261530




                      1,9261530























                          1














                          Let $4k+3=pq$. Then the only way the product is $equiv 3bmod 4$ is if one factor is $equiv 3$ and then other is $equiv 1$. Add this pair of factors together, repeat to cover all factors.






                          share|cite|improve this answer





















                          • Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
                            – Joe Goldiamond
                            Dec 1 at 13:39










                          • It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
                            – Erick Wong
                            Dec 3 at 19:51
















                          1














                          Let $4k+3=pq$. Then the only way the product is $equiv 3bmod 4$ is if one factor is $equiv 3$ and then other is $equiv 1$. Add this pair of factors together, repeat to cover all factors.






                          share|cite|improve this answer





















                          • Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
                            – Joe Goldiamond
                            Dec 1 at 13:39










                          • It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
                            – Erick Wong
                            Dec 3 at 19:51














                          1












                          1








                          1






                          Let $4k+3=pq$. Then the only way the product is $equiv 3bmod 4$ is if one factor is $equiv 3$ and then other is $equiv 1$. Add this pair of factors together, repeat to cover all factors.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          Let $4k+3=pq$. Then the only way the product is $equiv 3bmod 4$ is if one factor is $equiv 3$ and then other is $equiv 1$. Add this pair of factors together, repeat to cover all factors.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 1 at 12:53









                          Oscar Lanzi

                          12k12036




                          12k12036












                          • Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
                            – Joe Goldiamond
                            Dec 1 at 13:39










                          • It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
                            – Erick Wong
                            Dec 3 at 19:51


















                          • Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
                            – Joe Goldiamond
                            Dec 1 at 13:39










                          • It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
                            – Erick Wong
                            Dec 3 at 19:51
















                          Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
                          – Joe Goldiamond
                          Dec 1 at 13:39




                          Thanks for the hint, but I am not getting there..
                          – Joe Goldiamond
                          Dec 1 at 13:39












                          It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
                          – Erick Wong
                          Dec 3 at 19:51




                          It might be a little better to avoid using $p,q$ to denote divisors that are not necessarily prime :).
                          – Erick Wong
                          Dec 3 at 19:51











                          1














                          You are good so far.



                          Notice that $4k+3$ is odd number, so none of $p_i$s will be $2$.



                          Also, if all of $p_i^{a_i}$ satisfies $p_i^{a_i} equiv 1pmod 4$, then their product will be also $1$ modulo $4$. Therefore, there exists $i$ satisfying $p_i^{a_i} equiv 3pmod 4$. Let's say $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$.



                          If $p_k equiv 1pmod 4$, then $p_k^n equiv 1pmod 4$ for all positive integer $n$. Therefore $p_k equiv 3pmod 4$.



                          Since $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$, $a_k$ must be odd number. In other words, $p_k^{a_k+1}$ is square of odd number. Therefore $p_k^{a_k+1} equiv 1pmod 8$.



                          Now, $p_k-1 equiv 2pmod 4$ and $p_k^{a_k+1}-1 equiv 0pmod 8$. It follows that $sigma(p^k) = frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1}$ is multiple of $4$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            1














                            You are good so far.



                            Notice that $4k+3$ is odd number, so none of $p_i$s will be $2$.



                            Also, if all of $p_i^{a_i}$ satisfies $p_i^{a_i} equiv 1pmod 4$, then their product will be also $1$ modulo $4$. Therefore, there exists $i$ satisfying $p_i^{a_i} equiv 3pmod 4$. Let's say $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$.



                            If $p_k equiv 1pmod 4$, then $p_k^n equiv 1pmod 4$ for all positive integer $n$. Therefore $p_k equiv 3pmod 4$.



                            Since $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$, $a_k$ must be odd number. In other words, $p_k^{a_k+1}$ is square of odd number. Therefore $p_k^{a_k+1} equiv 1pmod 8$.



                            Now, $p_k-1 equiv 2pmod 4$ and $p_k^{a_k+1}-1 equiv 0pmod 8$. It follows that $sigma(p^k) = frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1}$ is multiple of $4$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer
























                              1












                              1








                              1






                              You are good so far.



                              Notice that $4k+3$ is odd number, so none of $p_i$s will be $2$.



                              Also, if all of $p_i^{a_i}$ satisfies $p_i^{a_i} equiv 1pmod 4$, then their product will be also $1$ modulo $4$. Therefore, there exists $i$ satisfying $p_i^{a_i} equiv 3pmod 4$. Let's say $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$.



                              If $p_k equiv 1pmod 4$, then $p_k^n equiv 1pmod 4$ for all positive integer $n$. Therefore $p_k equiv 3pmod 4$.



                              Since $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$, $a_k$ must be odd number. In other words, $p_k^{a_k+1}$ is square of odd number. Therefore $p_k^{a_k+1} equiv 1pmod 8$.



                              Now, $p_k-1 equiv 2pmod 4$ and $p_k^{a_k+1}-1 equiv 0pmod 8$. It follows that $sigma(p^k) = frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1}$ is multiple of $4$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              You are good so far.



                              Notice that $4k+3$ is odd number, so none of $p_i$s will be $2$.



                              Also, if all of $p_i^{a_i}$ satisfies $p_i^{a_i} equiv 1pmod 4$, then their product will be also $1$ modulo $4$. Therefore, there exists $i$ satisfying $p_i^{a_i} equiv 3pmod 4$. Let's say $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$.



                              If $p_k equiv 1pmod 4$, then $p_k^n equiv 1pmod 4$ for all positive integer $n$. Therefore $p_k equiv 3pmod 4$.



                              Since $p_k^{a_k} equiv 3pmod 4$, $a_k$ must be odd number. In other words, $p_k^{a_k+1}$ is square of odd number. Therefore $p_k^{a_k+1} equiv 1pmod 8$.



                              Now, $p_k-1 equiv 2pmod 4$ and $p_k^{a_k+1}-1 equiv 0pmod 8$. It follows that $sigma(p^k) = frac{p^{k+1}-1}{p-1}$ is multiple of $4$.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered Dec 4 at 15:38









                              didgogns

                              3,092522




                              3,092522























                                  1














                                  This may be (definitely is) overkill and not what you're looking for, but we can actually prove a more general and much more interesting theorem:




                                  If $ninmathbb N$ cannot be expressed as a sum of two squares (that is, if the diophantine equation $a^2+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions), then $4|sigma(n).$




                                  The proof contains a bit of machinery with which you are not familiar; if so, this answer will serve mainly to amuse other observers of this question.



                                  Proof: Define the function $f:mathbb Nmapsto {0,1}$ as evaluating to $1$ if its argument is a sum of two squares and evaluating to $0$ if its argument cannot be written as a sum of two squares. It is a well-known fact in number theory that this function is multiplicative (though I will not provide proof of this unless it is specifically requested, as it requires a lengthy dive into the Gaussian Integers). Thus, if $n$ cannot be written as a sum of squares, then $f(n)=0$. If we expand $n$ into its prime factorization
                                  $$n=p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k}$$
                                  we may see that
                                  $$f(n)=f(p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k})=f(p_1^{m_1})...f(p_k^{m_k})=0$$
                                  from which it follows that $f(p^m)=0$ for some $p^m$ in the prime factorization of $n$. Then, we clearly have that $m$ is odd, since if this were not the case, $p^m=(p^{m/2})^2+0^2$ could be written as a sum of two squares. Using another theorem from number theory, which states that any prime congruent to $1$ modulo $4$ is a sum of two squares, we have that $pequiv 3pmod 4$. Thus,
                                  $$begin{align}sigma(p^m)
                                  &=p^m+p^{m-1}+...+p+1\
                                  &equiv 3+1+...+3+1\
                                  &equiv 4+...+4\
                                  &equiv 0bmod 4
                                  end{align}$$

                                  and so $4|sigma(p^m)$. From the multiplicativity of $sigma$, it follows that $4|sigma(n)$. $blacksquare$



                                  Your exercise is a direct corollary of this much more difficult theorem; it is easy to see that any number in the form $4k+3$ is not a sum of two squares, so we have that $4|sigma(4k+3)$.



                                  There exists an interesting analogue of this theorem regarding divisibility by $3$ rather than by $4$, but I will not prove it here:




                                  If $ninmathbb N$ is such that the diophantine equation $a^2+ab+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions, then $3|sigma(n)$.




                                  This tantalizing result requires the use of the Eisenstein Integers $mathbb Z[e^{2pi i/3}]$ rather than the Gaussian Integers.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer


























                                    1














                                    This may be (definitely is) overkill and not what you're looking for, but we can actually prove a more general and much more interesting theorem:




                                    If $ninmathbb N$ cannot be expressed as a sum of two squares (that is, if the diophantine equation $a^2+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions), then $4|sigma(n).$




                                    The proof contains a bit of machinery with which you are not familiar; if so, this answer will serve mainly to amuse other observers of this question.



                                    Proof: Define the function $f:mathbb Nmapsto {0,1}$ as evaluating to $1$ if its argument is a sum of two squares and evaluating to $0$ if its argument cannot be written as a sum of two squares. It is a well-known fact in number theory that this function is multiplicative (though I will not provide proof of this unless it is specifically requested, as it requires a lengthy dive into the Gaussian Integers). Thus, if $n$ cannot be written as a sum of squares, then $f(n)=0$. If we expand $n$ into its prime factorization
                                    $$n=p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k}$$
                                    we may see that
                                    $$f(n)=f(p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k})=f(p_1^{m_1})...f(p_k^{m_k})=0$$
                                    from which it follows that $f(p^m)=0$ for some $p^m$ in the prime factorization of $n$. Then, we clearly have that $m$ is odd, since if this were not the case, $p^m=(p^{m/2})^2+0^2$ could be written as a sum of two squares. Using another theorem from number theory, which states that any prime congruent to $1$ modulo $4$ is a sum of two squares, we have that $pequiv 3pmod 4$. Thus,
                                    $$begin{align}sigma(p^m)
                                    &=p^m+p^{m-1}+...+p+1\
                                    &equiv 3+1+...+3+1\
                                    &equiv 4+...+4\
                                    &equiv 0bmod 4
                                    end{align}$$

                                    and so $4|sigma(p^m)$. From the multiplicativity of $sigma$, it follows that $4|sigma(n)$. $blacksquare$



                                    Your exercise is a direct corollary of this much more difficult theorem; it is easy to see that any number in the form $4k+3$ is not a sum of two squares, so we have that $4|sigma(4k+3)$.



                                    There exists an interesting analogue of this theorem regarding divisibility by $3$ rather than by $4$, but I will not prove it here:




                                    If $ninmathbb N$ is such that the diophantine equation $a^2+ab+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions, then $3|sigma(n)$.




                                    This tantalizing result requires the use of the Eisenstein Integers $mathbb Z[e^{2pi i/3}]$ rather than the Gaussian Integers.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                                      1












                                      1








                                      1






                                      This may be (definitely is) overkill and not what you're looking for, but we can actually prove a more general and much more interesting theorem:




                                      If $ninmathbb N$ cannot be expressed as a sum of two squares (that is, if the diophantine equation $a^2+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions), then $4|sigma(n).$




                                      The proof contains a bit of machinery with which you are not familiar; if so, this answer will serve mainly to amuse other observers of this question.



                                      Proof: Define the function $f:mathbb Nmapsto {0,1}$ as evaluating to $1$ if its argument is a sum of two squares and evaluating to $0$ if its argument cannot be written as a sum of two squares. It is a well-known fact in number theory that this function is multiplicative (though I will not provide proof of this unless it is specifically requested, as it requires a lengthy dive into the Gaussian Integers). Thus, if $n$ cannot be written as a sum of squares, then $f(n)=0$. If we expand $n$ into its prime factorization
                                      $$n=p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k}$$
                                      we may see that
                                      $$f(n)=f(p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k})=f(p_1^{m_1})...f(p_k^{m_k})=0$$
                                      from which it follows that $f(p^m)=0$ for some $p^m$ in the prime factorization of $n$. Then, we clearly have that $m$ is odd, since if this were not the case, $p^m=(p^{m/2})^2+0^2$ could be written as a sum of two squares. Using another theorem from number theory, which states that any prime congruent to $1$ modulo $4$ is a sum of two squares, we have that $pequiv 3pmod 4$. Thus,
                                      $$begin{align}sigma(p^m)
                                      &=p^m+p^{m-1}+...+p+1\
                                      &equiv 3+1+...+3+1\
                                      &equiv 4+...+4\
                                      &equiv 0bmod 4
                                      end{align}$$

                                      and so $4|sigma(p^m)$. From the multiplicativity of $sigma$, it follows that $4|sigma(n)$. $blacksquare$



                                      Your exercise is a direct corollary of this much more difficult theorem; it is easy to see that any number in the form $4k+3$ is not a sum of two squares, so we have that $4|sigma(4k+3)$.



                                      There exists an interesting analogue of this theorem regarding divisibility by $3$ rather than by $4$, but I will not prove it here:




                                      If $ninmathbb N$ is such that the diophantine equation $a^2+ab+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions, then $3|sigma(n)$.




                                      This tantalizing result requires the use of the Eisenstein Integers $mathbb Z[e^{2pi i/3}]$ rather than the Gaussian Integers.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      This may be (definitely is) overkill and not what you're looking for, but we can actually prove a more general and much more interesting theorem:




                                      If $ninmathbb N$ cannot be expressed as a sum of two squares (that is, if the diophantine equation $a^2+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions), then $4|sigma(n).$




                                      The proof contains a bit of machinery with which you are not familiar; if so, this answer will serve mainly to amuse other observers of this question.



                                      Proof: Define the function $f:mathbb Nmapsto {0,1}$ as evaluating to $1$ if its argument is a sum of two squares and evaluating to $0$ if its argument cannot be written as a sum of two squares. It is a well-known fact in number theory that this function is multiplicative (though I will not provide proof of this unless it is specifically requested, as it requires a lengthy dive into the Gaussian Integers). Thus, if $n$ cannot be written as a sum of squares, then $f(n)=0$. If we expand $n$ into its prime factorization
                                      $$n=p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k}$$
                                      we may see that
                                      $$f(n)=f(p_1^{m_1}...p_k^{m_k})=f(p_1^{m_1})...f(p_k^{m_k})=0$$
                                      from which it follows that $f(p^m)=0$ for some $p^m$ in the prime factorization of $n$. Then, we clearly have that $m$ is odd, since if this were not the case, $p^m=(p^{m/2})^2+0^2$ could be written as a sum of two squares. Using another theorem from number theory, which states that any prime congruent to $1$ modulo $4$ is a sum of two squares, we have that $pequiv 3pmod 4$. Thus,
                                      $$begin{align}sigma(p^m)
                                      &=p^m+p^{m-1}+...+p+1\
                                      &equiv 3+1+...+3+1\
                                      &equiv 4+...+4\
                                      &equiv 0bmod 4
                                      end{align}$$

                                      and so $4|sigma(p^m)$. From the multiplicativity of $sigma$, it follows that $4|sigma(n)$. $blacksquare$



                                      Your exercise is a direct corollary of this much more difficult theorem; it is easy to see that any number in the form $4k+3$ is not a sum of two squares, so we have that $4|sigma(4k+3)$.



                                      There exists an interesting analogue of this theorem regarding divisibility by $3$ rather than by $4$, but I will not prove it here:




                                      If $ninmathbb N$ is such that the diophantine equation $a^2+ab+b^2=n$ has no integer solutions, then $3|sigma(n)$.




                                      This tantalizing result requires the use of the Eisenstein Integers $mathbb Z[e^{2pi i/3}]$ rather than the Gaussian Integers.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Dec 4 at 21:46









                                      Frpzzd

                                      21.8k839107




                                      21.8k839107






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021276%2fprove-that-4-sigma4k3-for-each-positive-integer-k%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Berounka

                                          Sphinx de Gizeh

                                          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...