Prove that $4| sigma(4k+3)$ for each positive integer $k$
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
add a comment |
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
4
Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
– user10354138
Dec 1 at 12:53
add a comment |
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
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
number-theory elementary-number-theory
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
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.
add a comment |
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 $4$.
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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 $4$.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Dec 3 at 15:58
Prathyush Poduval
2,251922
2,251922
add a comment |
add a comment |
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 $4$.
add a comment |
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 $4$.
add a comment |
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 $4$.
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 $4$.
answered Dec 3 at 16:57
Mason
1,9261530
1,9261530
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 $4$.
add a comment |
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 $4$.
add a comment |
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 $4$.
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 $4$.
answered Dec 4 at 15:38
didgogns
3,092522
3,092522
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Dec 4 at 21:46
Frpzzd
21.8k839107
21.8k839107
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
4
Hint: every divisor is either 1 or 3 mod 4, and you can pair them up...
– user10354138
Dec 1 at 12:53