Prove that ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ##

  • Thread starter Math100
  • Start date
In summary: And while we are at it: I think you mean ##\forall## when you write ##\forall##. I am not sure if you are supposed to explain why ##p_1=3## is the right choice. I guess it is clear to you that the product of the ##p_i^{k_i}## is not divisible by ##4## so that at least one of the factors is not divisible by ##4##. This is what I used to set ##p_1## to a factor that is not divisible by ##4. If it were divisible by ##4## then the product would be divisible by ##4##. But maybe this is too much reading between the lines. I hope you are fine with
  • #1
Math100
797
221
Homework Statement
Prove that ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ## for each positive integer ## k ##.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Suppose ## a=4k+3 ## for some ## k\in\mathbb{Z^{+}} ##.
Then ## a=p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{r}^{k_{r}}\implies 4k+3=p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{r}^{k_{r}} ##.
Observe that ## \sigma_{1}(4k+3)=\sigma (p_{1}^{k_{1}})\sigma (p_{2}^{k_{2}})\dotsb \sigma (p_{r}^{k_{r}} ##.
Thus
\begin{align*}
&\sigma_{1} (p_{i}^{k_{i}})=1+p_{i}+p_{i}^2+\dotsb +p_{i}^{k_{i}}\\
&\equiv (1+3+3^{2}+\dotsb +3^{k_{i}})\pmod {4}\\
&\equiv (1-1+1-1+\dotsb +1-1)\pmod {4}\\
&\equiv 0\pmod {4}.\\
\end{align*}
Therefore, ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ## for each positive integer ## k ##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think this is correct.

We have
$$
\sigma_1(a)=\sigma_1(4k+3)=\sigma_1\left(\prod_{i=1}^r p_i^{k_i}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^r\dfrac{p_i^{k_i+1}-1}{p_i-1} =\prod_{i=1}^r \left(p_i^{k_i}+\ldots+p_i+1\right)
$$

If ##[a]_4## notes the equivalence class of an integer ##a \pmod{4}## then how do we know that ##\sigma_1([a]_4)=[\sigma_1(a)]_4.## It seems as if you would use this. It is wrong. E.g. ##0=\sigma_1([8]_4)\neq [\sigma_1(8)]_4=1+2+4+8=3.## I am not sure if you use it since the intermediate steps are missing.

Another point is: How do you know that the number of ##-1##s and the number of ##+1##s are equal? What if ##k_i## is even?
 
  • #3
I think I know what you tried to do.

From ##a=4k+3=p_1^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot p_r^{k_r}## we get
\begin{align*}
[3]_4= [p_1]_4^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot [p_r]_4^{k_r}
\end{align*}
where ##m:=[n]_4## is the abbreviation of ##n \equiv m \in \{0,1,2,3\}\pmod{4}.##

Now we have to examine the right-hand side.
All ##[p_i]_4 \neq 0.## Powers of ##[p_i]_4=2## result in ##0## or ##2## so that they cannot occur since we have only ##[3]_4 ## on the left. All ##[p_i]_4=1## are of no interest since they do not change the product. From the left-hand side we know, that at least one ##[p_i]_4=3## has to occur, say it is ##p_1.## But ##[3]_4\cdot [3]_4=[1]_4## and we need a ##[3]_4.## This means that ##k_1## has to be odd, for otherwise, we would end up with ##[1]_4.## In case ##k_1## is indeed even, then there has to be another index ##j## with ##[p_j]_4=[3]_4## and ##k_j## odd. In such a case we would choose ##j## as our first prime. Say ##k_1=2l_1+1.##

Therefore, we can assume that ##[p_1^{k_1}]_4=[3]_4^{2l_1+1}##. Now
\begin{align*}
\sigma_1([a]_4)&\equiv \prod_{i=1}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i} \equiv \sigma_1([3^{2l_1+1}]_4) \prod_{i=2}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i}\\
&\equiv \dfrac{3^{2l_1+2}-1}{3-1}\prod_{i=^2}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i} \\
&\equiv \dfrac{9^m-1}{2}\prod_{i=^2}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i} \\
&\equiv 0\pmod{4}
\end{align*}

with ##m=l_1+1\geq 1## and ##9^m-1 \equiv 0\pmod{8},## hence ##\dfrac{9^m-1}{2}\equiv 0\pmod{4}.##

You have to explain why you may assume ##p_1=3,## which by the way is wrong. We can only assume that ##[p_1]_4\equiv [3]_4.##

And make sure that you first pass the entire formula modulo four, and then apply ##\sigma_1.##
 
Last edited:
  • #4
The most important question when I read a proof, and therefore the most important question when you write a proof, is WHY. I ask this from line to line. If anybody is asking you this, you should be able to answer. In the best case, it is already written in the proof.
 
  • #5
Okay, so I revised this proof:

Let ## 4k+3=p_{1}^{k_1}p_{2}^{k_2}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_s} ##.
Then ## 4\equiv 0\pmod {4} ## and ## 4k+3\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
Thus ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\not\equiv 0\pmod {4} ## for ## i=1, 2,..., s ##.
Suppose all ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\equiv 1\pmod {4} ##.
Then ## p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_{s}}\equiv 1\pmod {4} ##.
Since ## p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_{s}}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##,
it follows that ## \exists ## one ## p_{i} ## satisfying ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
This means ## p_{i}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
Observe that ## p_{i}^{2}\equiv 9\equiv 1\pmod {4} ## and ## p_{i}^{3}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
If ## p_{i}^{r}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##, then ## r ## must be odd.
This implies ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ## where ## k_{i} ## is odd.
Now we have
\begin{align*}
&\sigma_{1}(p_{i}^{k_{i}})=p_{i}^{k_{i}}+p_{i}^{k_{i}-1}+\dotsb +p_{i}+1\\
&\equiv (3+1+\dotsb +3+1)\pmod {4}\\
&\equiv 0\pmod {4},\\
\end{align*}
because ## p_{i}^{r}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ## if ## r ## is odd and ## p_{i}^{r}\equiv 1\pmod {4} ## if ## r ## is even.
Thus
\begin{align*}
4\mid \sigma_{1}(p_{i}^{k_{i}} ) & \implies 4\mid \sigma (p_{1}^{k_{1}} )\dotsb \sigma_{1} (p_{i}^{k_{i}})\dotsb \sigma_{1} ( p_{s}^{k_{s}} ) \\
&\implies4\mid \sigma_{1} (p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_{s}}).\\
\end{align*}
Therefore, ## 4\mid \sigma_{1} (4k+3) ## for each positive integer ## k ##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #6
Correct.

I edited the typos. If you add one # too many or set one bracket wrong, then it doesn't render properly. It's sometimes hard to find if formulas got lengthy.
 
  • Like
Likes Math100

FAQ: Prove that ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ##

What does the notation "4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3)" mean?

The notation "4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3)" means that 4 divides the sum of all positive divisors of the number 4k+3.

How do you prove that 4 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 4k+3?

To prove that 4 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 4k+3, we can use the fact that the sum of divisors of any number can be expressed as (1 + p1 + p1^2 + ... + p1^a1)(1 + p2 + p2^2 + ... + p2^a2)...(1 + pn + pn^2 + ... + pn^an), where p1, p2, ..., pn are the prime factors of the number and a1, a2, ..., an are their respective exponents. Since 4k+3 has only one prime factor, 4, and its exponent is 1, the sum of its divisors can be simplified to (1 + 4)(1 + 1) = 10. Since 4 divides 10, we can conclude that 4 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 4k+3.

Can you provide an example to illustrate this concept?

Sure, let's take the number 11. Its divisors are 1 and 11, and their sum is 12. We can express this as (1 + 11)(1 + 1) = 12. Since 4 does not divide 12, we cannot prove that 4 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 11. However, if we take the number 7, its divisors are 1 and 7, and their sum is 8. We can express this as (1 + 7)(1 + 1) = 8. Since 4 divides 8, we can prove that 4 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 7.

Is this concept important in any particular field of science?

Yes, this concept is important in number theory and algebra. It is also relevant in cryptography, as the sum of divisors is used in some encryption algorithms.

Can this concept be extended to other numbers besides 4?

Yes, this concept can be extended to any number that can be expressed as a product of distinct primes raised to different powers. In other words, any number that is not a perfect square can be used in this concept. For example, we can prove that 6 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 6k+5, or that 9 divides the sum of all positive divisors of 9k+8.

Back
Top