x
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeppeSN
I do not understand how it works. If we said 33 was a prime, then σ(4488) = σ(8*17*33) = σ(8)*σ(17)*σ(33) =! 15*18*34 = 9180 (under the false hypothesis "!" that 33 is prime). I cannot see how that should give a perfect number, σ(x) = 2*x. The "prime factor" 33 which appears in 2*x, does not arise in σ(x).
Also note that Euler proved all even perfect numbers are of Euclid's classical form (i.e. perfect numbers arising from Mersenne primes). Therefore, no perfect number can have the form 2^n * a * b where n is greater than zero, and a and b are greater than one.
/JeppeSN

okay . firstly I calculated the aliquot sum of 2^n * a * b ( a , b prime ) . the calculation method is not based on divisors . then I get the difference of number and aliquot sum I get th result of 0 fr 2 5 9 I try to get the relation of primes for perfect number .so I assumed 9 is prime according to this . if we assume 9 is prime ...think that divisors of 9 are 1 and 9 . 2 * 5 * 9 = 90 the divisors will be 1 , 2 . 5 . 10 . 9 . 18 , 45 collection of them will be 90 the same relation must be 4 17 33 . it is stupidly but correct . I dont say I found new perfect number I only say it can be a way of finding new perfect number if a and b be prime at the same time. but no number pair whic a and b prime ehind