mersenneforum.org odd-perfect numbers don't exist
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-05-07, 17:43 #1 Bill Bouris   Apr 2009 2 Posts odd-perfect numbers don't exist Hello, Readers. I have proven that odd-perfect numbers don't exist; it's a 1-page proof that combines Euler's work with that of Jacques Touchard's 1953-paper. Anyone with the knowledge of basic algebra can enjoy it. The answer has been right under our noses!; please visit the root page of my website... www.oddperfectnumbers.com to see for yourself; no additional math is needed to construct this very valid proof. I've also included proofs of both Zarankiewicz's and Richard K. Guy's crossing number formulas on the page Other Short Proofs; just click on the heading to view them. Best Regards, Bill Bouris
 2011-05-07, 20:16 #2 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 1089510 Posts This is was posted in the wrong part of the forum. That makes me think that the proof may have problems too.
2011-05-07, 20:43   #3
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS

2·3·23·61 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly This is was posted in the wrong part of the forum. That makes me think that the proof may have problems too.
and a link to this site has been posted in another thread I swear ( think it got moved to the useless post thread or is in odd perfect number roadblocks

 2011-05-07, 21:21 #4 CRGreathouse     Aug 2006 5,987 Posts Paragraph 5 seems to contain the first mistake: "the first factor of the sum is always equal to one-third the size of the number being compared". The previous paragraphs have no mathematical content relating to odd perfect numbers.
 2011-05-07, 22:33 #5 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts I have only skimmed the web page. Would you say this is Misc. Math. material?
2011-05-07, 22:39   #6
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS

2·3·23·61 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa I have only skimmed the web page. Would you say this is Misc. Math. material?
well it's definitely math related more than science or technology as to the judgement of misc. or not well most other things that aren't proven and claimed go to misc at last check.

2011-05-07, 22:47   #7
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS

2×3×23×61 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse Paragraph 5 seems to contain the first mistake: "the first factor of the sum is always equal to one-third the size of the number being compared". The previous paragraphs have no mathematical content relating to odd perfect numbers.
if the op hasn't realized why maybe I could help:

okay Q=3 allows it

Q=6n+1 or 6n-1 means Q^2 is of the form 6n+1

to make it divisible by three (4x+1)^(4y+1) must be 0 mod 3:

1,5,9 = 1,2,0 mod 3 so the base doesn't always allow 0 mod 3 so next to the exponents so to ensure the biggest factor is 1/3 of the values of the number 1^(4x+1) ,2^(4y+1) , and 0^(4y+1) , must all be 0 mod 3 , and they aren't. even replacing Q=2 doesn't fix that 1^(4y+1) will always be one and hence with Q=2 it will end up as four ( and yes I know that 4 is already not included).

of course I'm not familiar to all requirement of the equation you talk of.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-05-07 at 22:52

2011-05-07, 22:53   #8
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

5,987 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa I have only skimmed the web page. Would you say this is Misc. Math. material?
Oh yes, no doubt.

2011-05-07, 23:07   #9
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS

2×3×23×61 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 if the op hasn't realized why maybe I could help: okay Q=3 allows it Q=6n+1 or 6n-1 means Q^2 is of the form 6n+1 to make it divisible by three (4x+1)^(4y+1) must be 0 mod 3: 1,5,9 = 1,2,0 mod 3 so the base doesn't always allow 0 mod 3 so next to the exponents so to ensure the biggest factor is 1/3 of the values of the number 1^(4x+1) ,2^(4y+1) , and 0^(4y+1) , must all be 0 mod 3 , and they aren't. even replacing Q=2 doesn't fix that 1^(4y+1) will always be one and hence with Q=2 it will end up as four ( and yes I know that 4 is already not included). of course I'm not familiar to all requirement of the equation you talk of.
in fact using PARI I've proven the first exception to 0 mod 3 to be 3125. if I coded it correct.

 2011-05-08, 03:26 #10 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 1001101000112 Posts Moved to Misc. Math.
 2011-05-08, 03:27 #11 CRGreathouse     Aug 2006 5,987 Posts Science man, I'm not sure what you're trying to show. Since you're talking about an odd perfect number Q must be odd, and hence Q ≠ 2. It's know that Q is divisible by at least eight different primes so in particular Q ≠ 3. 4x+1 is prime, so (4x+1)^(4y+1) is not 0 mod 3.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Housemouse Math 34 2016-04-07 16:29 Philly314 Aliquot Sequences 3 2014-11-16 14:58 davar55 Miscellaneous Math 16 2011-01-29 01:53 MajUSAFRet Math 3 2003-12-13 03:55 Zeta-Flux Math 1 2003-05-28 19:41

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:59.

Sun Feb 5 19:59:13 UTC 2023 up 171 days, 17:27, 1 user, load averages: 0.71, 0.80, 0.77