mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-05-07, 17:43   #1
Bill Bouris
 
Apr 2009

2 Posts
Default 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
Bill Bouris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 20:16   #2
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2·5·7·127 Posts
Default

This is was posted in the wrong part of the forum.

That makes me think that the proof may have problems too.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 20:43   #3
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
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
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 21:21   #4
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

2×2,969 Posts
Default

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.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 22:33   #5
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

25×7×11 Posts
Default

I have only skimmed the web page. Would you say this is Misc. Math. material?
akruppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 22:39   #6
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000101100012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akruppa View Post
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.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 22:47   #7
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
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
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 22:53   #8
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

2×2,969 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akruppa View Post
I have only skimmed the web page. Would you say this is Misc. Math. material?
Oh yes, no doubt.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-07, 23:07   #9
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
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.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-08, 03:26   #10
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

25·7·11 Posts
Default

Moved to Misc. Math.
akruppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-05-08, 03:27   #11
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

173216 Posts
Default

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.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Right Perfect Prime Numbers Housemouse Math 34 2016-04-07 16:29
I think I found proof that no odd perfect numbers exist! Philly314 Aliquot Sequences 3 2014-11-16 14:58
Odd Perfect Numbers davar55 Miscellaneous Math 16 2011-01-29 01:53
Perfect Numbers MajUSAFRet Math 3 2003-12-13 03:55
Odd Perfect Numbers Zeta-Flux Math 1 2003-05-28 19:41

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:37.

Mon Nov 30 17:37:12 UTC 2020 up 81 days, 14:48, 3 users, load averages: 1.41, 1.56, 1.63

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.