What are the 4 perfect numbers?

A perfect number is defined to be one which is equal to the sum of its aliquot parts. The four perfect numbers 6, 28, 496 and 8128 seem to have been known from ancient times and there is no record of these discoveries.

mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk - Perfect numbers - MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive

What is plus4 spread?

Cincinnati was a 4 point underdog. This appeared as Bengals +4. That means the Bengals would have needed to win the game outright or not lose the...

Last updated Jan 8, 2020

Is a bookie a BookKeeper?

Bookie: A bookie is a BookKeeper storage server. Bookies store the content of ledgers. For any given ledger L, we call an ensemble the group of...

Last updated May 20, 2022

Make Your Bookie Cry And Pull The Hair By Generating $23,187

Promotion

10

1

2

5

1 = 10 10 , 2 = 10 5 1 = largefrac{10}{10}

ormalsize , 2 = largefrac{10}{5}

ormalsize 1 = 1 0 1 0 , 2 = 5 1 0

5 = 10 2 5 = largefrac{10}{2}

ormalsize 5 = 2 1 0

10

6

28

496 8128

It is not known when perfect numbers were first studied and indeed the first studies may go back to the earliest times when numbers first aroused curiosity. It is quite likely, although not certain, that the Egyptians would have come across such numbers naturally given the way their methods of calculation worked, see for examplewhere detailed justification for this idea is given. Perfect numbers were studied by Pythagoras and his followers, more for their mystical properties than for their number theoretic properties. Before we begin to look at the history of the study of perfect numbers, we define the concepts which are involved. Today the usual definition of a perfect number is in terms of its divisors, but early definitions were in terms of the 'aliquot parts' of a number. An aliquot part of a number is a proper quotient of the number. So for example the aliquot parts ofareand. These occur since, and. Note thatis not an aliquot part ofsince it is not a proper quotient, i.e. a quotient different from the number itself. A perfect number is defined to be one which is equal to the sum of its aliquot parts. The four perfect numbersandseem to have been known from ancient times and there is no record of these discoveries.

6 = 1 + 2 + 3 ,

28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 ,

496 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 31 + 62 + 124 + 248 8128 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 127 + 254 + 508 + 1016 + 2032 + 4064

300

36

If as many numbers as we please beginning from a unit be set out continuously in double proportion, until the sum of all becomes a prime, and if the sum multiplied into the last make some number, the product will be perfect.

1

2

4

7

( the sum ) × ( the last ) = 7 × 4 = 28 , the sumthe last

1

2

4

8

16

31

16

496

The first recorded mathematical result concerning perfect numbers which is known occurs in Euclid 's Elements written aroundBC. It may come as a surprise to many people to learn that there are number theory results in Euclid 's Elements since it is thought of as a geometry book. However, although numbers are represented by line segments and so have a geometrical appearance, there are significant number theory results in the Elements. The result which is if interest to us here is Propositionof Book IX of the Elements which states:- Here 'double proportion' means that each number of the sequence is twice the preceding number. To illustrate this Proposition considerwhich is prime. Then which is a perfect number. As a second example,which is prime. Thenwhich is a perfect number. Now Euclid gives a rigorous proof of the Proposition and we have the first significant result on perfect numbers. We can restate the Proposition in a slightly more modern form by using the fact, known to the Pythagoreans, that 1 + 2 + 4 + . . . + 2 k − 1 = 2 k − 1 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^{k-1} = 2^{k} - 1 1 + 2 + 4 + . . . + 2 k − 1 = 2 k − 1 .

The Proposition now reads:-

If, for some k > 1 , 2 k − 1 k > 1, 2^{k} - 1 k > 1 , 2 k − 1 is prime then 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) 2^{k-1}(2^{k} - 1) 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) is a perfect number.

100 (

)

Among simple even numbers, some are superabundant, others are deficient: these two classes are as two extremes opposed to one another; as for those that occupy the middle position between the two, they are said to be perfect. And those which are said to be opposite to each other, the superabundant and the deficient, are divided in their condition, which is inequality, into the too much and the too little.

(

)

In the case of the too much, is produced excess, superfluity, exaggerations and abuse; in the case of too little, is produced wanting, defaults, privations and insufficiencies. And in the case of those that are found between the too much and the too little, that is in equality, is produced virtue, just measure, propriety, beauty and things of that sort - of which the most exemplary form is that type of number which is called perfect.

(

)

... ten mouths, or nine lips, and provided with three lines of teeth; or with a hundred arms, or having too many fingers on one of its hands.... a single eye, ... one armed or one of his hands has less than five fingers, or if he does not have a tongue... (1) The n n n th perfect number has n n n digits.

(2) All perfect numbers are even.

(3) All perfect numbers end in 6 and 8 alternately.

(4) 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) 2^{k-1}(2^{k} - 1) 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) , for some k > 1 k > 1 k > 1 , where 2 k − 1 2^{k} - 1 2 k − 1 is prime. (5) There are infinitely many perfect numbers. Theth perfect number hasdigits.All perfect numbers are even.All perfect numbers end inandalternately. Euclid 's algorithm to generate perfect numbers will give all perfect numbers i.e. every perfect number is of the form, for some, whereis prime.There are infinitely many perfect numbers.

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(

)

There exists an elegant and sure method of generating these numbers, which does not leave out any perfect numbers and which does not include any that are not; and which is done in the following way. First set out in order the powers of two in a line, starting from unity, and proceeding as far as you wish: 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 16 , 32 , 64 , 128 , 256 , 512 , 1024 , 2048 , 4096 ; and then they must be totalled each time there is a new term, and at each totalling examine the result, if you find that it is prime and non-composite, you must multiply it by the quantity of the last term that you added to the line, and the product will always be perfect. If, otherwise, it is composite and not prime, do not multiply it, but add on the next term, and again examine the result, and if it is composite leave it aside, without multiplying it, and add on the next term. If, on the other hand, it is prime, and non-composite, you must multiply it by the last term taken for its composition, and the number that results will be perfect, and so on as far as infinity.

6

28

496 8128

... only one is found among the units, 6 , only one other among the tens, 28 , and a third in the rank of the hundreds, 496 alone, and a fourth within the limits of the thousands, that is, below ten thousand, 8128 . And it is their accompanying characteristic to end alternately in 6 or 8 , and always to be even. When these have been discovered, 6 among the units and 28 in the tens, you must do the same to fashion the next. ... the result is 496 , in the hundreds; and then comes 8128 in the thousands, and so on, as far as it is convenient for one to follow.

6

28 (354

430)

Six is a number perfect in itself, and not because God created all things in six days; rather, the converse is true. God created all things in six days because the number is perfect ...

2 n p 2^{n}p 2 n p

p p p

2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) 2^{k-1}(2^{k} - 1) 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 )

2 k − 1 2^{k} - 1 2 k − 1

(1194

1239)

1500

2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) 2^{k-1}(2^{k} - 1) 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 )

k k k

1509

2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 ) 2^{k-1}(2^{k} - 1) 2 k − 1 ( 2 k − 1 )

k k k

(

)

1461

1458

1460

1536

Ⓣ ( Both kinds of arithmetic )

2 11 − 1 = 2047 = 23.89 2^{11} - 1 = 2047 = 23 . 89 2 1 1 − 1 = 2 0 4 7 = 2 3 . 8 9 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2^{p-1}(2^{p} - 1) 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2 13 − 1 = 8191 2^{13} - 1 = 8191 2 1 3 − 1 = 8 1 9 1

(

)

2 12 ( 2 13 − 1 ) = 33550336 2^{12}(2^{13} - 1) = 33550336 2 1 2 ( 2 1 3 − 1 ) = 3 3 5 5 0 3 3 6

8

6

8 1555

1977

1603

800

750 (

132 )

2 17 − 1 = 131071 2^{17}- 1 = 131071 2 1 7 − 1 = 1 3 1 0 7 1

(

75 0 2 = 562500 > 131071 750^{2} = 562500 > 131071 7 5 0 2 = 5 6 2 5 0 0 > 1 3 1 0 7 1

131071

)

2 16 ( 2 17 − 1 ) = 8589869056 2^{16}(2^{17} - 1) = 8589869056 2 1 6 ( 2 1 7 − 1 ) = 8 5 8 9 8 6 9 0 5 6

6

8

6

2 19 − 1 = 524287 2^{19} - 1 = 524287 2 1 9 − 1 = 5 2 4 2 8 7

(

75 0 2 = 562500 > 524287 750^{2} = 562500 > 524287 7 5 0 2 = 5 6 2 5 0 0 > 5 2 4 2 8 7

)

2 18 ( 2 19 − 1 ) = 137438691328 2^{18}(2^{19} - 1) = 137438691328 2 1 8 ( 2 1 9 − 1 ) = 1 3 7 4 3 8 6 9 1 3 2 8

Ⓣ ( Both kinds of arithmetic )

p p p

2

3

5

7

13

17

19

23

29

31

37

2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2^{p-1}(2^{p} - 1) 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 )

p p p

2

3

5

7

13

17

19

23

29

31

37 1638

... I think I am able to prove that there are no even numbers which are perfect apart from those of Euclid; and that there are no odd perfect numbers, unless they are composed of a single prime number, multiplied by a square whose root is composed of several other prime number. But I can see nothing which would prevent one from finding numbers of this sort. For example, if 22021 were prime, in multiplying it by 9018009 which is a square whose root is composed of the prime numbers 3 , 7 , 11 , 13 , one would have 198585576189 , which would be a perfect number. But, whatever method one might use, it would require a great deal of time to look for these numbers...

1636

1640

... here are three propositions I have discovered, upon which I hope to erect a great structure. The numbers less by one than the double progression, like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 3 7 15 31 63 127 255 511 1023 2047 4095 8191 let them be called the radicals of perfect numbers, since whenever they are prime, they produce them. Put above these numbers in natural progression 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , etc., which are called their exponents. This done, I say When the exponent of a radical number is composite, its radical is also composite. Just as 6 , the exponent of 63 , is composite, I say that 63 will be composite. When the exponent is a prime number, I say that its radical less one is divisible by twice the exponent. Just as 7 , the exponent of 127 , is prime, I say that 126 is a multiple of 14 . When the exponent is a prime number, I say that its radical cannot be divisible by any other prime except those that are greater by one than a multiple of double the exponent... Here are three beautiful propositions which I have found and proved without difficulty, I shall call them the foundations of the invention of perfect numbers. I don't doubt that Frenicle de Bessy got there earlier, but I have only begun and without doubt these propositions will pass as very lovely in the minds of those who have not become sufficiently hypocritical of these matters, and I would be very happy to have the opinion of M Roberval.

How can I increase my chances of gambling?

Expert Tips to Improve Your Chances of Winning in the Casino Learn The Rules Of The Game. It is not just about playing the game, but also knowing...

Last updated Aug 4, 2022

What does 8d mean in cricket?

Australia's score on day 3 of 395/8d means 395 runs for 8 wickets declared. Each of the four innings listed in detail: The first line indicates the...

Last updated Aug 19, 2020

Promotion

18 1640

p p p

a a a

p p p

a p − 1 − 1 a^{p-1}- 1 a p − 1 − 1

p p p

1640

2 23 − 1 2^{23} - 1 2 2 3 − 1

(

2 23 − 1 = 47 × 178481 2^{23} - 1 = 47 imes 178481 2 2 3 − 1 = 4 7 × 1 7 8 4 8 1

)

2 37 − 1 2^{37} - 1 2 3 7 − 1

(

2 37 − 1 = 223 × 616318177 2^{37} - 1 = 223 imes 616318177 2 3 7 − 1 = 2 2 3 × 6 1 6 3 1 8 1 7 7

)

(

)

1 0 20 10^{20} 1 0 2 0

1 0 22 10^{22} 1 0 2 2

2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2^{p-1}(2^{p} - 1) 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 )

p p p

2 37 − 1 2^{37} - 1 2 3 7 − 1

1640

The next significant study of perfect numbers was made by Nicomachus of Gerasa . AroundAD Nicomachus wrote his famous text Introductio Arithmetica which gives a classification of numbers based on the concept of perfect numbers. Nicomachus divides numbers into three classes: the superabundant numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is greater than the number; deficient numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is less than the number; and perfect numbers which have the property that the sum of their aliquot parts is equal to the numbersee, orfor a different translation:- However Nicomachus has more than number theory in mind for he goes on to show that he is thinking in moral terms in a way that might seem extraordinary to mathematicians todaysee, orfor a different translation:- Now satisfied with the moral considerations of numbers, Nicomachus goes on to provide biological analogies in which he describes superabundant numbers as being like an animal withsee, or:-Deficient numbers are compared to animals with:- Nicomachus goes on to describe certain results concerning perfect numbers. All of these are given without any attempt at a proof. Let us state them in modern notation. We will see how these assertions have stood the test of time as we carry on with our discussions, but let us say at this point that assertionsandare false while, as stated,andare still open questions. However, since the time of Nicomachus we do know a lot more about his five assertions than the simplistic statement we have just made. Let us look in more detail at Nicomachus 's description of the algorithm to generate perfect numbers which is assertionabovesee, or:- As we have seen this algorithm is precisely that given by Euclid in the Elements. However, it is probable that this methods of generating perfect numbers was part of the general mathematical tradition handed down from before Euclid 's time and continuing till Nicomachus wrote his treatise. Whether the five assertions of Nicomachus were based on any more than this algorithm and the fact the there were four perfect numbers known to himand, it is impossible to say, but it does seem unlikely that anything more lies behind the unproved assertions. Some of the assertions are made in this quote about perfect numbers which follows the description of the algorithm:- Despite the fact that Nicomachus offered no justification of his assertions, they were taken as fact for many years. Of course there was the religious significance that we have not mentioned yet, namely thatis the number of days taken by God to create the world, and it was believed that the number was chosen by him because it was perfect. Again God chose the next perfect numberfor the number of days it takes the Moon to travel round the Earth. Saint Augustinewrites in his famous text The City of God :- The Arab mathematicians were also fascinated by perfect numbers and Thabit ibn Qurra wrote the Treatise on amicable numbers in which he examined when numbers of the form, whereis prime, can be perfect. Ibn al-Haytham proved a partial converse to Euclid 's proposition in the unpublished work Treatise on analysis and synthesis when he showed that perfect numbers satisfying certain conditions had to be of the formwhereis prime. Among the many Arab mathematicians to take up the Greek investigation of perfect numbers with great enthusiasm was Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn Falluswho wrote a treatise based on the Introduction to arithmetic by Nicomachus . He accepted Nicomachus 's classification of numbers but the work is purely mathematical, not containing the moral comments of Nicomachus . Ibn Fallus gave, in his treatise, a table of ten numbers which were claimed to be perfect, the first seven are correct and are in fact the first seven perfect numbers, the remaining three numbers are incorrect. For more details of this impressive work seeand At the beginning of the renaissance of mathematics in Europe aroundthe assertions of Nicomachus were taken as truths, nothing further being known concerning perfect numbers not even the work of the Arabs. Some even believed the further unjustified and incorrect result thatis a perfect number for every odd Pacioli certainly seems to have believed in this fallacy. Charles de Bovelles, a theologian and philosopher, published a book on perfect numbers in. In it he claimed that Euclid 's formulagives a perfect number for all odd integers, see. Yet, rather remarkably, although unknown until comparatively recently, progress had been made. The fifth perfect number has been discovered againafter the unknown results of the Arabsand written down in a manuscript dated. It is also in a manuscript which was written by Regiomontanus during his stay at the University of Vienna, which he left in, see. It has also been found in a manuscript written around, while both the fifth and sixth perfect numbers have been found in another manuscript written by the same author probably shortly after. All that is known of this author is that he lived in Florence and was a student of Domenico d'Agostino Vaiaio. In, Hudalrichus Regius made the first breakthrough which was to become common knowledge to later mathematicians, when he published Utriusque Arithmeticesin which he gave the factorisation. With this he had found the first prime p such thatis not a perfect number. He also showed thatis prime so he had discoveredand made his discovery knownthe fifth perfect number. This showed that Nicomachus 's first assertion is false since the fifth perfect number hasdigits. Nicomachus 's claim that perfect numbers ended inandalternately still stood however. It is perhaps surprising that Regius, who must have thought he had made one of the major breakthroughs in mathematics, is virtually unheard of today. J Scheybl gave the sixth perfect number inin his commentary to a translation of Euclid 's Elements. This was not noticed untiland therefore did not influence progress on perfect numbers. The next step forward came inwhen Cataldi found the factors of all numbers up toand also a table of all primes up tothere aresuch primes Cataldi was able use his list of primes to show thatis primesincehe could check with a tedious calculation thathad no prime divisors. From this Cataldi now knew the sixth perfect number, namely. This result by Cataldi showed that Nicomachus 's assertion that perfect numbers ended inandalternately was false since the fifth and sixth perfect numbers both ended in Cataldi also used his list of primes to check thatwas primeagain sinceand so he had also found the seventh perfect number, namely As the reader will have already realised, the history of perfect numbers is littered with errors and Cataldi , despite having made the major advance of finding two new perfect numbers, also made some false claims. He writes in Utriusque Arithmeticesthat the exponentsgive perfect numbers. He is, of course, right forfor which he had a proof from his table of primes, but only one of his further four claimsis correct. Many mathematicians were interested in perfect numbers and tried to contribute to the theory. For example Descartes , in a letter to Mersenne in, wrote:- The next major contribution was made by Fermat . He told Roberval inthat he was working on the topic and, although the problems were very difficult, he intended to publish a treatise on the topic. The treatise would never be written, partly because Fermat never got round to writing his results up properly, but also because he did not achieve the substantial results on perfect numbers he had hoped. In June Fermat wrote to Mersenne telling him about his discoveries concerning perfect numbers. He wrote:- Shortly after writing this letter to Mersenne Fermat wrote to Frenicle de Bessy onOctober. In this letter he gave a generalisation of results in the earlier letter stating the result now known as Fermat 's Little Theorem which shows that for any primeand an integernot divisible byis divisible by. Certainly Fermat found his Little Theorem as a consequence of his investigations into perfect numbers. Using special cases of his Little Theorem, Fermat was able to disprove two of Cataldi 's claims in his Juneletter to Mersenne . He showed thatwas compositein factand thatwas compositein fact Frenicle de Bessy had, earlier in that year, asked Fermat in correspondence through Mersenne if there was a perfect number betweenand. In fact assuming that perfect numbers are of the formwhereis prime, the question readily translates into asking whetheris prime. Fermat not only states thatis composite in his Juneletter, but he tells Mersenne how he factorised it. Fermat used three theorems:- ( i ) If n n n is composite, then 2 n − 1 2^{n} - 1 2 n − 1 is composite. ( ii ) If n n n is prime, then 2 n − 2 2^{n} - 2 2 n − 2 is a multiple of 2 n 2n 2 n . ( iii ) If n n n is prime, p p p a prime divisor of 2 n − 1 2^{n}- 1 2 n − 1 , then p − 1 p - 1 p − 1 is a multiple of n n n .

(

)

(

)

(

)

p p p

2

37

1

37

p − 1 p - 1 p − 1

p p p

2 × 37 m + 1 2 imes 37m+1 2 × 3 7 m + 1

m m m

p p p

149 (

)

223 (

m = 3 m = 3 m = 3

)

2 37 − 1 = 223 × 616318177 2^{37} - 1 = 223 imes 616318177 2 3 7 − 1 = 2 2 3 × 6 1 6 3 1 8 1 7 7

1644

Ⓣ ( Thoughts on physical mathematics )

2 p − 1 2^{p} - 1 2 p − 1

Can you live off of sports betting?

Sure, some people make money betting on random games. But it easier to make money when you specialize in one or a few sports and leagues. The...

Last updated Sep 20, 2022

Can police block your bank account?

The new powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act allow the police to apply for a bank account to be frozen without having to jump through...

Last updated Mar 9, 2022

Promotion

(

2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2^{p-1}(2^{p} - 1) 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 )

)

Note thatis trivial whileiiandiiiare special cases of Fermat 's Little Theorem. Fermat proceeds as follows: Ifis a prime divisor of, thendivides. Asis odd, it is a prime of the form, for some. The first case to try isand this failsa test division is carried out. The next case to try isthe casewhich succeeds and Mersenne was very interested in the results that Fermat sent him on perfect numbers and soon produced a claim of his own which was to fascinate mathematicians for a great many years. Inhe published Cogitata physica mathematicain which he claimed thatis primeand sois a perfect numberfor p = 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 13 , 17 , 19 , 31 , 67 , 127 , 257 p = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 67, 127, 257 p = 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 1 3 , 1 7 , 1 9 , 3 1 , 6 7 , 1 2 7 , 2 5 7

p p p

257

... to tell if a given number of 15 or 20 digits is prime, or not, all time would not suffice for the test.

47

p p p

19

258

2 p − 1 2^{p} - 1 2 p − 1

42

5

2 p − 1 2^{p}- 1 2 p − 1

1732

2 30 ( 2 31 − 1 ) = 2305843008139952128 2^{30}(2^{31} - 1) = 2305843008139952128 2 3 0 ( 2 3 1 − 1 ) = 2 3 0 5 8 4 3 0 0 8 1 3 9 9 5 2 1 2 8

125 1738

2 29 − 1 2^{29} - 1 2 2 9 − 1

(

)

(

)

p = 31 p = 31 p = 3 1

p = 29 p = 29 p = 2 9

2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2^{p-1}(2^{p} - 1) 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 )

6

8 (

)

1638

and for no other value ofup to. Now certainly Mersenne could not have checked these results and he admitted this himself saying:- The remarkable fact is that Mersenne did very well if this was no more than a guess. There areprimesgreater thanyet less thanfor whichmight have been either prime or composite. Mersenne gotright and mademistakes. A suggestion as to the rule he used in giving his list is made inPrimes of the formare called Mersenne primes. The next person to make a major contribution to the question of perfect numbers was Euler . Inhe proved that the eighth perfect number was. It was the first new perfect number discovered foryears. Then in Euler settled the last of Cataldi 's claims when he proved thatwas not primeso Cataldi 's guesses had not been very good. It should be noticedas it was at the timethat Mersenne had been right on both counts, sinceappears in his list butdoes not. In two manuscripts which were unpublished during his life, Euler proved the converse of Euclid 's result by showing that every even perfect number had to be of the form. This verifies the fourth assertion of Nicomachus at least in the case of even numbers. It also leads to an easy proof that all even perfect numbers end in either aorbut not alternately Euler also tried to make some headway on the problem of whether odd perfect numbers existed. He was able to prove the assertion made by Descartes in his letter to Mersenne infrom which we quoted above. He went a little further and proved that any odd perfect number had to have the form ( 4 n + 1 ) 4 k + 1 b 2 (4n+1)^{4k+1} b^{2} ( 4 n + 1 ) 4 k + 1 b 2

4 n + 1 4n+1 4 n + 1

2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 ) 2^{p-1}(2^{p} - 1) 2 p − 1 ( 2 p − 1 )

p = 41 p = 41 p = 4 1

p = 47 p = 47 p = 4 7

1753

Ⓣ ( Thoughts on physical mathematics )

2 30 ( 2 31 − 1 ) 2^{30}(2^{31} - 1) 2 3 0 ( 2 3 1 − 1 )

150 1811

2 30 ( 2 31 − 1 ) 2^{30}(2^{31} - 1) 2 3 0 ( 2 3 1 − 1 ) ... is the greatest that ever will be discovered; for as they are merely curious, without being useful, it is not likely that any person will ever attempt to find one beyond it.

1876

2 67 − 1 2^{67} - 1 2 6 7 − 1

2 127 − 1 2^{127} - 1 2 1 2 7 − 1 2 126 ( 2 127 − 1 ) 2^{126}(2^{127}- 1) 2 1 2 6 ( 2 1 2 7 − 1 )

1930

p = 127 p = 127 p = 1 2 7

2 p − 1 2^{p} - 1 2 p − 1

m = 2 p − 1 m = 2^{p} - 1 m = 2 p − 1

2 m − 1 2^{m} - 1 2 m − 1

2 p − 1 2^{p} - 1 2 p − 1

whereis prime. However, as with most others whose contribution we have examined, Euler made predictions about perfect numbers which turned out to be wrong. He claimed thatwas perfect forandbut Euler does have the distinction of finding his own error, which he corrected in The search for perfect numbers had now become an attempt to check whether Mersenne was right with his claims in Cogitata physica mathematica. In fact Euler 's results had made many people believe that Mersenne had some undisclosed method which would tell him the correct answer. In fact Euler 's perfect numberremained the largest known for overyears. Mathematicians such as Peter Barlow wrote in his book Theory of Numbers published in, that the perfect number:-This, of course, turned out to be yet one more false assertion about perfect numbers! The first error in Mersenne 's list was discovered inby Lucas . He was able to show thatis not a prime although his methods did not allow him to find any factors of it. Lucas was also able to verify that one of the numbers in Mersenne 's list was correct when he showed thatis a Mersenne prime and sois indeed a perfect number. Lucas made another important advance which, as modified by Lehmer in, is the basis of computer searches used today to find Mersenne primes, and so to find perfect numbers. Following the announcement by Lucas thatgave the Mersenne prime Catalan conjectured that, ifis prime thenis also prime. This Catalan sequence iswhere p = p = p = 3 , 7 , 127 , 170141183460469231731687303715884105727 , ...

(

)

2 p − 1 2^{p} - 1 2 p − 1

p = p = p =

170141183460469231731687303715884105727

1883

2 60 ( 2 61 − 1 ) 2^{60}(2^{61}- 1) 2 6 0 ( 2 6 1 − 1 )

67

61 1903

2 67 − 1 2^{67} - 1 2 6 7 − 1

1903

Of course if this conjecture were true it would solve the still open question of whether there are an infinite number of Mersenne primesand also solve the still open question of whether there are infinitely many perfect numbers. However checking whether the fourth term of this sequence, namelyfor, is prime is well beyond what is possible. InPervusin showed thatis a perfect number. This was shown independently three years later by Seelhoff. Many mathematicians leapt to defend Mersenne saying that the numberin his list was a misprint for In Cole managed to factorise, the number shown to be composite by Lucas , but for which no factors were known up to that time. In October Cole presented a paper On the factorisation of large numbers to a meeting of the American Mathematical Society . In one of the strangest 'talks' ever given, Cole wrote on the blackboard 2 67 − 1 = 147573952589676412927 2^{67} - 1 = 147573952589676412927 2 6 7 − 1 = 1 4 7 5 7 3 9 5 2 5 8 9 6 7 6 4 1 2 9 2 7 .

761838257287

193707721

147573952589676412927

[

(

)

2 67 − 1 2^{67} - 1 2 6 7 − 1

]

1911

2 88 ( 2 89 − 1 ) 2^{88}(2^{89} - 1) 2 8 8 ( 2 8 9 − 1 )

2 107 − 1 2^{107}- 1 2 1 0 7 − 1

2 106 ( 2 107 − 1 ) 2^{106}(2^{107}- 1) 2 1 0 6 ( 2 1 0 7 − 1 )

1922

257

2 257 − 1 2^{257}- 1 2 2 5 7 − 1

(

)

... the existence of [ an odd perfect number ] - its escape, so to say, from the complex web of conditions which hem it in on all sides - would be little short of a miracle.

1888

4

29

300

1 0 6 10^{6} 1 0 6

(2020)

51

2 88 ( 2 89 − 1 ) 2^{88}(2^{89}- 1) 2 8 8 ( 2 8 9 − 1 )

1911

(

)

2 82 589 933 − 1 2^{82 589 933} - 1 2 8 2 5 8 9 9 3 3 − 1

(

)

2 82 589 932 ( 2 82 589 933 − 1 ) 2^{82 589 932} (2^{82 589 933} - 1) 2 8 2 5 8 9 9 3 2 ( 2 8 2 5 8 9 9 3 3 − 1 )

2018

51

23

860

51

Then he wroteand underneath it. Without speaking a work he multiplied the two numbers together to getand sat down to applause from the audience.It is worth remarking that the computer into which IEFRam typing this article gave this factorisation ofin about a second - times have changed! Further mistakes made by Mersenne were found. InPowers showed thatwas a perfect number, then a few years later he showed thatis a prime and sois a perfect number. InKraitchik showed that Mersenne was wrong in his claims for his largest prime ofwhen he showed thatis not prime. We have followed the progress of finding even perfect numbers but there was also attempts to show that an odd perfect number could not exist. The main thrust of progress here has been to show the minimum number of distinct prime factors that an odd perfect number must have. Sylvester worked on this problem and wrotesee:- In fact Sylvester proved inthat any odd perfect number must have at leastdistinct prime factors. Later in the same year he improved his result to five factors and, over the years, this has been steadily improved until today we know that an odd perfect number would have to have at least eight distinct prime factors, and at leastprime factors which are not necessarily distinct. It is also known that such a number would have more thandigits and a prime divisor greater than. The problem of whether an odd perfect number exists, however, remains unsolved.Todayperfect numbers are known,being the last to be discovered by hand calculations inalthough not the largest found by hand calculations, all others being found using a computer. In fact computers have led to a revival of interest in the discovery of Mersenne primes, and therefore of perfect numbers. At the moment the largest known Mersenne prime iswhich is also the largest known primeand the corresponding largest known perfect number is. It was discovered in Decemberand this, thest such prime to be discovered, contains more thanmillion digits. If you wonder why we have not included the number in decimal form, then let me say that it contains abouttimes as many characters as this whole article on perfect numbers. Also worth noting is the fact that although this is thest to be discovered, it might not be thest largest perfect number as not all smaller cases have been ruled out. See the Official announcement

mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk - Perfect numbers - MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive

What number horse wins most often?

The answer may surprise you. According to data from Equibase, over the past ten years, horses in post position number five have won the most races....

Last updated Jan 5, 2019

What hand is most likely to beat aces?

What Hand Has the Best Odds Against Pocket Aces? Suited connector hands like 8♣ 7♣ and 7♣ 6♣ have the best odds against pocket aces, but are still...

Last updated Dec 12, 2020

Promotion

Which country likes gambling the most?

America has been considered as a gaming nation for a very long time. However, America is not the world's biggest gambler as many would think. ......

Last updated Jan 22, 2022

Promotion

Can you push on 3 way bet?

The three-way line introduces the possibility of a draw. If you place a wager in the three-way market, your choices are Team A wins, Team B wins,...

Last updated Aug 2, 2020

What are the 4 perfect numbers?

What is plus4 spread?

Is a bookie a BookKeeper?

10

1

2

5

1 = 10 10 , 2 = 10 5 1 = largefrac{10}{10}

ormalsize , 2 = largefrac{10}{5}

5 = 10 2 5 = largefrac{10}{2}

ormalsize 5 = 2 1 0 ​

10

10

6

28

496

8128

6 = 1 + 2 + 3 ,

28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 ,

300

36

1

2

4

7

1

2

4

8

16

31

31

16

496

The Proposition now reads:-

100

(

)

(

)

(

)

(2) All perfect numbers are even.

(3) All perfect numbers end in 6 and 8 alternately.

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(

)

6

28

496

8128

6

28

(354

430)

2 n p 2^{n}p 2 n p

p p p

2 k − 1 2^{k} - 1 2 k − 1

(1194

1239)

1500

k k k

1509

k k k

(

)

1461

1461

1458

1460

1536

Ⓣ ( Both kinds of arithmetic )

(

)

8

ormalsize 5 = 2 1 0