Sum of number of divisors of first N natural numbers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the divisor functions σ(N) and τ(N), specifically regarding the sum of these functions for the first N natural numbers. Participants explore whether it is possible to calculate these sums without factorizing individual numbers, with one user mentioning they have developed series representations for both functions. The conversation highlights the need for prime decomposition to explicitly calculate τ(n) and σ(n), as well as the complexity involved in finding τ(N) without factorization. A request for programming algorithms to compute these sums is made, indicating a desire for practical solutions. The thread emphasizes the mathematical intricacies of divisor functions and the challenges of computation without factorization.
suchith
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
If σ(N) is the sum of all the divisors of N and τ(N) is the number of divisors of N then what is the sum of sum of all the divisors of first N natural numbers and the sum of the number of divisors of first N natural numbers?

Is there any relation between σ(N) and τ(N) functions?

Can I do that without factorizing any of the number in the sequence?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Have you tried calculating those yourself up to, say, N= 100?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Have you tried calculating those yourself up to, say, N= 100?
Of course I have using my computer. I don't remember the result now. I have tried for both. Well! Using computer it is not a big job.

But can I find it out without listing the factors or factorizing individual numbers?

Avoiding factorization is the goal. I wrote these functions in the form of series, for sum of tau function in the form of infinite series without factorization, and for sum of sigma function it is a finite series. I have written the proof by myself, but don't know about the correctness. Is there anything to find the sum in the mathematical literature?
 
You can explicitly calculate ##\sigma(n)## and ##\tau(n)##, but you will need the prime decomposition of ##n##, say ##n = \prod_{i=1}^N p_i^{r_i}##.

The positive divisors of ##n## are ##\text{Div}(n)=\{ p_1^{q_1} \times ... \times p_N^{q_N},\ 0\le q_i \le r_i,\ i = 1...N \}##

There is an obvious bijection between ##\text{Div}(n)## and ## \{ q_1,\ 0\le q_1 \le r_1\} \times ... \times\{ q_N,\ 0\le q_N \le r_N\} ## which contains ##\prod_{i = 1}^N (1+r_i)## elements.

So ##\tau(n) = \#\text{Div}(n) = \prod_{i = 1}^N (1+r_i)##

And ##\sigma(n) = \sum_{q_1 = 0 }^{r_1}...\sum_{q_N = 0}^{r_N} p_1^{q_1} \times ... \times p_N^{q_N} = \prod_{i=1}^N \sum_{q_i = 0}^{r_i} {p_i}^{q_i} = \prod_{i=1}^N \frac{1 - p_i^{r_i+1}}{1-p_i}##
 
@geoffrey159 and @Suchit I do understand how to calculate τ(n) but didn't get how to calculate τ(N). I will highly appreciate if someone can give the programming algorithm for the problem.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top