Iteration of Euler's phi function

  • Thread starter Thread starter huba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Phi
Click For Summary
Iterating Euler's totient function \varphi(n) leads to the conclusion that it eventually reaches 1, with h(n) representing the least number of iterations required. A conjecture suggests that the largest n for which h(n)=k is 2×3^{k-1}. Perfect totient numbers, defined as those for which n equals the sum of its totient iterations, are believed to include all powers of 3, although proof is lacking. The discussion also touches on the set of integers M, where it was conjectured that all elements are prime, but composites have been identified. Further conjectures propose that primes in M are either Fermat primes or of a specific form related to M, with examples illustrating the relationship between iterations and Fermat primes.
huba
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Iterating Euler's totient function \varphi(n), it eventually arrives at 1. Let h(n) denote the least number of iterations to arrive at 1. For instance, h(18)=3, ie \varphi^{3}(18)=1. There is a conjecture (or is there a proof?) that the largest n for which h(n)=k is 2\times 3^{k-1}. The only reference I found on the internet was a short note in a comment to Sloane's A007755 (the smallest n for which h(n)=k), saying that the maximum value is of that form.
Although I haven't found a proof, I think that I have at least a simple result, using the 2\times 3^{k-1} form. Richard K. Guy (2004), in "Unsolved Problems in Number Theory", p.149 (haven't read it, found it in Google Book Search) describes perfect totient numbers as those n for which n = \varphi(n) + \varphi^{2}(n) + \varphi^{3}(n) + ... + 2 + 1, and says that all powers of 3 are perfect totient numbers. I haven't seen the proof for all powers of 3 being perfect totient numbers, but I would reason this way:

It is easy to prove by induction that
\sum^{k-1}_{j=0}2\times 3^{j}+1=3^{k}.

As for all x\geq j, \varphi^{j}(2\times 3^{x}) = 2\times 3^{x-j}, and \varphi^{x+1}(2\times 3^{x}) = \varphi(2) = 1,

\sum^{k+1}_{j=1}\varphi^{j}(2\times 3^{k})=3^{k}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The set of the smallest numbers n for which \varphi^{k}(n) = 1 is possibly more interesting. Sloane's http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A007755" lists the first 34 such numbers, or 33 if starting with 2 (I left out 1) :
2, 3, 5, 11, 17, 41, 83, 137, 257, 641, ...
I will refer to the set of those integers as M.

It was conjectured (Shapiro, 1943) that all such numbers are prime, but then composite numbers were found.
According to Guy (2004), Catlin (1970) showed that if m is an odd element of M, then the factors of m are in M.
I propose the conjecture that all primes > 2 in M are either http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatPrime.html" or are of the form 2^{t}\times m + 1 with m \in M. In other words, if prime p \in M then either \varphi(p) = 2^{2^{s}} or \varphi(p) = 2^{t}\times m with m \in M, with t and s any positive integers.
Further, a finite number of phi-iterations on m will lead to a number with a factor which is a Fermat prime. For example, take m = 35209, a composite number with the prime factors 137 and 257 (257 is already a Fermat prime). \varphi(35209) = \varphi(137)\times \varphi(257) = 136 \times 256 = 2^{11}\times 17 = 34816 which again has a Fermat prime, 17, as a prime factor.
I would also conjecture that if m is composite, then at least one of its prime factors is a Fermat prime. For example, the largest term in A007755 is 4295098369, which is 65537^{2}.

I would appreciate any comments.

Just another example for the iteration leading to a Fermat prime:

\varphi(140417) = 140416 = 2^{7}\times1097
\varphi(140416) = 2^{6}\times 1096 = 2^{9}\times 137 = 70144
\varphi(70144) = 2^{8}\times 136 = 2^{11}\times 17 = 34816, and so

17, a Fermat prime, divides \varphi^{3}(140417).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
635
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
840
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K