Obtaining the number of factors from prime factorization

AI Thread Summary
To determine the number of distinct factors of 2520, the correct approach involves recognizing that 2520 can be expressed as 2^3 * 3^2 * 5^1 * 7^1, which has four distinct prime factors. The number of distinct factors is calculated using the formula (1+n1)(1+n2)(1+n3)... for each prime factor's exponent. For 2520, this results in (3+1)(2+1)(1+1)(1+1) = 48 distinct factors. The earlier confusion stemmed from misinterpreting the number of prime factors versus the total number of prime factor occurrences. Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurate calculations in number theory.
danne89
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Hi! How do I determine the number of distinct factors of a number, say, 2520?
2520 = 2*2*2*3*3*5*7
So we've 8 different primes. The number of combinations of those is, according to me:
C(8,1)+C(8,2)+...+C(8,8)=155 (I think, calculated it by hand; but it isn't important)
Obviously those aren't distinct. (Pick the fist 2 and the second 2 = 4, but pick the second 2 and the third 2 also = 4.)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't understand what you are doing. 2520= 2*2*2*3*3*5*7 has 4 distinct prime factors, not "8 different primes". And I don't see what being "prime factors" has to do with number of combinations. Are you asking "of those 8 numbers (not all distinct) how many combinations can I make"? Wouldn't that be the same as asking "of the 8 letters "aaabbcd", how many different combinations can I make?" There are only 3 different one letter combinations: "a", "b", and "c", not C(8,1)= 8.
 
Isn't the combinations of the prime factors = all factors?
I mean, i pick 2*2 (a product of the primes in the positions specified by the combination) or 12
i pick 2*2 or 23
i pick 2*3 or 24

and so on.
Do you see?
 
danne89 said:
Hi! How do I determine the number of distinct factors of a number, say, 2520?
2520 = 2*2*2*3*3*5*7
So we've 8 different primes. The number of combinations of those is, according to me:
C(8,1)+C(8,2)+...+C(8,8)=155 (I think, calculated it by hand; but it isn't important)
Obviously those aren't distinct. (Pick the fist 2 and the second 2 = 4, but pick the second 2 and the third 2 also = 4.)
This is a special case of the divisor functions studied in number theory where you sum the kth power of the divisors.
In this case the 0th power.
say your number factors as
p1^n1*p2^n2*p3^n3*...*pk^nk*...
a general factor (including improper ones) is
p1^m1*p2^m2*p3^m3*...*pk^mk*...
where pk is a prime and 0<=mk<=nk
Thus the number of such factors is
(1+n1)(1+n2)(1+n3)...(1+nk)...
In particular 1 has one factor and and p^n (p prime) has n+1
2520 has 4*3*2*2=48
see this link for more info
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisorFunction.html
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
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

Replies
3
Views
999
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top