Prove that ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ##

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that 4 divides the sum of divisors function, σ₁, for integers of the form 4k + 3. The proof begins by expressing 4k + 3 as a product of prime powers and analyzing the properties of σ₁ under modulo 4. It is established that if any prime factor raised to an odd power contributes a term congruent to 3 modulo 4, then σ₁ will yield a result congruent to 0 modulo 4. The conversation also critiques the initial proof's assumptions and emphasizes the necessity of justifying each step logically. Ultimately, the revised proof confirms that 4 divides σ₁(4k + 3) for all positive integers k.
Math100
Messages
813
Reaction score
229
Homework Statement
Prove that ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ## for each positive integer ## k ##.
Relevant Equations
None.
Proof:

Suppose ## a=4k+3 ## for some ## k\in\mathbb{Z^{+}} ##.
Then ## a=p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{r}^{k_{r}}\implies 4k+3=p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{r}^{k_{r}} ##.
Observe that ## \sigma_{1}(4k+3)=\sigma (p_{1}^{k_{1}})\sigma (p_{2}^{k_{2}})\dotsb \sigma (p_{r}^{k_{r}} ##.
Thus
\begin{align*}
&\sigma_{1} (p_{i}^{k_{i}})=1+p_{i}+p_{i}^2+\dotsb +p_{i}^{k_{i}}\\
&\equiv (1+3+3^{2}+\dotsb +3^{k_{i}})\pmod {4}\\
&\equiv (1-1+1-1+\dotsb +1-1)\pmod {4}\\
&\equiv 0\pmod {4}.\\
\end{align*}
Therefore, ## 4\mid \sigma_{1}(4k+3) ## for each positive integer ## k ##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think this is correct.

We have
$$
\sigma_1(a)=\sigma_1(4k+3)=\sigma_1\left(\prod_{i=1}^r p_i^{k_i}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^r\dfrac{p_i^{k_i+1}-1}{p_i-1} =\prod_{i=1}^r \left(p_i^{k_i}+\ldots+p_i+1\right)
$$

If ##[a]_4## notes the equivalence class of an integer ##a \pmod{4}## then how do we know that ##\sigma_1([a]_4)=[\sigma_1(a)]_4.## It seems as if you would use this. It is wrong. E.g. ##0=\sigma_1([8]_4)\neq [\sigma_1(8)]_4=1+2+4+8=3.## I am not sure if you use it since the intermediate steps are missing.

Another point is: How do you know that the number of ##-1##s and the number of ##+1##s are equal? What if ##k_i## is even?
 
I think I know what you tried to do.

From ##a=4k+3=p_1^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot p_r^{k_r}## we get
\begin{align*}
[3]_4= [p_1]_4^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot [p_r]_4^{k_r}
\end{align*}
where ##m:=[n]_4## is the abbreviation of ##n \equiv m \in \{0,1,2,3\}\pmod{4}.##

Now we have to examine the right-hand side.
All ##[p_i]_4 \neq 0.## Powers of ##[p_i]_4=2## result in ##0## or ##2## so that they cannot occur since we have only ##[3]_4 ## on the left. All ##[p_i]_4=1## are of no interest since they do not change the product. From the left-hand side we know, that at least one ##[p_i]_4=3## has to occur, say it is ##p_1.## But ##[3]_4\cdot [3]_4=[1]_4## and we need a ##[3]_4.## This means that ##k_1## has to be odd, for otherwise, we would end up with ##[1]_4.## In case ##k_1## is indeed even, then there has to be another index ##j## with ##[p_j]_4=[3]_4## and ##k_j## odd. In such a case we would choose ##j## as our first prime. Say ##k_1=2l_1+1.##

Therefore, we can assume that ##[p_1^{k_1}]_4=[3]_4^{2l_1+1}##. Now
\begin{align*}
\sigma_1([a]_4)&\equiv \prod_{i=1}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i} \equiv \sigma_1([3^{2l_1+1}]_4) \prod_{i=2}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i}\\
&\equiv \dfrac{3^{2l_1+2}-1}{3-1}\prod_{i=^2}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i} \\
&\equiv \dfrac{9^m-1}{2}\prod_{i=^2}^r \sigma_1([p_i]_4)^{k_i} \\
&\equiv 0\pmod{4}
\end{align*}

with ##m=l_1+1\geq 1## and ##9^m-1 \equiv 0\pmod{8},## hence ##\dfrac{9^m-1}{2}\equiv 0\pmod{4}.##

You have to explain why you may assume ##p_1=3,## which by the way is wrong. We can only assume that ##[p_1]_4\equiv [3]_4.##

And make sure that you first pass the entire formula modulo four, and then apply ##\sigma_1.##
 
Last edited:
The most important question when I read a proof, and therefore the most important question when you write a proof, is WHY. I ask this from line to line. If anybody is asking you this, you should be able to answer. In the best case, it is already written in the proof.
 
Okay, so I revised this proof:

Let ## 4k+3=p_{1}^{k_1}p_{2}^{k_2}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_s} ##.
Then ## 4\equiv 0\pmod {4} ## and ## 4k+3\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
Thus ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\not\equiv 0\pmod {4} ## for ## i=1, 2,..., s ##.
Suppose all ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\equiv 1\pmod {4} ##.
Then ## p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_{s}}\equiv 1\pmod {4} ##.
Since ## p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_{s}}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##,
it follows that ## \exists ## one ## p_{i} ## satisfying ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
This means ## p_{i}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
Observe that ## p_{i}^{2}\equiv 9\equiv 1\pmod {4} ## and ## p_{i}^{3}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##.
If ## p_{i}^{r}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ##, then ## r ## must be odd.
This implies ## p_{i}^{k_{i}}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ## where ## k_{i} ## is odd.
Now we have
\begin{align*}
&\sigma_{1}(p_{i}^{k_{i}})=p_{i}^{k_{i}}+p_{i}^{k_{i}-1}+\dotsb +p_{i}+1\\
&\equiv (3+1+\dotsb +3+1)\pmod {4}\\
&\equiv 0\pmod {4},\\
\end{align*}
because ## p_{i}^{r}\equiv 3\pmod {4} ## if ## r ## is odd and ## p_{i}^{r}\equiv 1\pmod {4} ## if ## r ## is even.
Thus
\begin{align*}
4\mid \sigma_{1}(p_{i}^{k_{i}} ) & \implies 4\mid \sigma (p_{1}^{k_{1}} )\dotsb \sigma_{1} (p_{i}^{k_{i}})\dotsb \sigma_{1} ( p_{s}^{k_{s}} ) \\
&\implies4\mid \sigma_{1} (p_{1}^{k_{1}}p_{2}^{k_{2}}\dotsb p_{s}^{k_{s}}).\\
\end{align*}
Therefore, ## 4\mid \sigma_{1} (4k+3) ## for each positive integer ## k ##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct.

I edited the typos. If you add one # too many or set one bracket wrong, then it doesn't render properly. It's sometimes hard to find if formulas got lengthy.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top