Immensely Compound Figure

1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 1\times2\times3\times4\times5\times6\times7 has exactly 60 positive divisors.

Can we find a positive integer smaller than 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 1\times2\times3\times4\times5\times6\times7 that also has exactly 60 positive divisors?

Yes No

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

2 solutions

David Vreken
Sep 11, 2018

The number of positive divisors of a number p 1 e 1 p 2 e 2 p n e n p_1^{e_1} \cdot p_2^{e_2} \cdot \dots \cdot p_n^{e_n} for prime factors of p p is ( e 1 + 1 ) ( e 2 + 1 ) ( e n + 1 ) (e_1 + 1) \cdot (e_2 + 1) \cdot \dots \cdot (e_n + 1) . For example, since 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 = 2 4 3 2 5 7 1\times2\times3\times4\times5\times6\times7 = 2^4 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 , it has ( 4 + 1 ) ( 2 + 1 ) ( 1 + 1 ) ( 1 + 1 ) = 5 3 2 2 = 60 (4 + 1) \cdot (2 + 1) \cdot (1 + 1) \cdot (1 + 1) = 5 \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 = 60 positive divisors.

We can also see that for a number to have exactly x x positive divisors, it must be in the form of p 1 f 1 1 p 2 f 2 1 p n f n 1 p_1^{f_1 - 1} \cdot p_2^{f_2 - 1} \cdot \dots \cdot p_n^{f_n - 1} , where x = f 1 f 2 f n x = f_1 \cdot f_2 \cdot \dots \cdot f_n . In addition, the minimum number with exactly x x positive divisors would have the smallest prime number ( 2 2 ) raised to the highest exponent, the next smallest prime number ( 3 3 ) raised to the second highest exponent, and so on.

Therefore, 2 4 3 2 5 7 2^4 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 is the minimum number to have exactly 60 60 positive divisors for the factorization of 60 = 5 3 2 2 60 = 5 \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 , but we still need to consider all of the factorizations of 60 60 , which are summarized in the table below. (We can also reduce the number of calculations needed by eliminating any factorization that gives a number that is obviously greater than 2 13 2^{13} , since 2 4 3 2 5 7 = 5040 < 2 13 2^4 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 = 5040 < 2^{13} .)

Factorization Minimum Number Value
5 3 2 2 5 \cdot 3 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 2 4 3 2 5 7 2^4 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 5040 < 2 13 5040 < 2^{13}
15 2 2 15 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 2 14 3 5 2^{14} \cdot 3 \cdot 5 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
10 3 2 10 \cdot 3 \cdot 2 2 9 3 2 5 2^9 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
6 5 2 6 \cdot 5 \cdot 2 2 5 3 4 5 2^5 \cdot 3^4 \cdot 5 12960 > 2 13 12960 > 2^{13}
5 4 3 5 \cdot 4 \cdot 3 2 4 3 3 5 2 2^4 \cdot 3^3 \cdot 5^2 10800 > 2 13 10800 > 2^{13}
10 6 10 \cdot 6 2 9 3 5 2^9 \cdot 3^5 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
12 6 12 \cdot 6 2 11 3 4 2^{11} \cdot 3^4 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
15 4 15 \cdot 4 2 14 3 3 2^{14} \cdot 3^3 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
20 3 20 \cdot 3 2 19 3 2 2^{19} \cdot 3^2 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
30 2 30 \cdot 2 2 29 3 2^{29} \cdot 3 > 2 13 > 2^{13}
60 60 2 59 2^{59} > 2 13 > 2^{13}

Therefore, 2 4 3 2 5 7 = 5040 = 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 2^4 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 = 5040 = 1\times2\times3\times4\times5\times6\times7 is the smallest number with exactly 60 60 divisors, so there is not a positive integer smaller than it that has exactly 60 60 divisors.

Naren Bhandari
Sep 10, 2018

Notice the following 2 × 3 × 5 × × 13 = 30030 > 7 ! 2\times 3\times 5 \times \cdots\times 13 =30030 > 7! This shows that number less than 7 ! 7! can have at most the factors of { 2 , 3 , 5 , 11 } \left\{2,3,5\cdots, 11\right\} in its prime factorization. As 2 × 3 × 5 × × 11 = 2301 k = 5040 k = 5040 2301 = 2 2\times 3\times 5\times \cdots \times 11 = 2301k = 5040\Rightarrow k =\left\lfloor \dfrac{5040}{2301}\right\rfloor=2 This means the number less 7! that holds highest number divisors is 2301 × 2 = 4610 2301\times 2= 4610 having
48 48 divisors.

Since 7 ! 7! has the distict prime factors less 11 so let us assume that there exist such number N < 7 ! N <7! with 60 divisors with distinct prime divisors less than 11. Following same working from above 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 = 210 k = 5040 k = 5040 210 = 24 = 2 3 × 3 2\times 3\times 5\times 7 = 210k =5040\implies k = \left\lfloor \dfrac{5040}{210}\right\rfloor=24 =2^3\times 3 Since N < 7 ! N<7! so from 210 × 2 3 × 3 210\times 2^3\times 3 either we can eliminate 2 2 or 3 3 . TO maximize the product we clearly eliminate 2 giving us 210 × 2 × 3 2 = 2510 210\times 2\times 3^2 =2510 . Having d ( 2510 ) = d ( 2 2 3 2 5 7 ) = 48 d(2510) = d(2^2\cdot 3^2\cdot 5\cdot 7) = 48 Thus the answer is No .


With the same concept I had set a problem almost 3 months back here .

Sir, @Pi Han Goh , after having some fun with your problem i came to conjecture that

There exist no any positive integer N N that M ! < N < ( M + 1 ) ! M! < N\ < (M+1)! such d ( N ) = d ( ( M + 1 ) ! ) d(N) = d\,\,((M+1)!) where M Z + M\in\mathbb Z^+ .

Naren Bhandari - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Interesting conjecture. While I'm not convinced that your conjecture is correct, I couldn't find any counterexample to it.

If your conjecture is indeed true, what do you think is a good way to prove this?

Pi Han Goh - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

I'm glad that you find it interesting. I still have no control over the set of integers that lies between M ! M! and ( M + 1 ) ! \,(M+1)! . To prove the claim I tried to find the counterexample as you tired too.

I think for a weak proof I can use the concept that I use to solve the problem of your. However, for any rigorous proof I have no idea. I would be glad if you provide any ideas 😁

Naren Bhandari - 2 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Naren Bhandari Sorry, I really don't know where to begin with this. But I'll keep you posted if I have any progress on it.

Pi Han Goh - 2 years, 9 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...