1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 has exactly 60 positive divisors.
Can we find a positive integer smaller than 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 that also has exactly 60 positive divisors?
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.
Notice the following
2
×
3
×
5
×
⋯
×
1
3
=
3
0
0
3
0
>
7
!
This shows that number less than
7
!
can have at most the factors of
{
2
,
3
,
5
⋯
,
1
1
}
in its prime factorization. As
2
×
3
×
5
×
⋯
×
1
1
=
2
3
0
1
k
=
5
0
4
0
⇒
k
=
⌊
2
3
0
1
5
0
4
0
⌋
=
2
This means the number less 7! that holds highest number divisors is
2
3
0
1
×
2
=
4
6
1
0
having
4
8
divisors.
Since 7 ! has the distict prime factors less 11 so let us assume that there exist such number N < 7 ! with 60 divisors with distinct prime divisors less than 11. Following same working from above 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 = 2 1 0 k = 5 0 4 0 ⟹ k = ⌊ 2 1 0 5 0 4 0 ⌋ = 2 4 = 2 3 × 3 Since N < 7 ! so from 2 1 0 × 2 3 × 3 either we can eliminate 2 or 3 . TO maximize the product we clearly eliminate 2 giving us 2 1 0 × 2 × 3 2 = 2 5 1 0 . Having d ( 2 5 1 0 ) = d ( 2 2 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 ) = 4 8 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 that M ! < N < ( M + 1 ) ! such d ( N ) = d ( ( M + 1 ) ! ) where M ∈ Z + .
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?
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 ! and ( 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 😁
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.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The number of positive divisors of a number p 1 e 1 ⋅ p 2 e 2 ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ p n e n for prime factors of p is ( e 1 + 1 ) ⋅ ( e 2 + 1 ) ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ ( e n + 1 ) . For example, since 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 = 2 4 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 , it has ( 4 + 1 ) ⋅ ( 2 + 1 ) ⋅ ( 1 + 1 ) ⋅ ( 1 + 1 ) = 5 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 = 6 0 positive divisors.
We can also see that for a number to have exactly 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 , where x = f 1 ⋅ f 2 ⋅ ⋯ ⋅ f n . In addition, the minimum number with exactly x positive divisors would have the smallest prime number ( 2 ) raised to the highest exponent, the next smallest prime number ( 3 ) raised to the second highest exponent, and so on.
Therefore, 2 4 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 is the minimum number to have exactly 6 0 positive divisors for the factorization of 6 0 = 5 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 , but we still need to consider all of the factorizations of 6 0 , 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 1 3 , since 2 4 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 = 5 0 4 0 < 2 1 3 .)
Therefore, 2 4 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 = 5 0 4 0 = 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 is the smallest number with exactly 6 0 divisors, so there is not a positive integer smaller than it that has exactly 6 0 divisors.