For a positive integer n , let ϕ ( n ) denote the Euler-Totient Function and p ( n ) denote the number of primes not exceeding n which do not divide n . Then consider the equivalence relation for which p ( n ) = ϕ ( n ) − 1 .
For how many values n , does the relation hold?
If you believe there are infinitely values whereby the relation is true, submit your answer as -1
Note 1 is not considered a prime here
Inspired by Number Theory by George E. Andrews
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.
p ( n ) = ϕ ( n ) − 1 iff all totients of n are 1 or prime.
Hence, if p is the smallest prime which isn't a factor of n , n < p 2 .
(Letting q ? be the product of all primes less than or equal to q )
( p − 1 ) ? must be a factor of n , so ( p − 1 ) ? < p 2 , and p < 1 1 .
Cases:
p = 2 : 1 , 3 ,
p = 3 : 2 , 4 , 8 ,
p = 5 : 6 , 1 2 , 1 8 , 2 4 ,
p = 7 : 3 0 .
I misread the question wrong at first, and solved the different question: p ( n ) = ϕ ( n ) − 2 .
Thanks for taking the time to write a solution, shame about the misreading though
Log in to reply
I posted the question I ended up doing here , made it look like a sequel and they should do this question first.
Next up: p(n) = ϕ(n)- k :)
Euler's totient function ϕ ( n ) represents the number of numbers less than n relatively prime (do not share a factor in common with) to n .
Think of p ( n ) as the number of primes less than n that are relatively prime to n .
Define a new function q ( n ) which represents the number of composites less than n that are relatively prime to n .
We can now create the equivalence relation p ( n ) + q ( n ) + 1 = ϕ ( n ) or p ( n ) + q ( n ) = ϕ ( n ) − 1 (since ϕ ( n ) includes one in its counting, we must add one in our equivalence relation). Since we are trying to find values of n such that p ( n ) = ϕ ( n ) − 1 , we conclude that q ( n ) = 0 . This means that all composite numbers less than n must share a factor with n .
This leads to several conclusions:
(1) n must be non-prime except for n ≤ 3 . This is because q ( 1 ) , q ( 2 ) , and q ( 3 ) are all equal to zero and q ( p ) > 0 for a prime p greater than 4.
(2) If n = p 1 k 1 p 2 k 2 . . . p N k N where p is a prime, then n < q 2 where q is a prime not equal to p 1 , p 2 , ..., p N and q < n . This is because if n was greater than or equal to q 2 then q would have to be a factor of n if q ( n ) is to equal zero.
(3) All n ≥ 4 must be even. All n ≥ 9 must be multiples of 3. All n ≥ 2 5 must be multiples of 5. In generall, all n ≥ p 2 must be multiples of p . This conclusion is easy to verify because we already verified it in proving (2) - "if n was greater than or equal to q 2 then q would have to be a factor of n if q ( n ) is to equal zero".
Using these conclusions, we can figure out that 30 is the last number which satisfies q ( n ) = 0 since the next number after 30 which satisfies (3) is 60 which is greater than 49, violating (2). If we were to include 7 (yielding the number 210), we would also have to include 11 (since 210 > 121). You would then start having to include more and more primes, making it impossible to include any more primes after 5.
Searching through the numbers between 1 and 30 which satisfy q ( n ) = 0 yields 1 0 numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, 24, and 30.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
It's easy to check that there are 1 0 integers ≤ 3 0 that satisfy the condition: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 1 2 , 1 8 , 2 4 , 3 0 . We'll show that these are the only ones.
For n > 1 , the condition is equivalent to the statement that if m < n is relatively prime to n , then m is prime or m = 1 . Suppose n > 3 0 satisfies the condition. Clearly 2 ∣ n , as otherwise m = 4 violates the condition. Similarly, 3 ∣ n and 5 ∣ n . So 3 0 ∣ n . Now let p be the smallest prime not dividing n .
If p = 7 , then m = 4 9 violates the condition, because n ≥ 6 0 .
If p = 1 1 , then m = 1 2 1 violates the condition, because n ≥ 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 5 ⋅ 7 = 2 1 0 .
For larger values of p , to show that m = p 2 violates the condition, we need to show that p 2 ≤ n , and it is enough to show that 2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 5 ⋯ q ≥ p 2 where q is the largest prime less than p . But we can use Bertrand's postulate : the left side is greater than 3 0 ( q / 2 ) q , and the right side is less than ( 2 q ) 2 , so the left side is greater than 1 5 q 2 and the right side is less than 4 q 2 , and the result follows.