What proportion of positive integers have two factors that differ by 1?












57












$begingroup$


What proportion of positive integers have two factors that differ by 1?



This question occurred to me
while trying to figure out
why there are 7 days in a week.



I looked at 364,
the number of days closest to a year
(there are about 364.2422
days in a year, iirc).
Since
$364 = 2cdot 2 cdot 7 cdot 13$,
the number of possible
number that evenly divide a year
are
2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28,
and larger.



Given this,
7 looks reasonable -
2 and 4 are too short
and 13 is too long.



Anyway,
I noticed that
13 and 14 are there,
and wondered how often
this happens.



I wasn't able to figure out
a nice way to specify the
probability
(as in a Hardy-Littlewood
product),
and wasn't able to
do it from the inverse direction
(i.e., sort of a sieve
with n(n+1) going into
the array of integers).



Ideally, I would like
an asymptotic function
f(x) such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le nx}{n}
=f(x)
$
or find $c$ such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le n}{n}
=c
$.



My guess is that,
in the latter case,
$c = 0$ or 1,
but I have no idea which is true.
Maybe its
$1-frac1{e}$.



Note: I have modified this
to not allow 1 as a divisor.






number-theory asymptotics







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 26




    $begingroup$
    There are $365.2425$ days per year on average when taking leap year into account.
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Dec 13 '18 at 23:23






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A list of such numbers can be found at oeis.org/A088723
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I presume this doesn't constitute an answer for what you wanted, but I wrote a program to do a brute-force count and going up to $10^6$ I find 221944 numbers with this property; or up to $10^7$ I find 2219451. Perhaps that number will give someone an idea.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:34






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    History of the seven-day week (probably because it's close to 1/4 a lunar month, rather than 1/52 an astronomical year): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Dec 14 '18 at 12:47






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Slightly better approximation: 0.22194814. I approximately measured the density in the range $[k, k+10^{10})$ where $k=345678912345678$.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 16:08


















57












$begingroup$


What proportion of positive integers have two factors that differ by 1?



This question occurred to me
while trying to figure out
why there are 7 days in a week.



I looked at 364,
the number of days closest to a year
(there are about 364.2422
days in a year, iirc).
Since
$364 = 2cdot 2 cdot 7 cdot 13$,
the number of possible
number that evenly divide a year
are
2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28,
and larger.



Given this,
7 looks reasonable -
2 and 4 are too short
and 13 is too long.



Anyway,
I noticed that
13 and 14 are there,
and wondered how often
this happens.



I wasn't able to figure out
a nice way to specify the
probability
(as in a Hardy-Littlewood
product),
and wasn't able to
do it from the inverse direction
(i.e., sort of a sieve
with n(n+1) going into
the array of integers).



Ideally, I would like
an asymptotic function
f(x) such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le nx}{n}
=f(x)
$
or find $c$ such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le n}{n}
=c
$.



My guess is that,
in the latter case,
$c = 0$ or 1,
but I have no idea which is true.
Maybe its
$1-frac1{e}$.



Note: I have modified this
to not allow 1 as a divisor.






number-theory asymptotics







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 26




    $begingroup$
    There are $365.2425$ days per year on average when taking leap year into account.
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Dec 13 '18 at 23:23






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A list of such numbers can be found at oeis.org/A088723
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I presume this doesn't constitute an answer for what you wanted, but I wrote a program to do a brute-force count and going up to $10^6$ I find 221944 numbers with this property; or up to $10^7$ I find 2219451. Perhaps that number will give someone an idea.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:34






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    History of the seven-day week (probably because it's close to 1/4 a lunar month, rather than 1/52 an astronomical year): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Dec 14 '18 at 12:47






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Slightly better approximation: 0.22194814. I approximately measured the density in the range $[k, k+10^{10})$ where $k=345678912345678$.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 16:08
















57












57








57


15



$begingroup$


What proportion of positive integers have two factors that differ by 1?



This question occurred to me
while trying to figure out
why there are 7 days in a week.



I looked at 364,
the number of days closest to a year
(there are about 364.2422
days in a year, iirc).
Since
$364 = 2cdot 2 cdot 7 cdot 13$,
the number of possible
number that evenly divide a year
are
2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28,
and larger.



Given this,
7 looks reasonable -
2 and 4 are too short
and 13 is too long.



Anyway,
I noticed that
13 and 14 are there,
and wondered how often
this happens.



I wasn't able to figure out
a nice way to specify the
probability
(as in a Hardy-Littlewood
product),
and wasn't able to
do it from the inverse direction
(i.e., sort of a sieve
with n(n+1) going into
the array of integers).



Ideally, I would like
an asymptotic function
f(x) such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le nx}{n}
=f(x)
$
or find $c$ such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le n}{n}
=c
$.



My guess is that,
in the latter case,
$c = 0$ or 1,
but I have no idea which is true.
Maybe its
$1-frac1{e}$.



Note: I have modified this
to not allow 1 as a divisor.






number-theory asymptotics







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




What proportion of positive integers have two factors that differ by 1?



This question occurred to me
while trying to figure out
why there are 7 days in a week.



I looked at 364,
the number of days closest to a year
(there are about 364.2422
days in a year, iirc).
Since
$364 = 2cdot 2 cdot 7 cdot 13$,
the number of possible
number that evenly divide a year
are
2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28,
and larger.



Given this,
7 looks reasonable -
2 and 4 are too short
and 13 is too long.



Anyway,
I noticed that
13 and 14 are there,
and wondered how often
this happens.



I wasn't able to figure out
a nice way to specify the
probability
(as in a Hardy-Littlewood
product),
and wasn't able to
do it from the inverse direction
(i.e., sort of a sieve
with n(n+1) going into
the array of integers).



Ideally, I would like
an asymptotic function
f(x) such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le nx}{n}
=f(x)
$
or find $c$ such that
$lim_{n to infty} dfrac{text{number of such integers } ge 2 le n}{n}
=c
$.



My guess is that,
in the latter case,
$c = 0$ or 1,
but I have no idea which is true.
Maybe its
$1-frac1{e}$.



Note: I have modified this
to not allow 1 as a divisor.






number-theory asymptotics




number-theory asymptotics






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 14 '18 at 2:55







marty cohen

















asked Dec 13 '18 at 23:09









marty cohenmarty cohen

72.9k549128




72.9k549128








  • 26




    $begingroup$
    There are $365.2425$ days per year on average when taking leap year into account.
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Dec 13 '18 at 23:23






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A list of such numbers can be found at oeis.org/A088723
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I presume this doesn't constitute an answer for what you wanted, but I wrote a program to do a brute-force count and going up to $10^6$ I find 221944 numbers with this property; or up to $10^7$ I find 2219451. Perhaps that number will give someone an idea.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:34






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    History of the seven-day week (probably because it's close to 1/4 a lunar month, rather than 1/52 an astronomical year): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Dec 14 '18 at 12:47






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Slightly better approximation: 0.22194814. I approximately measured the density in the range $[k, k+10^{10})$ where $k=345678912345678$.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 16:08
















  • 26




    $begingroup$
    There are $365.2425$ days per year on average when taking leap year into account.
    $endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Dec 13 '18 at 23:23






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A list of such numbers can be found at oeis.org/A088723
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I presume this doesn't constitute an answer for what you wanted, but I wrote a program to do a brute-force count and going up to $10^6$ I find 221944 numbers with this property; or up to $10^7$ I find 2219451. Perhaps that number will give someone an idea.
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Dec 14 '18 at 5:34






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    History of the seven-day week (probably because it's close to 1/4 a lunar month, rather than 1/52 an astronomical year): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
    $endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Dec 14 '18 at 12:47






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Slightly better approximation: 0.22194814. I approximately measured the density in the range $[k, k+10^{10})$ where $k=345678912345678$.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 16:08










26




26




$begingroup$
There are $365.2425$ days per year on average when taking leap year into account.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 13 '18 at 23:23




$begingroup$
There are $365.2425$ days per year on average when taking leap year into account.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 13 '18 at 23:23




4




4




$begingroup$
A list of such numbers can be found at oeis.org/A088723
$endgroup$
– Dan
Dec 14 '18 at 5:04




$begingroup$
A list of such numbers can be found at oeis.org/A088723
$endgroup$
– Dan
Dec 14 '18 at 5:04




4




4




$begingroup$
I presume this doesn't constitute an answer for what you wanted, but I wrote a program to do a brute-force count and going up to $10^6$ I find 221944 numbers with this property; or up to $10^7$ I find 2219451. Perhaps that number will give someone an idea.
$endgroup$
– David Z
Dec 14 '18 at 5:34




$begingroup$
I presume this doesn't constitute an answer for what you wanted, but I wrote a program to do a brute-force count and going up to $10^6$ I find 221944 numbers with this property; or up to $10^7$ I find 2219451. Perhaps that number will give someone an idea.
$endgroup$
– David Z
Dec 14 '18 at 5:34




4




4




$begingroup$
History of the seven-day week (probably because it's close to 1/4 a lunar month, rather than 1/52 an astronomical year): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
$endgroup$
– aschepler
Dec 14 '18 at 12:47




$begingroup$
History of the seven-day week (probably because it's close to 1/4 a lunar month, rather than 1/52 an astronomical year): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#History
$endgroup$
– aschepler
Dec 14 '18 at 12:47




4




4




$begingroup$
Slightly better approximation: 0.22194814. I approximately measured the density in the range $[k, k+10^{10})$ where $k=345678912345678$.
$endgroup$
– Veedrac
Dec 14 '18 at 16:08






$begingroup$
Slightly better approximation: 0.22194814. I approximately measured the density in the range $[k, k+10^{10})$ where $k=345678912345678$.
$endgroup$
– Veedrac
Dec 14 '18 at 16:08












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















85












$begingroup$

Every even number has consecutive factors: $1$ and $2$.



No odd number has, because all its factors are odd.



The probability is $1/2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 22




    $begingroup$
    Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
    $endgroup$
    – marty cohen
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:57






  • 30




    $begingroup$
    This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
    $endgroup$
    – user121330
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Dec 14 '18 at 15:22






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:31






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Dec 14 '18 at 23:37



















33












$begingroup$

What kind of numbers have this property?




  • All multiples of 6 (because 6 = 2 × 3). So that's 1/6 of the integers.

  • All multiples of 12 (12 = 3 × 4), but these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 20 (20 = 4 × 5), so add 1/20 of the integers. But we've double-counted multiples of 60 (LCD of 6 and 20), so subtract 1/60. This gives us 1/6 + 1/20 - 1/60 = 1/5.

  • All multiples of 30 (5 × 6) or 42 (6 × 7), but again, these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 56 (7 × 8), but don't double-count the ones that are also multiples of 6 or 20. If I did the arithmetic correctly, this brings us up to 22/105.

  • All multiples of 72 (8 × 9) or 90 (9 × 10), but these are already multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 110 (10 × 11), being careful not to double-count multiples of 6, 20, or 56. We're now at 491/2310.


Continue the pattern to get a lower bound on the probability. I bet it converges to something, but I haven't bothered to compute what.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 14 '18 at 8:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:00






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:12








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric M. Schmidt
    Dec 15 '18 at 23:08



















7












$begingroup$

I've used Dan's idea to attempt to formalise the problem some more. Define $d(k,i)$ as the number of pairs of consecutive divisors of $i$ up to $(k+2)$. Then $c(k,i)$ stops $d$ from over-counting and is the indicator function for whether $(k+1)$, $(k+2)$ are the first pair of consecutive divisors of $i$.



$$begin{aligned}
d(k,i)&=
sum_{j=1}^{k}delta_{(i%(j+1)(j+2))}\
c(k,i)&=begin{cases}
0,&d(k,i)>1lor d(k-1,n)=1\
d(k,i),&text{else}
end{cases}
end{aligned}$$



Where $%$ is the modulo operator and $delta_x$ is the single argument Kronecker delta. The proportion we want is then:



$$p=frac16+lim_{ntoinfty}frac1{n}sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=2}^{lfloorsqrt{i}rfloor}c(k,i)\$$



The sum over $k$ represents different divisors, while the sum over $i$ represents different dividends. Here is a python script for a former rearrangement of the equations. They agree with the $0.2219$ estimates others have provided. Bear in mind they're slow but can potentially be manipulated.



To proceed further, we could try simplifying $c(k,i)$ or sieve techniques. Swapping round the sums is equivalent to how Dan has found the values $frac16,0,frac1{20}-frac1{60},ldots$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$. Similarly, we can swap round the sum operators, then fix $k$ and look at the sequence of partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^nc$.



I used $n$ in powers of $2$, to make the sequence manageable. By comparing the partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ with sequences on OEIS, I found that when $k=1$, the nonzero partial sums of the sequence match this sequence. But when $k=3$, the nonzero partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ match this sequence. So perhaps $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ can be expressed as the expansions of rational functions.



From playing with the output of the code, it seems as though $sum_{i=1}^nc$ is nonzero iff $kequiv0mod3$, i.e. you only need to check every third divisor in Dan's answer.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Please try to avoid making very many edits.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Dec 19 '18 at 14:48











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038712%2fwhat-proportion-of-positive-integers-have-two-factors-that-differ-by-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









85












$begingroup$

Every even number has consecutive factors: $1$ and $2$.



No odd number has, because all its factors are odd.



The probability is $1/2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 22




    $begingroup$
    Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
    $endgroup$
    – marty cohen
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:57






  • 30




    $begingroup$
    This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
    $endgroup$
    – user121330
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Dec 14 '18 at 15:22






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:31






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Dec 14 '18 at 23:37
















85












$begingroup$

Every even number has consecutive factors: $1$ and $2$.



No odd number has, because all its factors are odd.



The probability is $1/2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 22




    $begingroup$
    Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
    $endgroup$
    – marty cohen
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:57






  • 30




    $begingroup$
    This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
    $endgroup$
    – user121330
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Dec 14 '18 at 15:22






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:31






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Dec 14 '18 at 23:37














85












85








85





$begingroup$

Every even number has consecutive factors: $1$ and $2$.



No odd number has, because all its factors are odd.



The probability is $1/2$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Every even number has consecutive factors: $1$ and $2$.



No odd number has, because all its factors are odd.



The probability is $1/2$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 13 '18 at 23:38









ajotatxeajotatxe

53.6k23890




53.6k23890








  • 22




    $begingroup$
    Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
    $endgroup$
    – marty cohen
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:57






  • 30




    $begingroup$
    This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
    $endgroup$
    – user121330
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Dec 14 '18 at 15:22






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:31






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Dec 14 '18 at 23:37














  • 22




    $begingroup$
    Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
    $endgroup$
    – marty cohen
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:57






  • 30




    $begingroup$
    This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
    $endgroup$
    – user121330
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:42






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Dec 14 '18 at 15:22






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:31






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Dec 14 '18 at 23:37








22




22




$begingroup$
Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Dec 14 '18 at 2:57




$begingroup$
Good point. I have become my evil twin by not allowing 1 as a divisor. To make up for this, I have upvoted you.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Dec 14 '18 at 2:57




30




30




$begingroup$
This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
$endgroup$
– user121330
Dec 14 '18 at 14:42




$begingroup$
This is a much more interesting problem if one specifies '1' may not be a factor.
$endgroup$
– user121330
Dec 14 '18 at 14:42




1




1




$begingroup$
OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 14 '18 at 15:22




$begingroup$
OK, so now how many even numbers have N pairs? (evil grin)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Dec 14 '18 at 15:22




5




5




$begingroup$
Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
$endgroup$
– R..
Dec 14 '18 at 18:31




$begingroup$
Units are normally excluded from the definition of factors.
$endgroup$
– R..
Dec 14 '18 at 18:31




6




6




$begingroup$
@R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Dec 14 '18 at 23:37




$begingroup$
@R. Not in my experience of number theory (though in more general contexts it would be reasonable). The number whose factors you're seeking, on the other hand, is excluded from "proper" factors.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Dec 14 '18 at 23:37











33












$begingroup$

What kind of numbers have this property?




  • All multiples of 6 (because 6 = 2 × 3). So that's 1/6 of the integers.

  • All multiples of 12 (12 = 3 × 4), but these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 20 (20 = 4 × 5), so add 1/20 of the integers. But we've double-counted multiples of 60 (LCD of 6 and 20), so subtract 1/60. This gives us 1/6 + 1/20 - 1/60 = 1/5.

  • All multiples of 30 (5 × 6) or 42 (6 × 7), but again, these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 56 (7 × 8), but don't double-count the ones that are also multiples of 6 or 20. If I did the arithmetic correctly, this brings us up to 22/105.

  • All multiples of 72 (8 × 9) or 90 (9 × 10), but these are already multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 110 (10 × 11), being careful not to double-count multiples of 6, 20, or 56. We're now at 491/2310.


Continue the pattern to get a lower bound on the probability. I bet it converges to something, but I haven't bothered to compute what.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 14 '18 at 8:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:00






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:12








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric M. Schmidt
    Dec 15 '18 at 23:08
















33












$begingroup$

What kind of numbers have this property?




  • All multiples of 6 (because 6 = 2 × 3). So that's 1/6 of the integers.

  • All multiples of 12 (12 = 3 × 4), but these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 20 (20 = 4 × 5), so add 1/20 of the integers. But we've double-counted multiples of 60 (LCD of 6 and 20), so subtract 1/60. This gives us 1/6 + 1/20 - 1/60 = 1/5.

  • All multiples of 30 (5 × 6) or 42 (6 × 7), but again, these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 56 (7 × 8), but don't double-count the ones that are also multiples of 6 or 20. If I did the arithmetic correctly, this brings us up to 22/105.

  • All multiples of 72 (8 × 9) or 90 (9 × 10), but these are already multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 110 (10 × 11), being careful not to double-count multiples of 6, 20, or 56. We're now at 491/2310.


Continue the pattern to get a lower bound on the probability. I bet it converges to something, but I haven't bothered to compute what.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 14 '18 at 8:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:00






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:12








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric M. Schmidt
    Dec 15 '18 at 23:08














33












33








33





$begingroup$

What kind of numbers have this property?




  • All multiples of 6 (because 6 = 2 × 3). So that's 1/6 of the integers.

  • All multiples of 12 (12 = 3 × 4), but these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 20 (20 = 4 × 5), so add 1/20 of the integers. But we've double-counted multiples of 60 (LCD of 6 and 20), so subtract 1/60. This gives us 1/6 + 1/20 - 1/60 = 1/5.

  • All multiples of 30 (5 × 6) or 42 (6 × 7), but again, these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 56 (7 × 8), but don't double-count the ones that are also multiples of 6 or 20. If I did the arithmetic correctly, this brings us up to 22/105.

  • All multiples of 72 (8 × 9) or 90 (9 × 10), but these are already multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 110 (10 × 11), being careful not to double-count multiples of 6, 20, or 56. We're now at 491/2310.


Continue the pattern to get a lower bound on the probability. I bet it converges to something, but I haven't bothered to compute what.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



What kind of numbers have this property?




  • All multiples of 6 (because 6 = 2 × 3). So that's 1/6 of the integers.

  • All multiples of 12 (12 = 3 × 4), but these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 20 (20 = 4 × 5), so add 1/20 of the integers. But we've double-counted multiples of 60 (LCD of 6 and 20), so subtract 1/60. This gives us 1/6 + 1/20 - 1/60 = 1/5.

  • All multiples of 30 (5 × 6) or 42 (6 × 7), but again, these have already been counted as multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 56 (7 × 8), but don't double-count the ones that are also multiples of 6 or 20. If I did the arithmetic correctly, this brings us up to 22/105.

  • All multiples of 72 (8 × 9) or 90 (9 × 10), but these are already multiples of 6.

  • All multiples of 110 (10 × 11), being careful not to double-count multiples of 6, 20, or 56. We're now at 491/2310.


Continue the pattern to get a lower bound on the probability. I bet it converges to something, but I haven't bothered to compute what.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 14 '18 at 5:23









DanDan

4,50511517




4,50511517








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 14 '18 at 8:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:00






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:12








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric M. Schmidt
    Dec 15 '18 at 23:08














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 14 '18 at 8:24






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:29






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:00






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
    $endgroup$
    – Veedrac
    Dec 14 '18 at 18:12








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric M. Schmidt
    Dec 15 '18 at 23:08








2




2




$begingroup$
Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
$endgroup$
– Eric
Dec 14 '18 at 8:24




$begingroup$
Don't forget that 1/2 gives you the other bound, for the same reason as the original answer
$endgroup$
– Eric
Dec 14 '18 at 8:24




6




6




$begingroup$
True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Dan
Dec 14 '18 at 13:29




$begingroup$
True: The product of two consecutive integers is always even, so no odd number can have the property we're looking for.
$endgroup$
– Dan
Dec 14 '18 at 13:29




4




4




$begingroup$
Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
$endgroup$
– Veedrac
Dec 14 '18 at 18:00




$begingroup$
Continuing until 190×191, you get a density of approximately 0.2215. It gets exponentially harder to calculate as you go along, and doesn't converge amazingly fast. (Exact fraction $30692078612850182537626772507400566302461540183482511947993/138565669082349191587117161961128738469412352721071780196786$).
$endgroup$
– Veedrac
Dec 14 '18 at 18:00




2




2




$begingroup$
@Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
$endgroup$
– Veedrac
Dec 14 '18 at 18:12






$begingroup$
@Dan I doubt it. The 0.22194814 I measured manually has fairly low error (I'd guess 4-5 s.f.). Using an approximate version of this post (ignoring terms $<10^{-11}$) I also get 0.221941 at 10882×10883, which is definitely imprecise but lends credence to that ballpark.
$endgroup$
– Veedrac
Dec 14 '18 at 18:12






4




4




$begingroup$
We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
$endgroup$
– Eric M. Schmidt
Dec 15 '18 at 23:08




$begingroup$
We can also compute upper bounds using $sum_{n=k}^infty frac{1}{n(n+1)} = frac{1}{k}$. Let $s_k$ be the lower bound computed using the terms up to $k times (k+1)$. Then, an upper bound is $s_k + 1/(k+1)$. For instance, if we apply this to Veedrac's estimate for $10882 times 10883$, we get an approximate upper bound of $0.221941 + 1/10883$, which is about $0.222033$.
$endgroup$
– Eric M. Schmidt
Dec 15 '18 at 23:08











7












$begingroup$

I've used Dan's idea to attempt to formalise the problem some more. Define $d(k,i)$ as the number of pairs of consecutive divisors of $i$ up to $(k+2)$. Then $c(k,i)$ stops $d$ from over-counting and is the indicator function for whether $(k+1)$, $(k+2)$ are the first pair of consecutive divisors of $i$.



$$begin{aligned}
d(k,i)&=
sum_{j=1}^{k}delta_{(i%(j+1)(j+2))}\
c(k,i)&=begin{cases}
0,&d(k,i)>1lor d(k-1,n)=1\
d(k,i),&text{else}
end{cases}
end{aligned}$$



Where $%$ is the modulo operator and $delta_x$ is the single argument Kronecker delta. The proportion we want is then:



$$p=frac16+lim_{ntoinfty}frac1{n}sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=2}^{lfloorsqrt{i}rfloor}c(k,i)\$$



The sum over $k$ represents different divisors, while the sum over $i$ represents different dividends. Here is a python script for a former rearrangement of the equations. They agree with the $0.2219$ estimates others have provided. Bear in mind they're slow but can potentially be manipulated.



To proceed further, we could try simplifying $c(k,i)$ or sieve techniques. Swapping round the sums is equivalent to how Dan has found the values $frac16,0,frac1{20}-frac1{60},ldots$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$. Similarly, we can swap round the sum operators, then fix $k$ and look at the sequence of partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^nc$.



I used $n$ in powers of $2$, to make the sequence manageable. By comparing the partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ with sequences on OEIS, I found that when $k=1$, the nonzero partial sums of the sequence match this sequence. But when $k=3$, the nonzero partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ match this sequence. So perhaps $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ can be expressed as the expansions of rational functions.



From playing with the output of the code, it seems as though $sum_{i=1}^nc$ is nonzero iff $kequiv0mod3$, i.e. you only need to check every third divisor in Dan's answer.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Please try to avoid making very many edits.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
















7












$begingroup$

I've used Dan's idea to attempt to formalise the problem some more. Define $d(k,i)$ as the number of pairs of consecutive divisors of $i$ up to $(k+2)$. Then $c(k,i)$ stops $d$ from over-counting and is the indicator function for whether $(k+1)$, $(k+2)$ are the first pair of consecutive divisors of $i$.



$$begin{aligned}
d(k,i)&=
sum_{j=1}^{k}delta_{(i%(j+1)(j+2))}\
c(k,i)&=begin{cases}
0,&d(k,i)>1lor d(k-1,n)=1\
d(k,i),&text{else}
end{cases}
end{aligned}$$



Where $%$ is the modulo operator and $delta_x$ is the single argument Kronecker delta. The proportion we want is then:



$$p=frac16+lim_{ntoinfty}frac1{n}sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=2}^{lfloorsqrt{i}rfloor}c(k,i)\$$



The sum over $k$ represents different divisors, while the sum over $i$ represents different dividends. Here is a python script for a former rearrangement of the equations. They agree with the $0.2219$ estimates others have provided. Bear in mind they're slow but can potentially be manipulated.



To proceed further, we could try simplifying $c(k,i)$ or sieve techniques. Swapping round the sums is equivalent to how Dan has found the values $frac16,0,frac1{20}-frac1{60},ldots$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$. Similarly, we can swap round the sum operators, then fix $k$ and look at the sequence of partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^nc$.



I used $n$ in powers of $2$, to make the sequence manageable. By comparing the partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ with sequences on OEIS, I found that when $k=1$, the nonzero partial sums of the sequence match this sequence. But when $k=3$, the nonzero partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ match this sequence. So perhaps $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ can be expressed as the expansions of rational functions.



From playing with the output of the code, it seems as though $sum_{i=1}^nc$ is nonzero iff $kequiv0mod3$, i.e. you only need to check every third divisor in Dan's answer.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Please try to avoid making very many edits.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Dec 19 '18 at 14:48














7












7








7





$begingroup$

I've used Dan's idea to attempt to formalise the problem some more. Define $d(k,i)$ as the number of pairs of consecutive divisors of $i$ up to $(k+2)$. Then $c(k,i)$ stops $d$ from over-counting and is the indicator function for whether $(k+1)$, $(k+2)$ are the first pair of consecutive divisors of $i$.



$$begin{aligned}
d(k,i)&=
sum_{j=1}^{k}delta_{(i%(j+1)(j+2))}\
c(k,i)&=begin{cases}
0,&d(k,i)>1lor d(k-1,n)=1\
d(k,i),&text{else}
end{cases}
end{aligned}$$



Where $%$ is the modulo operator and $delta_x$ is the single argument Kronecker delta. The proportion we want is then:



$$p=frac16+lim_{ntoinfty}frac1{n}sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=2}^{lfloorsqrt{i}rfloor}c(k,i)\$$



The sum over $k$ represents different divisors, while the sum over $i$ represents different dividends. Here is a python script for a former rearrangement of the equations. They agree with the $0.2219$ estimates others have provided. Bear in mind they're slow but can potentially be manipulated.



To proceed further, we could try simplifying $c(k,i)$ or sieve techniques. Swapping round the sums is equivalent to how Dan has found the values $frac16,0,frac1{20}-frac1{60},ldots$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$. Similarly, we can swap round the sum operators, then fix $k$ and look at the sequence of partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^nc$.



I used $n$ in powers of $2$, to make the sequence manageable. By comparing the partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ with sequences on OEIS, I found that when $k=1$, the nonzero partial sums of the sequence match this sequence. But when $k=3$, the nonzero partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ match this sequence. So perhaps $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ can be expressed as the expansions of rational functions.



From playing with the output of the code, it seems as though $sum_{i=1}^nc$ is nonzero iff $kequiv0mod3$, i.e. you only need to check every third divisor in Dan's answer.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I've used Dan's idea to attempt to formalise the problem some more. Define $d(k,i)$ as the number of pairs of consecutive divisors of $i$ up to $(k+2)$. Then $c(k,i)$ stops $d$ from over-counting and is the indicator function for whether $(k+1)$, $(k+2)$ are the first pair of consecutive divisors of $i$.



$$begin{aligned}
d(k,i)&=
sum_{j=1}^{k}delta_{(i%(j+1)(j+2))}\
c(k,i)&=begin{cases}
0,&d(k,i)>1lor d(k-1,n)=1\
d(k,i),&text{else}
end{cases}
end{aligned}$$



Where $%$ is the modulo operator and $delta_x$ is the single argument Kronecker delta. The proportion we want is then:



$$p=frac16+lim_{ntoinfty}frac1{n}sum_{i=1}^nsum_{k=2}^{lfloorsqrt{i}rfloor}c(k,i)\$$



The sum over $k$ represents different divisors, while the sum over $i$ represents different dividends. Here is a python script for a former rearrangement of the equations. They agree with the $0.2219$ estimates others have provided. Bear in mind they're slow but can potentially be manipulated.



To proceed further, we could try simplifying $c(k,i)$ or sieve techniques. Swapping round the sums is equivalent to how Dan has found the values $frac16,0,frac1{20}-frac1{60},ldots$ for $k=1,2,3,ldots$. Similarly, we can swap round the sum operators, then fix $k$ and look at the sequence of partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^nc$.



I used $n$ in powers of $2$, to make the sequence manageable. By comparing the partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ with sequences on OEIS, I found that when $k=1$, the nonzero partial sums of the sequence match this sequence. But when $k=3$, the nonzero partial sums of $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ match this sequence. So perhaps $sum_{i=1}^{2^n}c$ can be expressed as the expansions of rational functions.



From playing with the output of the code, it seems as though $sum_{i=1}^nc$ is nonzero iff $kequiv0mod3$, i.e. you only need to check every third divisor in Dan's answer.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 19 '18 at 14:37

























answered Dec 17 '18 at 18:20









JamJam

4,96021431




4,96021431












  • $begingroup$
    Please try to avoid making very many edits.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Dec 19 '18 at 14:48


















  • $begingroup$
    Please try to avoid making very many edits.
    $endgroup$
    – quid♦
    Dec 19 '18 at 14:48
















$begingroup$
Please try to avoid making very many edits.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48




$begingroup$
Please try to avoid making very many edits.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Dec 19 '18 at 14:48


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038712%2fwhat-proportion-of-positive-integers-have-two-factors-that-differ-by-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
Read more

Cabo Verde

Image
  Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º) ...
Read more

Gyllenstierna

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid ...
Read more