Some modular considerations

regarding odd perfect numbers - Part III

Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris1, Tony Kuria Kimani2

and Immanuel Tobias San Diego3
1
Unaffiliated/Independent Researcher
Taguig City, Philippines
e-mail: josearnaldobebita@gmail.com
M. Sc. Research Methodology Student
2

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

Nairobi, Kenya
e-mail: tkimani19@gmail.com
Trinity University of Asia
3

Quezon City, Philippines

e-mails: itsandiego@tua.edu.ph, immanuelsandiego28@gmail.com

Abstract: Suppose that pk m2 is an odd perfect number with special prime p. We show that
the biconditionals

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16)

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16)

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16)

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16)

hold. This extends a result of Chen and Luo.

Keywords: Congruences, Special prime, Odd perfect number.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 11A05, 11A25.

Copyright © 2023 by the Authors. This is an Open Access paper distributed

under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (CC BY 4.0). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
1 Introduction
Denote the classical sum of divisors of the positive integer x by σ(x) = σ1 (x). Call I(x) =
σ(x)/x as the abundancy index of x, D(x) = 2x − σ(x) as the deficiency of x, and s(x) =
σ(x) − x as the aliquot sum of x. (Note that D(x) + s(x) = x.)
A number P is said to be perfect if σ(P ) = 2P . Equivalently, if P is perfect, then
I(P ) = 2, D(P ) = 0, and S(P ) = P hold.
Euler established the general form that an even perfect number must take, building on
previous work by Euclid.

Theorem 1.1. An even number M is perfect if and only if

Mq (Mq + 1)
M=
2
where Mq = 2q − 1 is a prime number.

There are only fifty-one known perfect numbers, and they are all even [6]. It is widely
believed that there are infinitely many even perfect numbers, and that there are no odd
perfect numbers.
Euler did also derive the general form of an odd perfect number.

Definition 1.1. An odd perfect number N is said to be given in Eulerian form if

N = p k m2

where p is the special prime satisfying p ≡ k ≡ 1 (mod 4) and gcd(p, m) = 1.

Notice that even perfect and odd perfect numbers possess similar multiplicative forms.
It is known ( [3], [2]) that

σ(m2 ) m2 2 2 D(m2 ) 2s(m2 )

1< = = gcd(m , σ(m )) = = ,
pk σ(pk )/2 s(pk ) D(pk )

and that we have the linear combination

gcd(m2 , σ(m2 )) = pσ(m2 ) − 2(p − 1)m2 .

2 Previous Results
Chen and Luo (2013) ( [1]) obtained the following results.

Theorem 2.1. Suppose that N = pk m2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form.
We have the following implications:

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8) =⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 1); (5, 13); (9, 9); (13, 5).

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8) =⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 5); (5, 9); (9, 13); (13, 1).

2
 • σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8) =⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 9); (5, 5); (9, 1); (13, 13).

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8) =⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 13); (5, 1); (9, 5); (13, 9).

Dris and San Diego ( [5], [4]) summarized Chen and Luo’s results as follows:

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8) =⇒ p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16);

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8) =⇒ p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16);

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8) =⇒ p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16);

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8) =⇒ p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16).

3 Main Results
It turns out that we actually have the following proposition.

Theorem 3.1. Suppose that N = pk m2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form.
We have the following biconditionals:

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16);

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16);

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16);

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16).

Proof. First, we prove that the implication

p+k ≡2 (mod 16) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8)

holds. Assume that p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16) is true. Suppose to the contrary that σ(m2 ) 6≡ 1
(mod 8). Since σ(m2 ) is odd, then we have σ(m2 ) ≡ {3, 5, 7} (mod 8):

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8), then we infer that p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16), which together with
p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16) means that 2p ≡ 14 (mod 16). In other words, p ≡ 7 (mod 8)
which implies that
p = 8a + 7 = 4(2a + 1) + 3,
contradicting p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8), then we have p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16). This contradicts p + k ≡ 2

(mod 16).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8), then this means that p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16). Together with
p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16), we derive 2p ≡ 6 (mod 16), or p ≡ 3 (mod 8). Thus, p =
8b + 3 = 4(2b) + 3 holds, which contradicts p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

3
This proves the first biconditional.
Second, we prove that the implication

p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8)

holds. Assume that p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16) is true. Suppose to the contrary that σ(m2 ) 6≡ 3
(mod 8). Since σ(m2 ) is odd, then we have σ(m2 ) ≡ {1, 5, 7} (mod 8):
• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8), then we infer that p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16), which together with
p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16) means that 2p ≡ 14 (mod 16). In other words, p ≡ 7 (mod 8)
which implies that
p = 8c + 7 = 4(2c + 1) + 3,
contradicting p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8), then this means that p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16). Together with
p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16), we derive 2p ≡ 6 (mod 16), or p ≡ 3 (mod 8). Thus, p =
8d + 3 = 4(2d) + 3, which contradicts p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8), then we have p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16). This contradicts p − k ≡ 12

(mod 16).
This proves the second biconditional.
Third, we prove that the implication

p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8)

holds. Assume that p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16) is true. Suppose to the contrary that σ(m2 ) 6≡ 5
(mod 8). Since σ(m2 ) is odd, then we have σ(m2 ) ≡ {1, 3, 7} (mod 8):
• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8), then we have p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16). This contradicts p + k ≡ 10
(mod 16).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8), then we infer that p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16), which together with
p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16) means that 2p ≡ 6 (mod 16). In other words, p ≡ 3 (mod 8)
which implies that p = 8e + 3 = 4(2e) + 3, contradicting p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8), then this means that p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16). Together with
p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16), we derive 2p ≡ 14 (mod 16), or p ≡ 7 (mod 8). Thus,

p = 8f + 7 = 4(2f + 1) + 3,

which contradicts p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

This proves the third biconditional.
Fourth, we prove that the implication

p−k ≡4 (mod 16) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8)

holds. Assume that p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16) is true. Suppose to the contrary that σ(m2 ) 6≡ 7
(mod 8). Since σ(m2 ) is odd, then we have σ(m2 ) ≡ {1, 3, 5} (mod 8):

4
 • If σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8), then we infer that p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16), which together with
p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16) means that 2p ≡ 6 (mod 16). In other words, p ≡ 3 (mod 8)
which implies that
p = 8g + 3 = 4(2g) + 3,
contradicting p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8), then we have p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16). This contradicts p − k ≡ 4

(mod 16).

• If σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8), then this means that p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16). Together with
p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16), we derive 2p ≡ 14 (mod 16), or p ≡ 7 (mod 8). Thus, p =
8h + 7 = 4(2h + 1) + 3, which contradicts p ≡ 1 (mod 4).

This proves the fourth biconditional, and we are done.

4 Conclusion
4.1 Concluding Remarks
It is trivial to prove the following corollary to Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 2.1.

Corollary 4.1. Suppose that N = pk m2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form.
We have the following implications:

• (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 1); (5, 13); (9, 9); (13, 5) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8).

• (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 5); (5, 9); (9, 13); (13, 1) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8).

• (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 9); (5, 5); (9, 1); (13, 13) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8).

• (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 13); (5, 1); (9, 5); (13, 9) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8).

Proof. First, we prove that the implication

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 1); (5, 13); (9, 9); (13, 5) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8)

is true. Notice that if

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 1); (5, 13); (9, 9); (13, 5)

then p + k ≡ 2 (mod 16) holds, which is equivalent to σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8) by Theorem 3.1.
This proves the first implication.
Second, we prove that the implication

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 5); (5, 9); (9, 13); (13, 1) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8)

is true. Notice that if

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 5); (5, 9); (9, 13); (13, 1)

5
then p − k ≡ 12 (mod 16) holds, which is equivalent to σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8) by Theorem
3.1. This proves the second implication.
Third, we prove that the implication

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 9); (5, 5); (9, 1); (13, 13) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8)

is true. Notice that if

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 9); (5, 5); (9, 1); (13, 13)

then p + k ≡ 10 (mod 16) holds, which is equivalent to σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8) by Theorem

3.1. This proves the third implication.
Fourth, we prove that the implication

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 13); (5, 1); (9, 5); (13, 9) =⇒ σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8)

is true. Notice that if

(p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 13); (5, 1); (9, 5); (13, 9)

then p − k ≡ 4 (mod 16) holds, which is equivalent to σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8) by Theorem 3.1.
This proves the fourth implication, and we are done.

The following corollary then follows from Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 4.1.

Corollary 4.2. Suppose that N = pk m2 is an odd perfect number given in Eulerian form.
We have the following biconditionals:

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 1 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 1); (5, 13); (9, 9); (13, 5).

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 3 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 5); (5, 9); (9, 13); (13, 1).

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 5 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 9); (5, 5); (9, 1); (13, 13).

• σ(m2 ) ≡ 7 (mod 8) ⇐⇒ (p, k) (mod 16) = (1, 13); (5, 1); (9, 5); (13, 9).

5 Acknowledgments
I. T. S. D. thanks TUA-URDC for support. J. A. B. D. thanks J. J. A. González
(https://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=206366) for teaching him how to run
Pari-GP scripts on Sage Cell Server (https://sagecell.sagemath.org/), which enabled him
to check his conjectures on odd perfect numbers by searching for potential counterexamples
first. The authors also thank K. A. P. Dagal for motivating them to pursue the completion
of this paper.

6
References
[1] Chen, S.-C., & Luo, H. (2013). Odd multiperfect numbers, Bulletin of the Australian
Mathematical Society, 88(1), 56–63.

[2] Dris, J. A. B. (2017). Conditions equivalent to the Descartes-Frenicle-Sorli Conjecture

on odd perfect numbers, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics, 23(2),
12–20.

[3] Dris, J. A. B. (2012). The abundancy index of divisors of odd perfect numbers, Journal
of Integer Sequences, 15, Issue 4, Article 12.4.4.

[4] Dris, J. A. B., & San Diego, I. T. (2023). Corrigendum to: “Some modular considerations
regarding odd perfect numbers – Part II”, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete
Mathematics, 29(1), 181–184.

[5] Dris, J. A. B., & San Diego, I. T. (2020). Some modular considerations regarding odd
perfect numbers - Part II, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics, 26(3),
8–24.

[6] GIMPS - Various contributors. (2023). List of known Mersenne prime numbers, Great
Internet Mersenne Prime Search, https://www.mersenne.org/primes/. Last checked on:
09/12/2023.