Oops

Well, it turns out that 253 is not prime. Rather, 253=11(23). It also turns out that the proposition I wanted to use to show that 253 is prime is not true. Oops.

(I worked out the latter myself and then looked up the former.)

Today I’ve been reading more about primality tests, which is a complex topic. I found this page, which seems to give a fairly clear account of two of them. I’m going to have to review quite a few ideas in number theory to understand it, though.

The Renewal Equation Renewed

Hello, faithful readers (and anyone else out there). I took a much longer break than I intended, but I am finally ready to start blogging again. There has been a problem with my medication for the past three weeks, but it is now corrected and I am feeling better.

Today I worked on some AMC exam problems. The one I found most interesting was:

What is the least value of $n$ such that $n!$ is a multiple of $2024$?

I am pretty sure I know the answer to this, as well as how to answer the analogous question for any natural number. I ended up pursuing a tangent, however, to do with how I would show that 253, one of the prime factors of 2024, is indeed prime. I expect to post more about that in the coming week. Stay tuned.

(Note on 22 November: It turns out 253 is not prime. Oops.)

Baby Steps

Today I relistened to more of A Brief History of Mathematics. That might seem like it hardly qualifies as study, but I think it is helping revive my desire to continue this project. It comprises mathematical bedtime stories, told by an enthusiast, with a very light sprinkling of actual mathematical ideas—just enough to be tantalizing without being overwhelming.

I also thought a bit about one of those ideas, a theorem in number theory discovered by Gauss: that every natural number is the sum of three triangular numbers. I didn’t put my full focus into it, though, and I didn’t come up with any insights.

[Later note: The theorem only holds as stated if we let 0 be a triangular number. Definitions appear to differ on that point.]

Squares Yet Again

Today I watched this fun video from Numberphile. I watched it earlier in the month—it’s the one I stopped so I could investigate its topic a bit myself—but I had since forgotten the details. I’d recommend it to all of my readers. It is very accessible but has connections to more advanced topics. When I am feeling better, I would like to work on proving the theorem presented at the end of the video.

Back to School

Well, I’m back. I ended up taking a somewhat longer break than planned. I was just too discouraged to study last Thursday, and yesterday I was still getting settled again after being at camp. Today I watched YouTube videos in an attempt to ease into my project again. One was about the recent discovery of a new formula for approximating $\pi$. (It is not superior to existing formulae, just new.) The other was a fun video about some properties of prime numbers. It should be accessible to most people, and I have embedded it below.

Perfect Numbers

Today I read about perfect numbers and some related concepts in an online textbook called Elementary Number Theory that is available from LibreTexts. It was good to have a refresher on some of the finer points.

I will not be studying or blogging Tuesday or Wednesday because I will be busy wrapping up my house sitting and traveling home. I will return either Thursday or Friday, depending on how long it takes me to get settled again.

ETA: I have decided to return Monday, as some new commitments came up after I made this post.

The Great Wide Open

My mental health was poor today, and I spent my study time watching math videos. This included one on open problems that are relatively simple to state but have proven difficult to solve. It was quite interesting, but had several errors (some of which I noticed and some of which I found pointed out in the comments). Therefore I won’t link it here.

My favorite open problem is the first one that caught my imagination: the conjecture that there are infinitely many perfect numbers. This turns out to be closely related to the conjecture that there are infinitely many Mersenne primes, a type of prime number that is one less than a power of two. So a conjecture about summing factors is related to the existence of a type of prime numbers. Cool huh?

Less Fun with Logarithms

Today I did more exercises and reading in my calculus book. I also proved the converse of the proposition from last week’s post Fun with Logarithms. You can see the proof below. As I expected, all that was required was a little algebra. Finally, I listened to some of the BBC radio series A Brief History of Mathematics.

It was struggling to listen to that series at the beginning of this year that inspired me to try doing math with the aid of CBD gummies (as described in Take Drugs, Do Math). The series is intended for a broad audience and is not intellectually demanding. Yet even a short time listening to it left me completely exhausted. That served as strong evidence that the overwhelming difficulties I was still having when I tried to do math were at least partly emotional, as opposed to cognitive. Before, it had never been so clear. The new certainty, combined with an overall improvement in my mental health around that time, led me to seek new ways to overcome the emotional block.

Today I was able to enjoy the series with no ill effects, even without CBD gummies, which I am now using infrequently.


Proposition: Given two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ that are both greater than $1$, if both $a$ and $b$ are powers of a natural number $c$, then $\log_a b$ is rational.

Suppose that $a$ and $b$ are natural numbers greater than $1$ that are both powers of a natural number $c$.

Then, by definition, $a=c^m$ and $b=c^n$ for some natural numbers $m$ and $n$.

Since $a\neq 1$, it follows that $m\neq 0$.

And since $m\neq0$, $a^{\frac{n}{m}}=(c^m)^{\frac{n}{m}}=c^n=b$.

Thus $\log_a b = \frac{n}{m}$, which is rational, and the proposition is proven.

Fun with Logarithms

My concentration is better today, and I spent three and a half hours ironing out the wrinkles in my logarithm proof. I’ve had the general outline written down for some time, but there turned out to be a lot of details that needed attention, so that I think I’m justified in counting the effort as my study for the day, even though I don’t usually include time spent blogging.

The proof uses several supporting facts that I’ve listed below as Notions 1-3. I haven’t decided yet whether I want to prove them, but I may at some point.1 I’ve also stated and used the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic without proving it. The course I took my first semester at college in which we developed the tools to prove that theorem, was one of the turning points in my life. I can no longer remember how it’s done, however.

I’m not entirely happy with this proof. I think it’s sound, but unclear in places. I had fun making it, though, and I hope someone enjoys it.


Definition: Two integers are relatively prime if they have no common factors besides $1$.

Notion 1: Every rational number can be written as the ratio of two integers that are relatively prime and at least one of which is positive.

Notion 2: If $a>1$, then $a^n>1$ if and only if $n$ is positive.

Notion 3: If $a$ divides $bc$ and $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime, then $a$ divides $c$.


The Fun(damental) Theorem of Arithmetic: Every integer greater then $1$ can be expressed as a product of primes in exactly one way, ignoring order.


Proposition: Given two natural numbers $a$ and $b$ that are both greater than $1$, if $\log_a b$ is rational, then both $a$ and $b$ are powers of a natural number $c$.

Suppose that $a$ and $b$ are natural numbers greater than $1$ and that $\log_a b$ is rational.

Then, using Notion 1, there exist integers $n$ and $m$ such that $a^{\frac{n}{m}}=b$, $n$ and $m$ are relatively prime, and $n$ or $m$ is positive.

A bit of algebra yields $a^n=b^m$.

Since both $a$ and $b$ are greater than $1$ and $n$ or $m$ is positive, the equal expressions $a^n$ and $b^m$ are both greater than $1$ by Notion 2. It follows, again by Notion 2, that both $n$ and $m$ are positive.

Consequently, because the integers are closed under multiplication, the value $a^n=b^m$ is an integer.

Let it be called $d$.

By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, $a$, $b$, and $d$ can all be expressed as a product of primes in exactly one way.

If the prime factorization of $a$ is $(a_1)(a_2)…(a_i)$, with some values possibly equal, then since $d=a^n$, the prime factorization of $d$ is $(a_1)^n(a_2)^n…(a_i)^n$.

Likewise, if the prime factorization of $b$ is $(b_1)(b_2)…(b_j)$, then since $d=b^m$, the prime factorization of $d$ is $(b_1)^m(b_2)^m…(b_j)^m$.

Notice that the prime factorization of $d$ contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $a$ and that the prime factorization of $d$ also contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $b$. It follows that the prime factorizations of $a$ and $b$ contain the same factors as one another, as well, though not necessarily the same number of times.

[This relationship between $a$ and $b$ is one I found very early on. I thought there was probably a name for it, but inquiries on Math Stack Exchange only turned up the notion of a radical, which is the product of one copy of every one of an integer’s prime factors. In those terms, what I’m saying is that $a$ and $b$ have the same radical.]

Now consider $p$, an arbitrary prime factor of $a$, $b$, and $d$. Let the number of occurrences of $p$ in the prime factorizations of each number be called $O_{a,p}$, $O_{b,p}$, and $O_{d,p}$, respectively.

Because an exponent represents repeated multiplication by the same value, it multiplies the number of occurrences of each factor. Thus, the relationships among $a$, $b$, and $d$ mean that $(O_{a,p})(n)=O_{d,p}=(O_{b,p})(m)$.

By Notion 3, since $(O_{a,p})(n)=(O_{b,p})(m)$ and $n$ and $m$ are relatively prime, $m$ divides $O_{a,p}$ and $n$ divides $O_{b,p}$. Thus, for the arbitrary prime factor $p$, $\frac{O_{a,p}}{m}=\frac{O_{b,p}}{n}$ is an integer. Furthermore, since all values involved are positive, it is a positive integer.

Therefore, it is possible to construct a natural number $c$ such that, for each prime factor $p$ in the prime factorizations of $a$ and $b$, the prime factorization of $c$ contains $\frac{O_{a,p}}{m}=\frac{O_{b,p}}{n}$ occurrences of $p$.

Now, by construction, the prime factorization of $c$ contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $a$.

Furthermore, by the reasoning used above, the prime factorization of $c^m$ contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $c$. Thus the prime factorization of $c^m$ also contains the same factors as the prime factorization of $a$.

Since an exponent multiplies the number of occurrences of each factor, given any prime factor $p$ in the prime factorization of $a$, the number of occurrences of $p$ in the prime factorization of $c^m$ is $\frac{O_{a,p}}{m}(m)=O_{a,p}$.

Recall that this is the number of occurrences of $p$ in the prime factorization of $a$. Hence $c^m$ has the same prime factors as $a$ with the same number of occurrences for each factor. It follows that $c^m=a$.

The same reasoning can be used to show that $c^n=b$, so the proposition is proven.

[Phew.]

  1. To do. ↩︎

Trying

I didn’t feel very well today, either. I read some of Infinite Powers and worked on my logarithm problem. I am not ready to present a proof, but I have satisfied myself that if $a$ and $b$ are natural numbers greater than $1$, then they must be powers of the same base in order for $\log_a b$ to be rational. I’m not sure how to begin thinking about other types of numbers, and it’s possible I will lay that question aside for now.1

I am still not making much progress on my calculus review. It’s an important part of this project, because I hope it will prepare me to earn some money tutoring. The truth is, though, that a lot of the time I am just not hale of mind. I’m doing my best.

  1. To do. ↩︎