Paper detail

On SA, CA, and GA numbers

Gronwall's function $G$ is defined for $n>1$ by $G(n)=\frac{σ(n)}{n \log\log n}$ where $σ(n)$ is the sum of the divisors of $n$. We call an integer $N>1$ a \emph{GA1 number} if $N$ is composite and $G(N) \ge G(N/p)$ for all prime factors $p$ of $N$. We say that $N$ is a \emph{GA2 number} if $G(N) \ge G(aN)$ for all multiples $aN$ of $N$. In arXiv 1110.5078, we used Robin's and Gronwall's theorems on $G$ to prove that the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is true if and only if 4 is the only number that is both GA1 and GA2. Here, we study GA1 numbers and GA2 numbers separately. We compare them with superabundant (SA) and colossally abundant (CA) numbers (first studied by Ramanujan). We give algorithms for computing GA1 numbers; the smallest one with more than two prime factors is 183783600, while the smallest odd one is 1058462574572984015114271643676625. We find nineteen GA2 numbers $\le 5040$, and prove that a GA2 number $N>5040$ exists if and only if RH is false, in which case $N$ is even and $>10^{8576}$.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.