Untouchable Numbers - Numberphile
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 апр 2024
- A continuation of our video about 276 and Aliquot Sequences with Ben Sparks. See the first part at • An amazing thing about...
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
Ben Sparks: www.bensparks.co.uk
More Ben Sparks on Numberphile: bit.ly/Sparks_Playlist
Perfect Numbers on Numberphile: • Perfect Numbers on Num...
Amicable Numbers: • 220 and 284 (Amicable ...
Patreon: / numberphile
Numberphile is supported by Jane Street. Learn more about them (and exciting career opportunities) at: www.janestreet.com
We're also supported by the Simons Laufer Mathematical Sciences Institute (formerly MSRI): bit.ly/MSRINumberphile
Our thanks also to the Simons Foundation: www.simonsfoundation.org
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
Videos by Brady Haran
Animation and editing by Pete McPartlan
Numberphile T-Shirts and Merch: teespring.com/stores/numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
This is a continuation of our video about 276 and Aliquot Sequences with Ben Sparks. See the first part at ruclips.net/video/OtYKDzXwDEE/видео.html
What if it ends up at the odd perfect number? 😂
Love your love for numbers.❤
Can you post the Python script?
OK, but why just go forwards? Why not see if you can go backwards to find what leads to your starting number, and if the process goes on in that direction as well?
I'm curious: Why is there no analytical method, no proof? Why are we stuck generating sequences to see what they do? Is this impossible to reason about? Maybe if I were a regular viewer, I'd know that, but I've just been dipping into the channel now and then. It feels like something important has been left unsaid.
296, the Parker amicable number
Haha well played
I think we need to let Matt Parker off the hook on this one. 220 & 296 should be forever known as a Sparks pair.
Lol
You've heard of the Parker Square, now it's time for the Sparker Pair
@@jackeea_ brilliant
"I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IT'S THERE AND NONE OF US PUT IT THERE."
-Ben Sparks, 2024 - absolute legend
Channeling his inner Edmund Hillary.
Ah, but our hands are not at all clean because we asked the question. Why this question and not the infinity of others we did not ask?
The proof that 5 is untouchable is easy, so easy I am surprised they didn't include it. You can only make 5 by summing 1 and 4. But if 4 divides a number so does 2, so it is impossible to have an aliquot sum in the first place.
by the same logic, though, any odd number is 2n + 1, and if 2n divides a number so does 2. so all odd numbers larger than 3 are untouchable?
edit: nope, this doesn't work. you can also do 2n+1 with different factors. ie it's not necessary that you get 2n+1 by having the factors 1 and 2n.
This whole video mentions untouchable numbers disappointingly shortly considering it's the video title.
@@tim..indeed agreed
@@renyhp It's that 5 is the only number where 2n+1 would be the ONLY way to make it. Other odd numbers can be formed by 1+2n, but they can also be formed in other ways. For example, 7 can be made by 2n+1 with n=3, but it can also be made by 1+2+4.
@@renyhp ah so goldbach conjecture is sufficient so that 5 is the only one. If 2n=p+q, then p*q has factors p, q and 1.
The happiness in Brady's voice when he got to name something is amazing
As a programmer, I am fascinated by videos showcasing something that we cannot compute. When watching the first video, as he explained "we do not know" my immediate reaction was "I'm gonna write something and find it", then I saw the scope of how how far it has been checked and I immediately switched to "how the heck did someone write something that could check that high".
How powerful is your computer
This is unfortunately almost always the case for the "trivial" problems. There are multiple conjectures that are easy enough to understand in terms of simple Maths that are also fun to program and try for yourself. But for all of them, when you fancy the idea of looking into it, turns out somebody else with access to a super computer has already checked all the numbers up to a thousand digits. 😔
You can’t calculate your way to proving something is endless.
@@samlevi4744 Exactly 🎯!
And my second thought about it was: and for several centuries all the greatest mathematicians, like Euler or Newton, had to calculate all their things manually. It is so much more convenient and error resistant now.
As far as I know, that 28-cycle that 2856 hits is the longest discovered one.
28 is also a perfect number, cue X-files music.
Wow
According to Martin Gardner's article on the topic (reprinted in his book, "Mathematical Magic Show"), the 28-cycle was announced by P. Poulet in 1918. (Or at least, Poulet announced a 28-cycle beginning with 14316; I assume it's the same one.)
@@JohnDoe-ti2np Same loop- 14316 is the smallest number in the cycle.
@@ianstopher9111 and additionally the number 2856 consists of two numbers 28 and 56 (2x 28). Cue the x-files music in loop
The number 2856, (where 56 is 28*2) discovers a cycle of 28 numbers (which is also a loop of 56 numbers)! Impressive!
...what?
how can cycle differ from loop?
Let's try more bonkers things that have this pattern of digits
142857 should be tried
@@NoNameAtAll2 loop of 28 is always also a loop of 56 cuz it repeats itself after 56 terms as well
142856 better yet
@1:40 if your ECG looks like this, please stop this video and phone an ambulance immediately! 😆
I adore Ben Sparks
I've grown to love that little corner and table that all his videos have. 😂
@@pennnel agreed!
He's the Russell Crowe of maths
@@stevemattero1471 Funnily enough, Russell Crowe has played a Mathematician (John Nash, in ”Beautiful Mind”) 😅.
The odd untouchable numbers are related to Goldbach's conjecture. If every even number greater than 4 can be written as a sum of two distinct primes, then every odd number greater than 5 is not untouchable. Say 2n + 1 > 5 and 2n = p + q, with p and q distinct primes, then 2n + 1 is the aliquot of pq.
This doesn't work for 7 either, since 6 is not the sum of two distinct primes. But 7 is the aliquot of 8, so it's not a problem.
But like the 7 case, for any prime P, 2P+1 could be untouchable. Goldbach says nothing about the primes being distinct.
I just posted this and then saw your comment.
@@Phlosioneer That's true, but no counterexamples are known (greater than 6). It's just a stronger version of Goldbach's strong conjecture.
"because it's there to explore"
wonderful
4:47 this should have been in the main video! what an amazing graph
Only real fans will see it 😎
Feels perilously close to 3x+1! I'd love to have seen some of the ways the analysis for this has been done mathematically rather than just computationally.
3:29 "prime numbers, factorizing them is hard." -ben sparks
LOL
😂
"There are no prime numbers, only numbers that Bruce Schneier doesn't want us to factorize."
Lol
I would love to see a version of this animation that goes on for longer and bigger.
Like those Mandelbrot deep dives you get.
Combine this with the Collatz Conjecture, soda, orange juice, triple-sec, lime, muddled ginger, and whiskey for a refreshing Smashed Gödel.
numbers like 980460, which converge to an amicable pair, could be called "voyeuristic numbers"
That number found true love later in life
Aha! Knew I wasn't making up that I've seen you outside GD.
5:53 Awww, they're dancing together ^ _ ^
It's crazy to think that if it can be shown that just 1 of these sequences is unbounded, then we immediately know that infinitely many numbers will never hit 1, a perfect number or a loop, blowing the whole thing wide open
but then there will be a question "is this the only sequence"
Like collatz conjecture
Must have missed it, can you explain why? If a sequence beginning with N is unbounded, then obviously any number whose aliquot is N will also be unbounded (and equally for any point on the unbounded path). But how do you show that there is a number with an aliquot of N.
@@silver6054 If the aliquot sequence for N goes to infinity, then the aliquot sequence for every number in that same sequence also goes to infinity, so you get infinite counterexamples for free from just N
@@silver6054OP may he been thinking of something a bit less trivial, but there is an easy reasoning:
If the aliquote of x is unbounded, it has an infinite amount of numbers in its aliquote sequence. Every one of the numbers in its aliquote sequence also has an unbounded aliquote sequence.
5 is the only odd untouchable number if a slight strengthening of Goldbach's conjecture holds. Goldbach's conjecture states that ever even number greater than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers. A stronger statement that also seems true is that every even number greater than 6 is the sum of two _distinct_ prime numbers. If this is true, then given any odd number n > 7, we can write n= p + q + 1 with p and q distinct primes. But the only proper factors of pq are 1, p, and q, so its aliquot sum is s(pq) = 1 + p + q = n.
That leaves the special cases of 1, 3, 5, and 7. For any prime p, s(p) = 1, s(4) = 3, and s(8) = 7. So only 5 is untouchable.
6:00 I also like, how the 2 zig-zaggy patterns perfectly intertwine, because 1 graph hit the same amicable number 1 turn later. It’s like an amicable pair of amicable pairs, with that nice DNA-pattern 🧬💞. 😊
Cupid number - eventually hits upon an amicable pair.
His wife: "296. Who's that and why is she texting you?"
I like "Go go Gadget Aliquot Sequence!"
0:32 It can't be 220 and 284, the log is just above 3. It is hard to see on the graph, but 1184 and 1210 are more probable. Maybe 2620 and 2924.
So many tjmes a physicist discovers something profound about reality, and then realizes a mathematician has already been there 10 years ago just for fun. Im all for having fun with math - for the joy of it, and also for the chance of a true insight into reality
Name one example of a physicist thinking they discovered something when a mathematician already did.
@var67 hyperbolic/non-euclidean geometry came first as a lark... then Einstein found it useful to describe reality. Early group theory; turns out extremely applicable to conservation laws, re Emmy Noether. -1/12ths turns out to give correct answers in some calculations. Complex numbers came first when mathematicians were playing around with quadratics, etc... ended up very useful for quantum physics.
There's 4.. could probably come up with more
@var67 (p.s. i never said "a physicist thinking..." ... I was just pointing out that mathematicians have often come across something while just having a lark that ends up being important for physicists later on.)
@@publiconions6313 I misunderstood, as you may have figured out. I did think you meant: physicist "discovers" something but no the mathematician discovered it earlier. So yes you're right, physicists get their grubby paws on ANY old maths. I should know, as a (failed) physicist. Btw, I loved the Journal of Recreational Mathematics back in the day.
@@var67 word! ; ) I figured we were just swinging past each other a bit there. I wonder, do you listen to Daniel Whiteson's podcast?.. it may be a little layman, I was never even close to a physicist (failed or otherwise.. lol, I sell insurance - snore) but he recently had an episode entirely based on the idea that "hey, octonions are cool, wonder if they apply somewhere" .. really peaked my imagination, especially considering how quarternions ended up making a lot of sense for QCD?.. it's over my head ,so I might have the specifics wrong. But my dream scenario is that some Numberphile in some corner of the world makes a connection like that
What a brilliant conjecture, just the kind of thing that really interests me, trivial to understand and if a solution is ever found then it'll be incredibly complex in comparison :D
Thank you Numberphile for such great content!
If the sequence hits a prime, it collapses right away, right? And I appreciate that there's other ways to start the collapse as well. But just as a first path into understanding this: isn't there some kind of competition going on between the speed at which the sequence increases and the spacing of the primes at ever larger orders of magnitude?
I other words: do we know anything about how big the abundancy of high numbers will be in relative terms, just like we know that the prime density behaves like n/log(n)?
The sequences don't just increase, though. They go through periods of decreasing as well. Determining a heuristic for how quickly they grow sounds difficult since, even averaging it out, there doesn't seem to be a steady growth rate.
There are no other ways to collapse. To hit 0, it first has to hit 1 (unless it started at 0), and to hit 1, it has to first hit a prime (unless it started at 1). So every sequence that terminates at 0 goes a -> b -> ... -> p -> 1 -> 0 with p prime. More specifically, p will always be an odd prime other than 5 (since 2 and 5 are untouchable), unless you start at p.
And to answer your question, the asymptotic density of abundant numbers is known to be between 0.2474 and 0.2480. That means that as n increases without bound, the proportion of numbers less than n that are abundant approaches some limit that is about 24.77%.
ben sparks always delivering some fascinating mathematics!
Awesome video here. I am completely blown away that such a low number shows this unbounded behavior.
what a great double-feature!!!
Many: What's the point?
Tolkien: well, shut up.
Amazing structures.
That animation is a piece of art!
Better names for the mega-loops :
Cabal Numbers
Sewing Circles
Parlements (they talk in circles)
Labyrinth Numbers (like in Chartres)
Charybdis Numbers (whirlpool)
I love how excited Brady sounds about this.
Loved this video, and how it connected primes, perfects, amicables and sociable sequences together! Great you also included the very long sequence of 28 I think. There have been a lot of aliquot sequences of length 4 discovered as well. A few years back I was very involved in searching for all 14 and 15 digit amicable pairs, now all are known to 20 digits or more! Was also co-discover of a couple of largest known amicable pairs, but these were later beaten quite well.
Very cool! Might be my new favorite mathematical conjecture
Reminiscent of the Collatz conjecture.
Yeah maybe there's some similar structure to both
The fact that 5 is the only one, mindblowing.
Only *proven odd* one. There are lots of proven even ones.
fascinating, absoloutely fascinating, why...
the graph of "all" the numbers would be cool to see with the last step at the same x axis point.
I liked that the social loop had 28 numbers, and 28 itself is a perfect number.
2:59 That's the most honest answer I've heard from a mathematician to the question "why do that?" until now.
"Because it's fun" needs to be more accepted as a reason to do anything.
Why art, why music, why dance? Because it's fun.
Why science? Why mathematics. Grrr, you're not allowed to have fun!
"What's the point?" Probably the most asked question on Numberphile
And it is such a worthless question.
Who cares? Why do it? Why not? Because it's fun.
Why does anyone do anything? Who cares?
I hope Ben has 284 comfy pillows for his impending couch exile! 😁
I misread that as 'cooch' for a moment 😂
You mean "296?"
When I am looking at these graphs I am convinced that we are looking at some strange unexplained feature of the universe and how it works, why do specific numbers have specific properties and why are there patterns and shapes it feels like a sublime mystery hidden in there
One thought looking at the graph of all the sequences, is what does it look like if you line up all the end points, so if two sequences merge, rather than parallel lines, it is just a single line that merged. Social loops would need to do something like aligning the first repeat of the lowest point of the cycle.
When adding the divisors you get 1 + something. 5 is 1+ 4, but if a number has 4 as a divisor it also has 2 as a divisor, sothat doesn't work.
5 = 1 + 1 + 3 doesn't work either, as you can't have two ones. 1 + 2 + 2 also doesn't work, as you instead have two twos.
Quite easy to prove.
I love a good proof by exhaustion
Prove what exactly? That summing the divisors always yields a number which is 1+something? Thats trivial, and im not sure what your examples are getting at.
The end of the video. It talks about an untouchable number.
A number which no other number can reach with the aliquot sequence. In order to get 5 you need 1+2+2 which has two of the same number. A number cannot have the same number twice as a factor since it's only counted once. The nearest numbers are 4 and 6 from 1+3 and 1+2+3.
Therefore there is no way for the factors of another number to sum to 5
Therefore untouchable.
You can't only have 2+3 due to every number having itself and 1 as a factor, and we do not count itself as explained in the original comment.
@@RepChris someone didn't watch the full video lol.
In the end Ben says "5 has been proven to be untouchable.. I think."
When someone asks, "what's the point " i think the simple answer is that understanding comes from the analysis of factsand it's impossible to predict which facts are going to be a part of that process.
Most people out there will have figured this out already
We need to start the OEISS: The Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequence Sequences.
I love the pure maths fun
I wish ( and i am sure and positive )that every real number will have a numderphile video on it( or will atleast be mentioned among others ).
Yes, and yet there will always be a smallest number that's never been mentioned on numberphile, it'd probably be pretty easy to write a program to find it.
Well, every integer perhaps. But let’s not try to count an uncountable set here! 😂
They were all in the video "All the Numbers."
there are infinitely many real numbers and even if you count all known real irrational numbers it still will be too much. But there is a chance to note each integer though until some limit (each integer below 1 billion, for example).
GO GO GADGET ALIQUOT SEQUENCE!!!1!1!!!!
"what's the point? why explore this stuff?"
"it's there, to explore... i wanna know"
This untouchable number business is very interesting. 5 seems obvious since you can't add up 1+different primes to get 5. Wonder what the business is with the other untouchable numbers, could enjoy a whole video on that.
Yeah, I was a little put out that this whole video was called Untouchable, but it just teased them at the end.
I had almost forgotten about Hair Matt.
I always end these videos wanting more...
What's the distribution of sequence lengths before reaching a resolution? Are the Lehmer Five just the tail of a distribution or are they outliers with lengths much longer than any other numbers? If it is the latter, that suggests something interesting is going on with those numbers. If it is the former, it could just be random and some numbers had to be the longest and it just so happens to be them.
It wouldn't surprise me if somehow there was a way of plotting it that showed some close relationship with the Mandelbrot set haha.
Yet another reason to love 5.
I think I disproved the conjecture that 5 is the only odd untouchable number, because I'm odd and untouchable and definitely a one!
Uploaded 5 hours ago! As far as I'm concerned I'm just in time.
1:28 BATMANs
Beautiful! 😊 Give me five!
“What’s the Point!?”
Well.. a single point is kind of boring..that’s why you pick another, and another, and start connecting em, and you discover one by mistake, another by coincidence ..and, there Is the Point :)
In geometry, a collection of points is called a pencil
5 then has one of the most strange meanings of all numbers, maybe the relation with the halving of things due to the nature of the base we're using, maybe there are some other intuitions to grasp if we search for this function in other number bases
If I had learned about aliquot sequences in 7th grade I might have talked about nothing else in high school.
Interesting.
This feels much like the 3n+1 problem, also known as the hailstone numbers. Is there any relationship between the two problems?
@0:55 They should be called matchmaker numbers! (The ones that wander around til they find an amicable pair)
I imagine it like the (nonnegativ) integers become vertices of a (infinite) directed graph, some are unconnected like 5. The graph has cyclic subsets, and leafs (vertices with only one connection). Its just a different language but it helps me think about it.
1:39 if your EKG looks like that you should probably be in the ER or the ICU, but that's a cute name :P
...yeah, I might have studied bioengineering in college
That's one ECG I don't want to see in my hospital ward for sure
Why explore it? For the same thing that sets us apart from most (but not all) of the animal kingdom: pure and simple curiosity.
I think all animals have a version of curiosity. It's how bees find new flowerbeds.
Reminds me of the collatz conjecture. Does every starting number eventually reach 1?
Unless a particular sequence can model a "prime-avoiding" algorithm, which may not even exist, and would require the sum of factors to NEVER be a prime, then I'd say the answer is yes (that is, if it doesn't loop!). The main issue is that the computation time required grows as the numbers to factor grow. If we weren't bottlenecked by computation power, we would probably have found the end points for all but the most insanely long sequences, because prime gaps in very large numbers can also affect how long a sequence can dodge primes.
Could we get a circular pattern loop arc or even an arc?
Romantic numbers is certainly a good name
2:55 "This is like properties of numbers that we didn't put there."
I can see why Ben would say this, but I'm not entirely convinced.
I would argue that these patterns and properties are a product of a human decision, because we decided the rules for determining an aliquot sequence.
This is like the Collatz conjecture, in that it explores the properties of a sequence, but that sequence is the product of a specific algorithm humans came up with. It's interesting to study, but it's only useful if that specific algorithm is useful for anything.
I want to believe that there is something useful to be learned from studying these patterns, but the more I think about it the less I think there can be. The rules for these sequences don't strike me as having any direct connection to some inherent property of numbers, like the primes do. Is there anything inherently useful about the sum of an integer's factors? Where does that ever come up in mathematics outside of these novel sequences?
It seems to me that these sequences are little more than a toy for mathematicians to play around with. They are useful insofar as they are an exercise in searching for patterns. Maybe the pursuit of these questions leads mathematicians to develop new tools and techniques that have applications elsewhere in mathematics, and that could be a good thing. But I think it would be a mistake to think that any of the patterns themselves (like whether 276 diverges) actually tells us anything useful about numbers in general, because that pattern is entirely dependent upon the arbitrary algorithm we used to generate it.
Reminds me of hyperbolicity a la the klein quatic.
"...because it is there to explore."
"Go go Gadget, Aliquot sequence!"
5 being the only odd untouchable number is related to the goldbach conjecture, that every even number bigger than 4 is the sum of two primes. If a number is 1 more than the sum of two distinct primes p and q then it will follow p times q in an aliquot sequence. This is more restrictive than goldbach as it requires the primes to be distinct.
I think we need a video about 296 ;-)
It might sound odd, but I find the Implications this might have in quantum mechanics very intriguing.
how much of math is a result of intrinsic qualities in all counting systems vs just things arising out of a base 10 system? This is all so fascinating
I think these things covered in most numberphile videos like this one are base agnostic.
@@smicksatusadotnet very cool, I also like that term “base agnostic”
Another Numberphile merch perhaps? Those are interesting shapes ❤
I'd buy a t-shirt with that graph of all the numbers on it.
How do we know 5 is untouchable? We need a Numberphile3 video
let's go
Is the Aliquot number of 2520 easy to find. You could even try numbers like 360,360 or 720,720.
What does the graph look like?
It has to be noted that factoring big numbers into their prime factors is not *the* thing that secures the internet today. The current mainstream big thing is elliptic curve cryptography
does any fractal pattern emerge from this algo?
Aliquot Sequences is adding the primes, right?
Good thing we're soon getting efficient factorisation of large numbers with quantum computers. Never mind it breaks the internet. We need answers!
Ha! Evil Super Villain pours tons of money into Aliquot research because it's the key to breaking encryption.
Computational Irreducibility in action?
Is five the only odd Untouchable number? My short answer: "I don't have a clue."
"Plot 'em all and let matplotlib sort 'em out!"
Easy to prove 5 is untouchable
every aliquot sum contains 1
if you add 2 or 3 to that you'll be left with remainders of 2 and 1 respectively which will be already represented in the sum, ergo neither are possible
so the only possible aliquote sum that gives 5 is 1+4
but anything that has 4 has a factor will also have 2 as a factor
ergo no number as aliquot number 5 QED :D
So... what about negative numbers? Could you add the negative pairs of factors to positive sequences?
problem with negative numbers - they will cancel each other. Like factors of -4 are -1,1,-2,2, so sum is 0, if you do same logic for 4, you can also have negative numbers like -1,1,-2,2 and also have 0. You can't use negatives, because they won't give any progression anyway. And you can't add random negative nubmers, because they won't have any logic.