Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Inequality (6), stated p. 201, and Lemma 2, stated p. 203, of P. Erdős, On pseudoprimes and Carmichael numbers, Publ. Math. Debrecen 4 (1956), 201--206; the proof of (6) runs pp. 203--204 and that of Lemma 2 pp. 204--206. The edition read is named on the source card.
Statement
Setting (p. 201). is an absolute pseudoprime or Carmichael number if for every with , which is (2); is the number of Carmichael numbers not exceeding . The proof uses the criterion the paper calls well known: is a Carmichael number if and only if it is composite and squarefree and for every prime factor of (p. 203).
Inequality (6) (p. 201). For a positive absolute constant ,
The paper sets this beside Knödel's bound (4), (Archiv der Math. 4 (1953), 282--284), and notes that it is not known whether , that is, whether there are infinitely many Carmichael numbers (p. 201).
Lemma 2 (p. 203). For an integer let be the least common multiple of the numbers , where runs through the prime factors of . Then the number of with does not exceed
independently of .
Proof pointer
Pp. 203--204 for (6). Carmichael numbers up to whose largest prime factor exceeds satisfy , , , and number fewer than by (11). For the others with , write the prime factors in decreasing order and take the shortest initial product exceeding , so ; the criterion gives and , which leads to the bound (13), over . The terms with large are small directly (15), and Lemma 2 shows that few have small (16), (17); together these give (18), , and (11) with (18) proves (6).
Pp. 204--206 for Lemma 2. Every prime factor of a solution has . Such split as , with composed of the primes at most and of the larger ones; for one of exceeds . The sum over is bounded through Lemma 1 (20), (21). For , the -th large prime with is shown to exceed with (22; no division sign is visible there on the page image), using de Bruijn's theorem and the fact that has fewer than prime factors (23); this bounds the sum over (24)--(26).
Read depth. Claims checked: the statements of (2), (4), (6) and Lemma 2 were read on the page images of pp. 201 and 203, and the proofs on pp. 203--206 were followed for structure. De Bruijn's theorem is cited, not proved, and was not read.
Dependencies
Lemma 1 (p. 202), Lemma 2 (p. 203), and de Bruijn's bound for (Indag. Math. 13 (1951), 50--60).
Bears on
- Problem 1057: (6) bounds from above, giving for large ; it supplies no lower bound and settles nothing about whether . The paper's own view, that (6) is not far from the truth, is recorded on the conjecture page.