Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
After what I had written in my last fourth work named Non-
existence of any k- perfect odd numbers [ 7 ] , I set about its
submission to an official referee . For this reason , I knew that my
first unavoidable task will have to change my bet mentioned in the
last paragraph of [ 7 ] into a proved theorem . Concretely , I shall
have to prove a theorem, where the wonderful fraction , denoted
( pi 1 )/ pi has been equaled by the sums of both even and odd
different unit fractions uniquely .
2
During the whole of two months , I tried hard to find this proof ,
but finally I was to recognize the non-uniqueness of a such waiting
theorem . More concretely , while the formulas ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) [ 7 ]
identify the fraction ( pi 1 )/ pi with the sums of both even and odd
different unit fractions only , the trial errors assembling can be
identified this fraction with the sums of all different odd unit
fractions . For example , when pi = 3 , by ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) we get
( pi 1 )/ pi = 2/3 = 1/2 + 1/6 , while by assembling play we have
2/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 = 1/( 5, 9, 45 ) + 1/( 7, 15, 21, 33, 113, 1174635 ) , i. e. we
can get a sum of nine different odd unit fractions entirely .
1
In a word , the equalization of an odd unit fraction when using the
well-known formula ( 1 ) , we obtain the sums of either only even
or both even and odd different unit fractions , but when using the
trial-errors assembling we can get the sums of different odd unit
fractions only . Go into some details , we can see :
1/5 = 1/( 6, 30 ) = 1/( 9, 23, 25, 225, 1035 ) ;
1/7 = 1/( 8, 56 ) = 1/( 9, 49, 441, 111, 16317 ) and so on .
*
Thus , my mistake here consists in a wrong estimation about these
two formulae ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) by considering them as an unique
possibility to expand a given fraction into its equal sums of other
different unit fractions .
By this mistake I had lost my bet noted in the last paragraph of
[ 7 ] , as it were . I think the attentive readers had knew it just on
reading the Wheeler parody of an idiom No smoke without fire
about which I was hopeful .
3
Some lemmas joined up with the self-criticism
Lemma 1 . An even unit fraction 1/n can not identify with any
sums of different odd unit fractions only .
Proof - Let this even unit fraction 1/n be 1/2k with k N . Assume
m m m m 1
1/ 2k = 1 / ni with all odd ni , then we get ni 2k. ( n j )i ,
i 1 i 1 i 1 j 1; j i
where its left side is an odd number , while its right side is an even
number . This is an absurdity , hence the lemma is true .
Lemma 2 ( false ) . An odd unit fraction 1/n can not identify with
any sums of different odd unit fractions only .
Proof - Let this odd unit fraction 1/n be 1/( 2k+1 ) with k N .
m
Suppose 1/( 2k+1 ) = 1 / n
i 1
i ( a ) with all odd ni . Then we have :
m m m 1
ni (2k 1) (
i 1 i 1
j 1; j i
n j )i ( b ) where both two sides of ( b ) are
2
However , a counter-example of the lemma is more persuasive .
Using calculator Casio fx 570 vn plus by a trial errors manner , it
was easy to find , for example : 1/7 = 1/( 9, 49, 111, 441, 16317 ) ;
1/11 = 1/( 13, 121, 197, 1573, 154941, 309881, 4939813021 ) , etc . Here
there are counter-examples so the lemma 2 is false .
3
diperfect ( i . e . a 2- perfect ) odd number np2 , that is ( n p 2 ) 2.n p 2
l
2b j
it has to satisfy the equality : (n p 2 ) ( pia ). ( p j )
i
( b ).
j 2
*
REFERENCE
( continued )
* * *
4
5