Friendly Number
In number theory, friendly numbers are two or more natural numbers with a common abundancy, the ratio between the sum of divisors of a number and the number itself. Two numbers with the same abundancy form a friendly pair; n numbers with the same abundancy form a friendly n-tuple.
Being mutually friendly is an equivalence relation, and thus induces a partition of the positive naturals into clubs (equivalence classes) of mutually friendly numbers.
A number that is not part of any friendly pair is called solitary.
The abundancy of n is the rational number σ(n) / n, in which σ denotes the sum of divisors function. A number n is a friendly number if there exists m ≠ n such that σ(m) / m = σ(n) / n. Note that abundancy is not the same as abundance which is defined as σ(n) − 2n.
Abundancy may also be expressed as where denotes a divisor function with equal to the sum of the k-th powers of the divisors of n.
The numbers 1 through 5 are all solitary. The smallest friendly number is 6, forming for example the friendly pair (6, 28) with abundancy σ(6) / 6 = (1+2+3+6) / 6 = 2, the same as σ(28) / 28 = (1+2+4+7+14+28) / 28 = 2. The shared value 2 is an integer in this case but not in many other cases. There are several unsolved problems related to the friendly numbers.
In spite of the similarity in name, there is no specific relationship between the friendly numbers and the amicable numbers or the sociable numbers, although the definitions of the latter two also involve the divisor function.
Read more about Friendly Number: Example, Solitary Numbers, Large Clubs
Famous quotes containing the words friendly and/or number:
“I prefer to make no new declarations [on southern policy beyond what was in the Letter of Acceptance]. But you may say, if you deem it advisable, that you know that I will stand by the friendly and encouraging words of that Letter, and by all that they imply. You cannot express that too strongly.”
—Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)
“In a number of other cultures, fathers are not relegated to babysitter status, nor is their ability to be primary nurturers so readily dismissed.... We have evidence that in our own society men can rear and nurture their children competently and that men’s methods, although different from those of women, are imaginative and constructive.”
—Kyle D. Pruett (20th century)