The bounded descent conjecture for the recursive divisor-sum sequence

About 1 year old · traced to

Let R\mathfrak{R} be the recursive map on positive integers defined by

R(m)={σ(m),if m is odd,m2,if m is even,\mathfrak{R}(m)=\begin{cases} \sigma(m),&\text{if }m\text{ is odd},\\ \frac{m}{2},&\text{if }m\text{ is even}, \end{cases}

where σ\sigma is the sum-of-divisors function. Bounded descent conjecture. There exists a constant c∈N\mathbf{c}\in\mathbb{N} such that for every n∈Nn\in\mathbb{N}, there is some 1≤k≤c1\leq k\leq\mathbf{c} satisfying

Rk(n)≤n.\mathfrak{R}^k(n)\leq n.

This is a uniform bounded-time descent property for the recursive sequence. The supplied text does not state whether it has been resolved, so it is recorded as open.

References

Primary source

Ritesh Dwivedi and Rohit Yadav, “On a Recursive Integer Sequence Implying the Nonexistence of Odd Perfect Numbers”, arXiv:2506.01830 (2025).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed progress

The conjecture asks whether every starting number drops within one fixed number of steps; a submitted argument claims counterexamples, but that claim has not been verified.

Dwivedi and Yadav formulate the bounded-descent conjecture as Conjecture 3.6 for the map R\mathfrak{R}: some iterate among the first cc must be no larger than the starting value. Their paper presents it as unresolved and gives no proof or counterexample.

Known results

  • Dwivedi and Yadav prove eventual descent to 11 for an infinite family of integers built from recursively specified prime sets, but this does not provide a uniform bound on the descent time.

Community submission (unverified)

A submitted argument claims that the conjecture is false: for every odd squarefree n>1n>1, it asserts τ(n)=1+⌈log⁡2(σ(n)/n)⌉\tau(n)=1+\lceil\log_2(\sigma(n)/n)\rceil, and that these descent times are unbounded. The argument is incomplete in the supplied text and has no independent verification.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture remains open in the cited paper, while a community-submitted counterexample claim is unverified and therefore does not settle whether a uniform bound exists.

Sources

Solutions 1

CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Unbounded descent times for the recursive divisor-sum map

In On a Recursive Integer Sequence Implying the Nonexistence of Odd Perfect Numbers, Ritesh Dwivedi and Rohit Yadav define

R(n)={σ(n),n odd,n/2,n even,σ(n)=∑d∣nd.(1)\mathfrak R(n)= \begin{cases} \sigma(n),&n\text{ odd},\\ n/2,&n\text{ even}, \end{cases} \qquad \sigma(n)=\sum_{d\mid n}d. \tag{1}

Their Conjecture 3.6 asserts the existence of a constant c≥1c\geq1 such that every positive integer nn satisfies

Rj(n)≤nfor some 1≤j≤c.(2)\mathfrak R^j(n)\leq n \qquad\text{for some }1\leq j\leq c. \tag{2}

This uniform bounded-descent assertion is false. In fact, an exact formula for the first descent time holds for every odd squarefree integer and produces arbitrarily long counterexamples.

For n>1n>1, define

τ(n)=min⁡{j≥1:Rj(n)≤n},(3)\tau(n)=\min\{j\geq1:\mathfrak R^j(n)\leq n\}, \tag{3}

whenever the indicated set is nonempty.

Theorem. If n>1n>1 is odd and squarefree, then

τ(n)=1+⌈log⁡2σ(n)n⌉.(4)\boxed{\displaystyle \tau(n)=1+ \left\lceil\log_2\frac{\sigma(n)}{n}\right\rceil.} \tag{4}

In particular, the values of τ(n)\tau(n) on odd squarefree integers are unbounded.

Write

n=p1p2⋯pr,p1,…,pr distinct odd primes.(5)n=p_1p_2\cdots p_r, \qquad p_1,\ldots,p_r\text{ distinct odd primes}. \tag{5}

Multiplicativity gives

σ(n)=∏i=1r(pi+1),Q:=σ(n)n=∏i=1r(1+1pi).(6)\sigma(n)=\prod_{i=1}^r(p_i+1), \qquad Q:=\frac{\sigma(n)}{n} =\prod_{i=1}^r\left(1+\frac1{p_i}\right). \tag{6}

Each factor in the second product lies strictly between 11 and 22, and each factor in the first product is even. Consequently,

1<Q<2r,ν2(σ(n))=∑i=1rν2(pi+1)≥r.(7)1<Q<2^r, \qquad \nu_2(\sigma(n)) =\sum_{i=1}^r\nu_2(p_i+1)\geq r. \tag{7}

Set

t=⌈log⁡2Q⌉.(8)t=\lceil\log_2Q\rceil. \tag{8}

Then 1≤t≤r1\leq t\leq r, and (7) ensures that the first application of R\mathfrak R is followed by at least tt valid halving steps. Therefore

Rj(n)=σ(n)2j−1(1≤j≤t+1).(9)\mathfrak R^j(n)=\frac{\sigma(n)}{2^{j-1}} \qquad(1\leq j\leq t+1). \tag{9}

For 1≤j≤t1\leq j\leq t we have 2j−1<Q2^{j-1}<Q, whereas 2t≥Q2^t\geq Q. Hence

Rj(n)>n(1≤j≤t),Rt+1(n)≤n.(10)\mathfrak R^j(n)>n\quad(1\leq j\leq t), \qquad \mathfrak R^{t+1}(n)\leq n. \tag{10}

This proves (4), including the case in which QQ is an exact power of two.

To show that these descent times are unbounded, take the odd primorial

Nx=∏3≤p≤xp,Qx=σ(Nx)Nx=∏3≤p≤x(1+1p).(11)N_x=\prod_{3\leq p\leq x}p, \qquad Q_x=\frac{\sigma(N_x)}{N_x} =\prod_{3\leq p\leq x}\left(1+\frac1p\right). \tag{11}

The divergence needed here follows directly from the finite Euler product, without any prime-distribution asymptotic. Indeed,

Qx=∏3≤p≤x(1−1p2)∏3≤p≤x(1−1p)−1.(12)Q_x =\prod_{3\leq p\leq x}\left(1-\frac1{p^2}\right) \prod_{3\leq p\leq x}\left(1-\frac1p\right)^{-1}. \tag{12}

The first product is bounded below by the elementary telescoping product

∏3≤p≤x(1−1p2)≥∏m=2∞(1−1m2)=12.(13)\prod_{3\leq p\leq x}\left(1-\frac1{p^2}\right) \geq\prod_{m=2}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac1{m^2}\right) =\frac12. \tag{13}

Expanding the second finite Euler product includes every positive odd integer at most xx. Therefore

Qx≥12∑1≤m≤x\m odd1m≥14∑m=1⌊x⌋1m⟶∞.(14)Q_x\geq \frac12\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq x\m\text{ odd}}}\frac1m \geq\frac14\sum_{m=1}^{\lfloor x\rfloor}\frac1m \longrightarrow\infty. \tag{14}

Now let c≥1c\geq1 be arbitrary. Choose xx large enough that

Qx>2c−1.(15)Q_x>2^{c-1}. \tag{15}

Formula (4) gives

τ(Nx)=1+⌈log⁡2Qx⌉>c.(16)\tau(N_x)=1+\lceil\log_2Q_x\rceil>c. \tag{16}

Equivalently, this single positive integer violates every proposed descent step simultaneously:

Rj(Nx)>Nx(1≤j≤c).(17)\mathfrak R^j(N_x)>N_x \qquad(1\leq j\leq c). \tag{17}

Since the proposed constant cc was arbitrary, no universal bounded-descent constant exists, and Conjecture 3.6 is disproved.

The distinct Conjecture 3.5 asks whether every orbit eventually reaches 11. Unbounded first-descent times do not imply the existence of a nonconvergent orbit, so this counterexample makes no claim concerning that separate conjecture or the existence of odd perfect numbers.