For some positive integer , the number has positive integer divisors, including and the number . How many positive integer divisors does the number have?
- A)
- B)
- C)
- D)
- E)
Answer
D
Key insight
The primes 2, 5 and 11 each add a factor of at least 2 to the divisor count 110 = 2 times 5 times 11, leaving nothing for other primes.
Solution
The divisor-count rule. Write a number as a product of prime powers, add to each exponent, and multiply. For example has divisors: .
1. What cubing does. Cubing multiplies every exponent by . So in every prime has an exponent that is a multiple of :
2. What multiplying by does. It adds to the exponents of , and . So in :
- each of , , has exponent and gives a factor of to the divisor count;
- any other prime in has exponent and gives a factor of
3. Match with . The divisor count is , a product of just three primes. The primes , , always give three factors, each at least , so each of those three factors must be a single prime from , and nothing is left over. That means:
- has no primes other than , and ;
- the three factors are , and in some order.
4. Back to exponents. A factor of means exponent in (exponent in ). A factor of means exponent (exponent in ). A factor of means exponent (exponent in ). So among , one prime is missing from , one appears once, and one appears cubed. One example is . Check: , with divisors.
5. Now . Raising to the 4th power multiplies the exponents by : one prime to the th, another to the th. And brings in the prime , which is not in . So
for two different primes from . With this is .
6. The divisor count is , whichever primes and are.
The answer is .
Why this works
The number of divisors depends only on the exponents in the prime factorization. Cubing makes every exponent a multiple of , and multiplying by bumps three of them by one, so the primes of behave differently from all other primes. Since has only three prime factors, there is no room for anything else. We never had to find exactly: every possible gives the same final count.
The trap
Guessing one value of n and stopping, or forgetting to include the 3 to the 4th from the 81 when counting the divisors of 81 times n to the 4th.
Concise solution
Write where has no factor of , or , and let the primes of have exponents in . Then
so its divisor count is
Each of the three factors , , is at least , so their product is at least ; the leftover must then be a divisor of that is at most and is more than a multiple of . The candidates fail unless the product is (with the remaining product would be , too small to be a product of three numbers each at least ). So and , i.e. in some order.
Thus for two distinct primes , and neither is . Then
which has divisors, regardless of which primes play the roles of and .
The answer is .
Review in the AoPS books
- Introduction to Number Theory, Chapter 1: Integers: The Basics (§1.4, §1.5)
- Introduction to Number Theory, Chapter 2: Primes and Composites
- Introduction to Number Theory, Chapter 5: Divisor Problems (§5.2, §5.3)
- Introduction to Number Theory, Chapter 4: Prime Factorization (§4.2, §4.4)
Techniques
Bound the quantity above/below or estimate to pin it down · Set up the equation/formula and compute; no special trick needed