Problem 5. Let N denote the set of positive integers. Find all functions f : N → N such that the following conditions are true for every pair of positive integers ( x, y ):
(i) x and f ( x ) have the same number of positive divisors.
(ii) If x does not divide y and y does not divide x , then
gcd( f ( x ) , f ( y )) > f (gcd( x, y )) .
Here gcd( m, n ) is the largest positive integer that divides both m and n .
Solution 1
he solutions are
where
is any fixed prime. Interestingly, showing that these work is itself non-trivial. The first condition is trivially satisfied, but for the second, you have to use the fact that if
and
, then
. So if
and
,
is a proper divisor of both
, so
since
are both powers of the same prime.
Now the harder part. Putting
gives
trivially, and if
is prime,
has exactly two positive divisors, so
is also prime. Further, choosing
to be distinct primes in (ii), we get
, say, for all primes
. Now assume
for some prime
.
has exactly
positive divisors, so
is also a square of a prime. Now, take
and
for any prime
in (ii) to get
whenever
is a square of a prime.
We prove by induction on
that
. Base cases
are done above. Assume the statement is true for all
, for some
. Let
have exactly
positive divisors. We investigate
in two different cases:
Case I:
has at least two prime divisors.
In this case, choose two prime divisors
of
such that
, and note that we must have
, by direct calculation; in more detail:
Further, these two numbers don't divide each other, and their
is
, which also has strictly less than
positive divisors; say it has
. Then again from direct calculation,
. Now, putting all this in (ii), we get
and since
is also a power of
by induction hypothesis,
. If
has a prime factor apart from
, then
contradiction! Hence
is a power of
, and it must be
due to the divisors condition.
Case II:
for some prime
.
Consider
where
. Then
, and since
,
has at least two prime divisors. Hence by induction hypothesis or Case I,
. Now, clearly
don't divide each other, and their
is
, which again has strictly less than
positive divisors. So by (ii),
, and since
is also a power of
, this implies
. Again, if
has a prime divisor apart from
, we would get
contradiction! Hence
is a power of
, so must be
, as required.
And we are done by induction.
Solution 2
Answer:
for some prime
. (As usual,
is the number of divisors of
)
Note that
and
is a prime for all prime
and
, so
for some prime
. In particular,
for all prime
.
Now let
be an arbitrary positive integer and take a prime
. Then
, so
.
Let
be an arbitrary prime. Then
, so
is a power of prime. Since
, thus
for all primes
.
Claim 1:
for all primes
.
Proof. Let
be a large enough prime. Since
. Since
, so combining it with the fact that
, we see that
cannot have another prime divisor other than
. Therefore, we may conclude
. 
Claim 2:
for all prime
and all positive integer
.
Proof. Let
be the largest prime not exceeding
. Then we have
, so
and if we let
be a prime, then
is a power of
, so
must divide
. By Bertrand's postulate, there exists a prime between
and
, so we may assume
. Now assume that
has a prime divisor other than
. Then
has at least
divisors
, a contradiction. Hence
. 
Now we'll prove by induction on the number of prime divisors of
that
. Induction base is claim 2. Now assume that it's true on
and we'll prove that for
.We'll prove by induction on
that
for all primes
and all positive integers
. Induction base
is clear. Now assume it's true on
and let's prove on
. By induction hypothesis,
, so
. Thus
. From this, we can easily conclude that
is a power of
.
Therefore, the induction is completed and
for all
, so we're done.
Solution 3
he answer is
, which clearly satisfies the conditions. Here,
denotes the number of divisors of
and
is a fixed prime.
Note that for
, where
are distinct primes,
.
Let
denote the assertion:

Due to the first condition, it is easy to see that
and
, where
and
are (not necessarily distinct) primes. If we consider any two primes
and
,
, but this suggests that they do have a common factor. So,
for any prime
.
For some
, pick a prime
such that
. Then,
and as
,
. Note that for primes
and
,
has
divisors. But the number of divisors of a number is a prime only if the number is a prime power, and as
, we can deduce that
. Thus,
.
Lemma: For a prime
, if
and
, then
.
Proof. Suppose not. So,
, where
. Then,
This forces
, and
. 
We show that
by strong induction. We have already covered the base cases
. Suppose it is true for
. For a prime
,
. Since
, we can say that
. According to the first condition,
has
divisors. As
, we can ensure that
by our lemma.
Again,
and as
,
as desired.
Next, we show that
for distinct primes
and any
by induction on
. We have already proved the base case. Suppose it is true for
. We wish to show that it is true for
.
To achieve this, we must prove that
for any
Again, we proceed by induction on
To prove the base case:
but
by our lemma, as desired.
Suppose it is true for
. To prove that it holds for
, observe that
but
by our lemma, which finishes both our hypotheses.
By citing the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, we are done.