Problem 3. We call a positive integer n peculiar if, for any positive divisor d of n , the integer d ( d + 1) divides n ( n + 1). Prove that for any four different peculiar positive integers A , B , C and D , the following holds:
gcd( A, B, C, D ) = 1 .
Here gcd( A, B, C, D ) is the largest positive integer that divides all of A, B, C and D .
Solution 1
Let
be an arbitrary peculiar number and let
where
be its prime factorization. Then, we have
which implies
. Since
, this actually implies that
and hence
. Therefore,
by the minimality of
. Hence,
is either a prime or of the form
where
and
are primes.
Let
be a peculiar number. Note that
being a peculiar number implies
and
. Since we obviously can't have
, we may assume that
. If we have
, we get
which contradicts
. Hence,
.
Let
. We must have
because
. Additionally, since
, we must have
which implies that
.
Let
. It is evident that
. On the other hand, we have
. Combining these results together, we may conclude that
. Therefore,
.
Hence, for all primes
, there are at most
distinct primes such that
is peculiar. In particular, one such that
and one such that
. This implies the result.
Solution 2
What a joke! Let
be peculiar and let
be its smallest prime divisor. Then, letting
it follows that
divides
Evidently,
divides
hence
divides
It follows that
so
One may also trivially see that
by choosing 
So, any peculiar number is either prime, or of the form
for some prime numbers which satisfy
and
Therefore, it suffices to show that for a fixed prime
there exist at most two primes
with the previous properties. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that at least three such primes exist. Evidently, 
By the pigeonhole principle, two of them are both greater or both smaller than
First, assume that
Fix
arbitrarily. Since
then
so because
we must have
Also,
so from
we have
Thus, the primes
satisfy the system of congruences
Therefore, at least one of the primes
is greater than
which is absurd, because
for each 
Now, assume that
Fix
Evidently,
so
which gives us
Also, because
then
so from
we get
So,
satisfies the congruences
so
However,
so this would imply
for both
which is absurd.
Solution 3
The point is to characterize all peculiar
. I claim that either
with
prime, or
where
and
are both prime. Oh and also
, which I forgot. (-1 maybe)
If

is prime or
, we are done.
Otherwise suppose

is not prime and let

be the smallest prime factor. Note
. Then
![\[\frac{n}{d}\left(\frac{n}{d}+1\right)\mid n(n+1)\implies n+d\mid d^2(n+1)\implies n+d\mid d^3-d^2.\]](https://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/d/2/ad2e5f218684972015c72430fc11cb283bc4edf8.png)
In particular let
. Notice
![\[k=\frac{d^3-d^2}{n+d}\le \frac{d^3-d^2}{d^2+d}=\frac{d^2-d}{d+1}<d-1\]](https://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/7/d/3/7d3b91af786331f90c8c26e40b2988e5113b6cbd.png)
hence
.
Since

and

is prime, it follows that
.
Note that
![\[n=d\left(d\cdot \frac{d-1}{k}-1\right)\]](https://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/f/e/f/fefea286c6c8df6732a1bb3ebcfe54003c9f41ab.png)
and so the prime factorization of

contains only primes at least
. Hence if the value is composite, it must be at least
. Thus:
![\[d^2\le d\cdot \frac{d-1}{k}-1<d\cdot \frac{d-1}{k}\implies d<\frac{d-1}{k}\le d-1\]](https://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/6/8/6/6863170e6db12944406bf5ab0fcf0cec6f60263f.png)
which is a contradiction. Hence

is a prime, with

being of the form
.
We'll replace variables now: let

and let
.
Clearly
; otherwise

and since

we fail.
Now notice
![\[p(p+1)\mid pq(pq+1)\implies p+1\mid q(pq+1)\implies p+1\mid pq+1\implies p+1\mid q-1.\]](https://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/8/4/984f611ce46a1a2b8e61dbca24bdeb55b812f79d.png)
Thus
![\[p+1\mid p\cdot \frac{p-1}{k}-2\implies p+1\mid \frac{p-1}{k}+2\implies k=1.\]](https://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/b/c/dbcfd1a5690049d6da1e78f5d7eabc0257d06f42.png)
Looking back, we find

where

and

are both prime.
Now suppose there is a prime

which divides four different peculiar positive integers.
- The only prime which could be a multiple of
is
itself.
- The only numbers of the form
with
and
prime that are multiples of
must have
or
, yielding two other numbers.
Thus obtaining four different numbers is impossible (the above counts three). We are done
Solution 4
Let
, where
, taking
gives:
This means
, obviously impossible unless
where
is another prime such that
. If
, we have:
which is impossible.
If
is of the form
, we have
. If
, then
as
, which means
,
, however
isn't a peculiar number. Therefore,
So let
. Now, we also have:
If
, we have
, impossible as it's greater, which means
. Due to size reasons, we have
.
Now, we can have at most three peculiar numbers divisible by
. The only possible prime is
, and the other two peculiar numbers can be
, where
.