The proposed 'chellenge' is retired because it has been badly impostated!...
I beg your pardon for the time You have wasted!...
Kind regards
In order to avoid misunderstanding a preliminary question must be answered...
In the following previous thread...
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/number-theory/112730-question-about-eulers-phi-function.html
... starting from the basic explicit formula for ...
(1)
... first we derived ...
(2)
... and from which we demonstrated that...
(3)
Now from (3) I realize that is...
(4)
The question: is all that correct?...
Kind regards
In order to avoid any possible confusion I recast the previous question in more general terms...
The possibilities that the expression does have any sense are two...
a) given a sequence at it is asociated one and only one and we are interested to the . In this case we need to have an acceptable definition of ...
b) given a sequence it is said to have a 'lower bound' if it doesn't exist any for which is and , given a , it exist at least one , for which is . In this case however the expression is a nonsense...
The question : which is true?... a) or b)?... or something else?...
Kind regards