An elementary number theory student$-$ let$$s call her Henrietta Stackpole, for

concreteness$-$ reasons that if n$>1$ is not prime, then it must be that n$=$mk$,$ for

some non$-$trivial factors m and k$,$ i$.$e$.$ m$,$k$>1.$ Ms$.$ Stackpole further reasons that

$.$ Henrietta is not necessarily correct. Where did she go$\backslash$sigma $($n$)>=$ n $+$ m $+$ k $+1$

wrong? Hint: Compute $.$