A002093/A004394 - Highly abundant and superabundant numbers
A002093 - Highly abundant numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, ...
A004394 - Superabundant numbers
1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 120, ...
The sum of an integer's proper divisors is represented as σ(n). [Please see the correction below.] If σ(n) > σ(m) is true for for all m < n, that number is called highly abundant. If σ(n)/n > σ(m)/m is true for for all m < n, that number is called superabundant. It's almost trivially apparent that all superabundant numbers are also highly abundant, and that there are numbers which are highly abundant but not superabundant (for instance: 10 and 16). Leonidas Alaoglu and Paul Erdős's early work on these numbers, however posed a question: Is there an infinite number of integers that are highly abundant but not superabundant? (Spoiler alert: There are. Jean-Luc Nicolas proved it in 1969).
Interestingly, not all of these numbers are even necessarily abundant. Since σ(2) = 3 and σ(4) = 7, they both meet the criteria for both of these sequences. But σ(2) - 2 = 1 and σ(4) - 4 = 3, making them both deficient. [This paragraph was originally both wrong and confusing. Please see the correction below.]
There's a complex relationship between superabundant numbers and the Riemann hypothesis, which says a lot about the distribution of prime numbers (not to mention other, deeper fields of number theory).
Correction: Thanks to orthogonality on MetaFilter, I've become aware that my definition of the divisor function σ(n) was wrong. It is the sum of all divisors, including n. The restricted divisor function, which includes only the proper divisors (those that are not n) is denoted by s(n). My apologies for the mistake.
Related: A004490 - Colossally abundant numbers: 2, 6, 12, 60, 120, 360, 2520, 5040, ...