Prove or disprove this conjecture : If $k>2$ is an integer with $\gcd(k,\varphi(k))=1$ , then there is a Carmichael number $N$ with $k\mid N$
The condition $\gcd(k,\varphi(k))=1$ is necessary. Otherwise, $k$ would not be squarefree and therefore also $N$ , which is impossible. Or there would be prime factors $p,q$ of $k$ and therefore $N$, with $p\mid q-1$. This is also impossible since this would imply $p\mid N-1$ because of $q-1\mid N-1$ contradicting $p\mid N$
But is it also sufficient ? And if yes, is there an efficient method to construct a Carmichael number divisible by $k$ ? A particular hard case seems to be $k=885=3\cdot 5\cdot 59$.
Is there a Carmichael number divisble by $885$ ?
A Carmichael number divisible by $885$ is:
$$164488660061020788061329257343567786500424705$$ factors are: $3\cdot5\cdot53\cdot59\cdot257\cdot353\cdot929\cdot1613\cdot2729\cdot6449\cdot7937\cdot43649\cdot514229\cdot8227649$
It is probably not the smallest Carmichael number divisible by $885$.
After all, we know that Carmichael numbers are infinite . However, we do not know if there is an infinite number of them with a certain number of prime factors.
The above 45-digit number was found by an algorithm proposed by P. Erdős. If you want to have the Pari/GP code, please write in the comments. I will expand my answer accordingly.
$Edit:$
The Pari/GP code I used:
The factorset I used to find the number above was:
Note: primes and primepowers used in the factorset are excluded in the final prime vector. Thus for our purpose $3$, $5$ and $59$ may not be in the list, otherwise any returning Carmichael number is not divisible by $885$.
A smaller Carmichael number divisible by $885$ can be determined by:
returns:
However, this algorithm is not capable of finding the least Carmichael numbers. Rather, its strength lies in determining those with many prime factors, even several hundred.