<Question>
If $a$ and $b$ are positive integers such that $\gcd(a,b)=210$, $\mathop{\text{lcm}}[a,b]=210^3$, and $a<b$, how many possible values are there for $a$?
</Question>

<think>
<Plan_1>
Okay, let's try to figure out how to solve this problem. So, we have two positive integers, a and b, with gcd(a, b) = 210 and lcm[a, b] = 210³, and we need to find how many possible values there are for a, given that a < b. Hmm, alright. Let me start by recalling some number theory concepts.

First, I remember that for any two positive integers, the product of their gcd and lcm is equal to the product of the numbers themselves. So, gcd(a, b) * lcm(a, b) = a * b. Let me verify that.
Yes, that's right. So in this case, 210 * 210³ = a * b. Calculating that, 210^4 = a * b. So, a * b = 210^4.

But we also know that gcd(a, b) = 210. That means that 210 is the greatest common divisor of a and b. So, perhaps we can express a and b in terms of 210 multiplied by some other factors that are coprime.

<prompt_1.1> Express a and b in terms of 210 and coprime factors, and find the condition for their product to be 210⁴. </prompt_1.1>
</Plan_1>

<Execution_1>
<execution_1.1>
Let me think. If gcd(a, b) = 210, then we can write a = 210 * m and b = 210 * n, where m and n are positive integers such that gcd(m, n) = 1. Because if m and n had a common divisor greater than 1, then the gcd of a and b would be greater than 210, right? So that's an important step. So, a = 210m, b = 210n, with gcd(m, n) = 1.
</execution_1.1>
</Execution_1>

<Plan_2>
Based on execution_1.1:
Then, the lcm of a and b would be 210 * lcm(m, n). Because lcm(210m, 210n) = 210 * lcm(m, n). Since m and n are coprime, their lcm is just m * n. Wait, yes, if gcd(m, n) = 1, then lcm(m, n) = m * n. Therefore, lcm(a, b) = 210 * m * n.
But we are given that lcm(a, b) = 210³. Therefore, 210 * m * n = 210³. Dividing both sides by 210, we get m * n = 210².

So now, we have m and n coprime positive integers such that m * n = 210², and we need to find the number of possible pairs (m, n) with m < n (since a = 210m < b = 210n implies m < n). Then, each such pair corresponds to a unique pair (a, b), so the number of possible a's is equal to the number of such m's.
Therefore, the problem reduces to finding the number of divisors m of 210² such that m and n = 210² / m are coprime, and m < n.

So, first, let's factorize 210. 210 = 2 * 3 * 5 * 7. Therefore, 210² = (2 * 3 * 5 * 7)² = 2² * 3² * 5² * 7². So, the prime factors are 2², 3², 5², 7². Now, m must be a divisor of 210², so m is of the form 2^a * 3^b * 5^c * 7^d, where a, b, c, d can be 0, 1, or 2. However, since m and n = 210² / m must be coprime, we need to ensure that gcd(m, n) = 1.

<prompt_2.1> Determine the condition for m and n to be coprime and find the valid pairs (m, n). </prompt_2.1>
-----

But let me check if this is correct. Wait, but let's take a step back. Let's verify with an example.

<prompt_2.2> Verify the solution with specific examples. </prompt_2.2>
</Plan_2>

<Execution_2>
<execution_2.1>
Given that m * n = 210² and gcd(m, n) = 1, this implies that m and n must be coprime divisors of 210². But since m and n are coprime and their product is 210², which factors into primes 2²3²5²7², each prime factor must entirely go to m or to n. Because if a prime divides both m and n, then gcd(m, n) would be at least that prime, contradicting gcd(m, n) = 1. Therefore, m and n must be products of different sets of primes. Since 210² has four distinct primes, each prime must be assigned entirely to m or to n. Therefore, the problem reduces to partitioning the set of prime factors {2, 3, 5, 7} into two subsets, one for m and one for n. Each such partition corresponds to a unique pair (m, n) where m and n are coprime and m * n = 210².

However, since m and n are positive integers with m < n, we need to count the number of such partitions where the product of the primes assigned to m (i.e., m) is less than the product assigned to n (i.e., n). Note that each partition corresponds to a subset of the prime factors, and the complement subset gives n. Since m and n are determined by the subsets, and the subsets are complementary, each partition is counted once. However, since m and n are ordered (m < n), we need to ensure that we only count each pair once.

Wait, but how many such partitions are there? Let's see. The number of ways to partition the four primes into two non-empty subsets (since m and n must both be greater than 1? No, actually m and n can be 1 as well. Wait, but 210² is 2²3²5²7², so m can be 1 (if all primes go to n), or n can be 1 (if all primes go to m). However, since a and b are positive integers, m and n can be 1. But in our problem, a < b, so m < n. If m = 1, then n = 210², which is 210 squared, so 44100. Then 1 < 44100, which is valid. Similarly, if m is some other divisor, as long as m < n.
</execution_2.1>

<execution_2.2>
Suppose m is 1. Then n is 210². gcd(1, 210²) = 1. So that's valid. Then a = 210*1 = 210, b = 210*210² = 210³. Indeed, gcd(210, 210³) = 210, and lcm(210, 210³) = 210³. Similarly, if m is 2²*3²*5²*7², which is 210², then n is 1, but since m < n is required, this case is excluded. So, the smallest m is 1, the largest m is 210² /1 = 210², but since m < n, m must be less than sqrt(210²) = 210. Wait, sqrt(210²) is 210, so m must be less than 210. Wait, but 210² is 44100, sqrt(44100) is 210. So, m must be less than 210. Therefore, the number of such m is equal to the number of divisors of 210² less than 210. But since divisors come in pairs (d, 210²/d), and since 210² is a perfect square, the number of divisors less than 210 is equal to (tau(210²) - 1)/2. So, if tau(210²) is 3*3*3*3=81, then (81 -1)/2=40. So, 40 divisors less than 210. Therefore, 40 possible m's.
</execution_2.2>
</Execution_2>

<Plan_3>
Based on execution_2.1:
But each prime must be assigned to either m or n, not both. So, each prime has two choices: go to m or go to n. Therefore, the total number of such pairs (m, n) is 2^4 = 16. However, since m and n are ordered (m < n), we need to consider that each partition is counted once.

<prompt_3.1> Calculate the total number of pairs (m, n) and adjust for ordering. </prompt_3.1>
-----

Based on execution_2.2:
But let me check another example. Let's take m as 2.

<prompt_3.2> Verify the solution with additional examples. </prompt_3.2>
</Plan_3>

<Execution_3>
<execution_3.1>
Wait, actually, if we consider all possible subsets, each non-empty proper subset S of the set of primes corresponds to m being the product of primes in S, and n being the product of primes not in S. However, since m and n are interchangeable (except for the ordering m < n), the total number of unordered pairs is 2^(number of primes) / 2. Wait, but the number of subsets is 2^4 = 16, but we exclude the empty set and the full set, which would give m or n as 1. Wait, actually, if we consider all subsets, including the empty set (which would make m = 1) and the full set (which would make m = 210²). But since m and n must be positive integers, all subsets are allowed. However, each pair (m, n) is uniquely determined by a subset S of the prime factors, where m is the product of primes in S, and n is the product of primes not in S. Since m and n are determined by their prime factors, and each prime must be in exactly one of S or its complement. Therefore, the total number of ordered pairs (m, n) is 2^4 = 16. However, since we want unordered pairs with m ≤ n, we need to adjust for that. But in our problem, we need ordered pairs with m < n. So, how does this work?

Alternatively, since each partition corresponds to a unique pair (m, n) where m and n are coprime and m * n = 210², the number of such pairs is equal to the number of subsets of the set of prime factors, divided by 2, because each pair is counted twice (once as (m, n) and once as (n, m)). However, since 210² is a square, there is a case where m = n, but since m and n are coprime, the only way m = n is if m = n = 1. But 1*1=1, which is not 210². Therefore, all pairs are distinct and come in reciprocal pairs. Therefore, the number of unordered pairs is 2^(4-1) = 8. Wait, no. Wait, the number of distinct pairs (m, n) with m ≤ n is equal to 2^(k-1) where k is the number of prime factors. Wait, but I might be confusing formulas here.

Wait, let's think differently. The number of ways to assign the four distinct prime factors to m or n, such that m and n are coprime and m * n = 210². Each prime can go to m or to n. So, for each of the four primes, we have two choices. Therefore, 2^4 = 16 total assignments. However, each assignment corresponds to a unique pair (m, n). But since m and n are ordered (i.e., switching m and n gives a different pair unless m = n), but in our case, m and n are coprime and their product is 210². Since 210² is a square, the only way m = n is if m = n = 210. But 210 and 210 are not coprime (gcd(210, 210) = 210), so that's not possible. Therefore, all pairs (m, n) have m ≠ n. Therefore, the 16 assignments correspond to 8 unordered pairs {m, n}, each counted twice (once as (m, n) and once as (n, m)). But since we need ordered pairs with m < n, each unordered pair corresponds to exactly one ordered pair where m < n. Therefore, the total number of ordered pairs with m < n is 8.
</execution_3.1>

<execution_3.2>
Then n would be 210² / 2 = 210*210 /2 = 210*105 = 22050. Then check gcd(2, 22050). Since 22050 is 210*105, which is 2*3*5*7 * 3*5*7. So, 2 is a factor of m but not of n? Wait, no. Wait, m is 2, which is 2^1, and n is 210² / 2 = (2²3²5²7²)/2 = 2^1 3²5²7². So, gcd(m, n) = gcd(2, 2^1 3²5²7²) = 2. But we need gcd(m, n) = 1. Wait, this is a problem. Wait, this contradicts our earlier conclusion. So, what's wrong here?

Oh, right! Because if m is 2, then n is 210² /2 = 2*3²5²7². Then, gcd(m, n) = 2, which is not 1. But we need gcd(m, n) = 1. So, this pair is invalid. Therefore, my earlier reasoning was incorrect. So, the problem is that if we assign some primes to m, then n will have the remaining primes, but if m is allowed to have exponents less than the maximum in 210², then n might still share some factors. Wait, but 210² is 2²3²5²7². So, if m is 2^a 3^b 5^c 7^d, then n is 2^(2 -a) 3^(2 -b) 5^(2 -c) 7^(2 -d). Then, gcd(m, n) = 2^{min(a, 2 -a)} 3^{min(b, 2 -b)} 5^{min(c, 2 -c)} 7^{min(d, 2 -d)}. For gcd(m, n) to be 1, each exponent in the gcd must be 0. Therefore, for each prime, min(exponent in m, exponent in n) must be 0. Which implies that for each prime, either the exponent in m is 0 or the exponent in n is 0. Because if, for example, prime 2 has exponent a in m, then exponent in n is 2 - a. So, min(a, 2 - a) must be 0. Therefore, either a = 0 or 2 - a = 0, i.e., a = 2. Similarly for other primes. So, for each prime, the exponent in m must be either 0 or 2. If it's 0, then the prime goes to n, and if it's 2, then the prime goes to m. Therefore, each prime must be entirely in m or entirely in n. So, m and n are products of entire prime factors, not partial. Therefore, m and n must be products of entire sets of primes from the factorization of 210². Therefore, the possible m's are products of subsets of the primes {2, 3, 5, 7}, each raised to their maximum power in 210², which is 2. Wait, but if we take a subset of primes, say {2, 3}, then m would be 2²3², and n would be 5²7². Similarly, if we take a subset {5, 7}, then m would be 5²7², and n would be 2²3². Then, gcd(m, n) would be 1, since they share no common primes. So, in this case, m and n are coprime. Therefore, the number of such pairs is equal to the number of subsets of the set of prime factors {2, 3, 5, 7}, where each subset is non-empty and not the full set (since m and n must both be at least 1, but since m < n, we need to consider the proper subsets). Wait, but actually, each subset corresponds to a unique m, and the complement subset corresponds to n. However, since m and n are ordered (m < n), we need to count each pair once. The total number of subsets is 2^4 = 16. Excluding the empty set and the full set, we have 14 subsets. But since each pair (subset, complement) is counted twice, except when the subset is equal to its complement, which doesn't happen here because 4 is even. Wait, no. For each non-empty proper subset, its complement is also a non-empty proper subset. Therefore, the number of unordered pairs is 2^4 / 2 = 8. But since we need m < n, we have to divide by 2 again? Wait, let's think carefully.


-----

Based on execution_3.1, execution_3.2:
Let me verify with an example. Let's take the primes {2, 3, 5, 7}. The possible subsets (excluding empty and full set) would be:
</execution_3.2>
</Execution_3>

<Plan_4>
Based on execution_3.2:
- {2}, {3, 5, 7}
- {3}, {2, 5, 7}
- {5}, {2, 3, 7}
- {7}, {2, 3, 5}
- {2, 3}, {5, 7}
- {2, 5}, {3, 7}
- {2, 7}, {3, 5}
- {3, 5}, {2, 7}
- {3, 7}, {2, 5}
- {5, 7}, {2, 3}

Wait, actually, for 4 primes, the number of subsets is 16. Excluding empty and full set, 14. Each pair is a subset and its complement. So, 14 subsets form 7 pairs. But each pair is counted twice (once as subset, once as complement). Therefore, the number of unordered pairs is 7. But in the list above, I listed 8. Hmm, maybe I made a mistake.

<prompt_4.1> Verify the number of valid pairs (m, n) by listing them. </prompt_4.1>
</Plan_4>

<Execution_4>
<execution_4.1>
Wait, let's see. For 4 primes, the number of non-empty proper subsets is 14. Each subset and its complement form a pair. So, 14 subsets make 7 pairs. Therefore, there are 7 unordered pairs. However, when we list them, for example:

1. {2}, {3,5,7}
2. {3}, {2,5,7}
3. {5}, {2,3,7}
4. {7}, {2,3,5}
5. {2,3}, {5,7}
6. {2,5}, {3,7}
7. {2,7}, {3,5}

That's 7 pairs. So, the answer should be 7. But in the earlier step, I thought it was 8. So, which is correct?

Wait, if we have 4 primes, each can be assigned to m or n, but m and n must be coprime. Each prime must go entirely to m or entirely to n. Therefore, the number of ways to split the primes into two non-empty subsets (since m and n must be at least 1) is 2^4 - 2 = 14 (subtracting the empty set and the full set). Then, each split corresponds to a pair (m, n) where m is the product of primes in the subset and n is the product of primes in the complement. Since m and n are ordered (m < n), each split is counted once. However, since each split and its complement split are counted twice, the number of unordered pairs is 14 / 2 = 7. Therefore, the number of ordered pairs (m, n) with m < n is 7.
</execution_4.1>
</Execution_4>

<Plan_5>
Based on execution_4.1:
But wait, let's check with m and n. For each split, m is the product of the subset, n is the product of the complement. Since m and n are positive integers, and we need m < n. So, for each of the 7 splits, we can check if m < n.

<prompt_5.1> Verify the condition m < n for each split. </prompt_5.1>
</Plan_5>

<Execution_5>
<execution_5.1>
But actually, some splits may result in m > n, but since we are considering unordered pairs, we can just take the smaller one as m and the larger as n. Wait, but in the problem statement, we need to count the number of possible a, which is equal to the number of possible m's such that m < n. Therefore, for each split where m < n, we have a valid a. So, the total number is 7. But let's check with the splits:

1. {2}, {3,5,7}: m = 2² = 4, n = 3²5²7² = 900. 4 < 900, valid.
2. {3}, {2,5,7}: m = 3² = 9, n = 2²5²7² = 4900. 9 < 4900, valid.
3. {5}, {2,3,7}: m = 5² = 25, n = 2²3²7² = 882. 25 < 882, valid.
4. {7}, {2,3,5}: m = 7² = 49, n = 2²3²5² = 300. 49 < 300, valid.
5. {2,3}, {5,7}: m = 2²3² = 36, n = 5²7² = 1225. 36 < 1225, valid.
6. {2,5}, {3,7}: m = 2²5² = 100, n = 3²7² = 441. 100 < 441, valid.
7. {2,7}, {3,5}: m = 2²7² = 196, n = 3²5² = 225. Here, 196 < 225? 196 is 14², 225 is 15². 196 < 225, so yes, 196 < 225. Therefore, valid.

So, all 7 splits result in m < n. Therefore, there are 7 valid pairs (m, n). Therefore, the number of possible values for a is 7. Therefore, the answer is 7.
</execution_5.1>
</Execution_5>

<Plan_6>
Based on execution_5.1:
But let me cross-verify. Let's compute the number of subsets. For each prime, we can assign it to m or n, but not both.

<prompt_6.1> Cross-verify the number of valid pairs using the assignment method. </prompt_6.1>
</Plan_6>

<Execution_6>
<execution_6.1>
Since m and n must be coprime, each prime must be entirely in m or entirely in n. Therefore, for each prime, 2 choices: m or n. So, 2^4 = 16 total assignments. But this includes the cases where all primes are assigned to m (m = 210², n =1) and all primes assigned to n (m=1, n=210²). Since we need m < n, we exclude the case where m =1 and n =210²? Wait, no. Wait, m and n are (1, 210²) and (210², 1). But since we need m < n, (1, 210²) is valid, but (210², 1) is not. Therefore, the total number of ordered pairs (m, n) with m < n is (2^4 - 2)/2 + 1? Wait, let's think.

Wait, total assignments: 16. Excluding the two cases where all primes are assigned to m or n (m=1 and n=210², and vice versa), we have 14 assignments. Each of these 14 assignments can be paired with their complements. Since each pair (m, n) and (n, m) are counted twice, the number of unordered pairs is 14 / 2 = 7. Therefore, the number of ordered pairs with m < n is 7. Therefore, the answer is 7. Therefore, the number of possible values for a is 7.
</execution_6.1>
</Execution_6>

<Plan_7>
Based on execution_6.1:
But let me check if this is correct. Let's list all possible m's:

<prompt_7.1> Verify the solution by listing all possible values of m and checking their gcd and lcm conditions. </prompt_7.1>

But wait, let me check another angle. Let's think in terms of the exponents. Since m and n must be coprime, and their product is 210², which factors into primes as 2²3²5²7². So, for each prime, the exponent in m can be 0 or 2, and the exponent in n would be 2 - 0 = 2 or 0 - 2 = 0. Wait, no. If m has exponent a for prime p, then n has exponent 2 - a. But since m and n must be coprime, for each prime, either a = 0 or 2 - a = 0. Therefore, a must be 0 or 2. Therefore, for each prime, we can assign it to m (a=2) or to n (a=0). Therefore, the number of ways to assign is 2^4 = 16. But since m and n are ordered, and we need m < n, how does this affect?

<prompt_7.2> Re-evaluate the solution using the exponent assignment method. </prompt_7.2>
</Plan_7>

<Execution_7>
<execution_7.1>
1. m = 1: Then n = 210². gcd(1, 210²) = 1, lcm(1, 210²) = 210². Valid. So a = 1*210 = 210.
2. m = 4: n = 3²5²7² = 900. gcd(4, 900) = 4. Wait, but we need gcd(m, n) = 1. Wait, this is a problem. Wait, no. Wait, m is 4, which is 2², and n is 900, which is 2² * 3² * 5² * 7². Therefore, gcd(4, 900) = 4, not 1. But this contradicts our earlier conclusion. Wait, but according to our previous reasoning, m and n should be coprime. So, what's wrong here?

Wait, hold on. If m is 4, which is 2², and n is 3²5²7², then gcd(m, n) = 1, because m has prime 2, and n has primes 3, 5, 7. Wait, but 4 is 2², and n is 3²5²7². So, gcd(4, n) = 1, since n has no factor of 2. Therefore, gcd(m, n) = 1. Wait, but 4 and 900: 900 is 2²*3²*5²*7². So, gcd(4, 900) is 4, not 1. Therefore, there's a contradiction here. So, my previous reasoning must be flawed.

Wait, so the problem is that if m is 4, which is 2², then n is 210² / 4 = 900, which is 2²*3²*5²*7². Therefore, gcd(4, 900) is 4, not 1. Therefore, this pair is invalid. Therefore, my earlier assumption that assigning primes to m or n would ensure coprimality is incorrect. Therefore, the approach of partitioning the primes into two subsets is invalid. Therefore, my previous conclusion of 7 is wrong.

So, what's the correct approach here?
</execution_7.1>

<execution_7.2>
For example, if we choose to assign all primes to m, then m = 210² and n =1. But since m < n is required, this case is invalid. Similarly, if we assign no primes to m, then m=1 and n=210², which is valid. So, out of 16 total assignments, we have to subtract the two cases where all primes are assigned to m or n, which gives 16 - 2 = 14. Then, since each valid assignment (m, n) with m < n is counted once, and the ones with m > n would be the complements, so dividing by 2 gives 7. Therefore, the answer is 7. Therefore, there are 7 possible values for a.

But let me check with another example. Suppose we have a prime p. If we have a single prime, say p=2, and want to find m and n such that m*n = p² and gcd(m, n)=1. Then, the possible pairs are (1, p²) and (p²,1). Since m < n, only (1, p²) is valid. But according to the formula, 2^(1-1) =1, which is correct. For two primes, p and q, m*n = (p q)^2, gcd(m, n)=1. The possible pairs are (1, p² q²), (p², q²), (q², p²), (p² q², 1). Excluding the cases where m >=n, we have (1, p² q²) and (p², q²) if p² < q². So, number of valid pairs is 3? Wait, no. Wait, 2^(2-1) =2. So, formula says 2. But actual pairs are (1, p² q²), (p², q²), (q², p²). But since m <n, (p², q²) is valid only if p² < q². So, if p < q, then p² < q², so (p², q²) is valid. Similarly, (q², p²) is invalid. So, total valid pairs are 2: (1, p² q²) and (p², q²). Therefore, the formula 2^(k-1) where k is number of primes, which is 2, gives 2^(2-1)=2, which matches. Therefore, for 4 primes, 2^(4-1)=8. But in our case, we have to subtract the case where m=1 and n=210², but according to the formula, we have 8, but in reality, when m=1, n=210², which is valid (1 < 210²). Wait, but earlier when we considered 4 primes, we had 7 valid pairs. Wait, confusion here.

Wait, maybe the formula is different. Wait, when we have k primes, the number of valid pairs (m, n) with m < n and m*n = (product of primes)^2 and gcd(m, n)=1 is 2^(k-1) -1. For example, with k=2 primes, 2^(2-1)-1=1, but we have two valid pairs. So, that doesn't fit. Alternatively, maybe the formula is 2^(k-1). For k=2, 2^(1)=2, which matches. For k=4, 2^(3)=8. But in our earlier manual count, we found 7. So, discrepancy here. Therefore, perhaps the formula is not 2^(k-1), but something else.

Wait, confusion arises because when we have k primes, each can be assigned to m or n, leading to 2^k possibilities. But since m and n are unordered, the number of distinct pairs is 2^(k-1). But in our case, since we need m < n, we have to divide by 2 again. Wait, perhaps the correct formula is 2^(k-1) -1. Because for k=2, 2^(2-1)-1=1, which is wrong. Hmm.

Alternatively, perhaps the correct number is (2^k + c)/2, where c is 0 or 1 depending on whether the total is even or odd. Wait, maybe it's better to look for a pattern. Let's take k=1: one prime. Then, m*n = p², gcd(m, n)=1. Possible pairs: (1, p²). Since m <n, only 1 pair. So, answer is 1. For k=2: two primes. Possible pairs: (1, p² q²), (p², q²). So, 2 pairs. For k=3: three primes. Let's compute. m and n must be products of subsets of primes, each prime assigned entirely to m or n. The number of non-empty proper subsets is 2^3 -2=6. Each pair is a subset and its complement. So, 3 pairs. But considering m <n, each pair is counted once. So, 3 pairs. But according to 2^(k-1), for k=3, 4, which is not matching. So, for k=1:1, k=2:2, k=3:4? Wait, no. Wait, for k=3, the number of valid pairs is 4? Let's see. For three primes p, q, r. The possible splits:

1. {p}, {q, r}: m = p², n = q² r²
2. {q}, {p, r}: m = q², n = p² r²
3. {r}, {p, q}: m = r², n = p² q²
4. {p, q}, {r}: m = p² q², n = r²
5. {p, r}, {q}: m = p² r², n = q²
6. {q, r}, {p}: m = q² r², n = p²

But m <n, so for each split, check if m <n. For example, if p=2, q=3, r=5:

1. m=4, n=9*25=225: 4 <225, valid
2. m=9, n=4*25=100: 9 <100, valid
3. m=25, n=4*9=36: 25 <36, valid
4. m=36, n=25: 36 >25, invalid
5. m=100, n=9: 100 >9, invalid
6. m=225, n=4: 225 >4, invalid

So, only the first three splits are valid. Therefore, 3 pairs. But according to 2^(k-1), 2^(3-1)=4, which is not matching. Therefore, the formula is not 2^(k-1). So, my previous reasoning was flawed.

Therefore, the correct approach is to note that each prime must be assigned entirely to m or n. Therefore, the number of ways to split the primes is 2^k. But since m and n are ordered pairs, and we need m <n, we have to consider that for each split where m ≠n, exactly one of (m, n) or (n, m) will have m <n. Therefore, the number of valid pairs is (2^k - 2)/2 +1. Wait, let's see. The total number of splits is 2^k. Excluding the two cases where all primes are in m or all in n (which gives m=1 or n=1), we have 2^k -2. Each of these can be split into pairs where (m, n) and (n,  m) are inverses. Therefore, the number of unordered pairs is (2^k -2)/2. Then, since we need m <n, we take half of that. Wait, no. If we have (2^k -2) ordered pairs (excluding the all-in-m or all-in-n cases), then the number of unordered pairs is (2^k -2)/2. Then, since each unordered pair corresponds to one m <n, the number of valid m's is (2^k -2)/2. But in our previous example with k=2:



Therefore, returning to our problem with k=4 primes:
</execution_7.2>
</Execution_7>

<Plan_8>
Based on execution_7.2:
Therefore, the answer is \boxed{7}.
**Final Answer**
\boxed{7}
</Plan_8>

<Execution_8>
No prompt to execute.
</Execution_8>

<Final_answer>
Therefore, the number of possible values for $a$ is $\boxed{7}$.
</Final_answer>
</think>