Talk:Quadrat special primes: Difference between revisions
m (→task clarification: added whitespace.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (Thundergnat moved page Talk:Quadrat Special Primes to Talk:Quadrat special primes) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<br>'''11''' would be the '''4<sup>th</sup>''' ''quadrat special prime'', |
<br>'''11''' would be the '''4<sup>th</sup>''' ''quadrat special prime'', |
||
<br>'''47''' would be the '''5<sup>th</sup>''' ''quadrat special prime'', ··· -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
<br>'''47''' would be the '''5<sup>th</sup>''' ''quadrat special prime'', ··· -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
== better choice of words? == |
|||
Instead (or in addition to), how about using the phrase ''smallest squares of positive integers''? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: I did it in task description.--[[User:CalmoSoft|CalmoSoft]] ([[User talk:CalmoSoft|talk]]) 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Possibly also list ''for example'': 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, ··· -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Correction in Ring == |
|||
<br> I corrected code and output in Ring Programming Language as you suggested.--[[User:CalmoSoft|CalmoSoft]] ([[User talk:CalmoSoft|talk]]) 18:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:02, 13 February 2022
task clarification
I think the word quadrat needs to be defined in this context.
If it means integers raised to the 2nd power, then:
- the prime 2 + 12 = 3.
Thus:
3 would be the 2nd quadrat special prime.
7 would be the 3rd quadrat special prime,
11 would be the 4th quadrat special prime,
47 would be the 5th quadrat special prime, ··· -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
better choice of words?
Instead (or in addition to), how about using the phrase smallest squares of positive integers? -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly also list for example: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, ··· -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Correction in Ring
I corrected code and output in Ring Programming Language as you suggested.--CalmoSoft (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)