Talk:Abundant odd numbers: Difference between revisions
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m Thundergnat moved page Talk:Nice numbers to Talk:Abundant odd numbers: Rename to more appropriate title |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) →Task name description and requirements modified.: new section |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::Anyway, if this task is to be retained, perhaps we could make it a bit more interesting by asking for say the first 5 'odd' nice numbers to be calculated as well. I've added a tentative Go solution on this basis. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
::Anyway, if this task is to be retained, perhaps we could make it a bit more interesting by asking for say the first 5 'odd' nice numbers to be calculated as well. I've added a tentative Go solution on this basis. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Task name description and requirements modified. == |
|||
I've changed the task name, added a more verbose description and added some more interesting requirements. Should be pretty easily doable for most languages. Not carved in stone though. Better suggestions welcome. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) |
Revision as of 19:27, 17 May 2019
task requirements
N is a nice number if the sum of its factors is > N.
The word nice shouldn't be capitalized (unless it's name after a person or a location or somesuch).
Perhaps some requirements should be stated, such as:
- show the first 25 nice numbers (with an index).
- optionally, show the sum of the nice number's factors.
- show all output here.
.... or something along those lines. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Abundant numbers
Actually, n is Nice an abundant number if the sum of its factors is greater than n.
Where did the term "Nice numbers" come from? Wikipedia never heard of Nice numbers (with this definition). Neither has Google (in this context).
However, there are a multitude of sources referring to these as abundant numbers or excessive numbers.
Exactly like in the task Abundant,_deficient_and_perfect_number_classifications and the easy part of the task Weird_numbers. --Thundergnat (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Er, no. Nice numbers (according to the definition used in this task) uses the word factors, not proper divisors. If factors was intentionally used in this context, the factors of 12 are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. As such, both (all, as of this time) of the programming entries are wrong, ... unless the task's author meant to use proper divisors instead of factors. In addition, this task (implies) that nice numbers are to be listed, whereas the other task only requires a programming solution to count the three types of numbers within a range (and not to list them). I deferred to the other programming entry's output and mimicked it's output, but not the task's definition. The definition for "nice numbers" will need to be re-defined or re-worded. For instance;
- N is a nice number if the sum of its factors is > 2×N
- This new definition would make the REXX programming example correct, and make the RING programming example as partly incorrect in that it doesn't list the final factor (N in the list of factors). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)]
- Er, yes. Did you even bother to glance at the links I provided? Sample quote from Wikipedia:
Abundant number Definition: A number n for which the sum of divisors σ(n)>2n, or, equivalently, the sum of proper divisors (or aliquot sum) s(n)>n.
- This task is asking for abundant numbers, regardless of what made-up name was put on it. You (Gerard) complained earlier about how RosettaCode has poor credibility in some circles, attaching made-up names to standardized concepts certainly won't help with that.
(quote)... this task (implies) that nice numbers are to be listed, whereas the other task only requires a programming solution to count the three types of numbers within a range...(end quote)
- So? Maybe we should have a task to find the abundant numbers and list them right justified!, or in binary! or in Roman numerals! How do the display parameters have anything to do with finding abundant numbers? It's just needless proliferation of pointless minuscule variations of the same task. Now, I could get behind PureFox's suggestion of listing the first several odd abundant numbers, at least there is some other concept to be exercised (as long as the name and task is updated to reflect what it is actually asking for). But as it stands, my vote would be for deletion. --Thundergnat (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the Ring results correspond to the first 25 terms of A005101 so I don't think there's much doubt that 'abundant' numbers are what CalmoSoft (who's not a native English speaker) had in mind even if he's calling them by an unfamiliar name and using the expression 'factors' rather than 'proper divisors'. Possibly 'nice' is a play on the name of the Greek mathematician, Nicomachus, who appears to have been the first to classify abundant numbers etc. circa 100 AD.
Task name description and requirements modified.
I've changed the task name, added a more verbose description and added some more interesting requirements. Should be pretty easily doable for most languages. Not carved in stone though. Better suggestions welcome. --Thundergnat (talk)