Anonymous user
Talk:Abundant odd numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Abundant numbers: added comments, beating a dead horse.
(→Task name description and requirements modified.: Commented on revised task description.) |
m (→Abundant numbers: added comments, beating a dead horse.) |
||
Line 34:
::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.
::: I didn't complain. I merely mentioned what I observed elsewhere. Please don't characterize my comments as complaining, this only adds to the problem of ad hominem attacks or bad characterizations. Your sentence (as I read it) sounds like that I attached made-up names. I did not. What would help is keeping this discussion civil without your added commentary about my comments, whatever you may think of them. People should feel free to comment about problems with descriptions in the task and/or the clarity/correctness of task requirements and definitions without rebuke. This, unfortunately, is not the case here. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
<blockquote>(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)</blockquote>
::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. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
::: The ''how'' in displaying parameters (the numbers) was never mentioned by me, it was the actual ''displaying'' (in whatever manner) of the numbers instead of merely counting them and only showing the count. I never stated that the ''displaying'' of parameters (numbers) is the same as ''finding'' abundant numbers (other than one is needed for the other). This is a strawman argument and isn't worth the discussion. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
::Well, the Ring results correspond to the first 25 terms of [https://oeis.org/A005101 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.
| |||