Talk:Factor-perfect numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
However, there's no accompanying definition for F, reviewing the first page of the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1968777?origin=crossref linked paper] where this expression occurs yields an incomplete definition for F (what is <code>cn</code>? What is <code>o</code>?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 12:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
However, there's no accompanying definition for F, reviewing the first page of the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1968777?origin=crossref linked paper] where this expression occurs yields an incomplete definition for F (what is <code>cn</code>? What is <code>o</code>?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 12:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:Indeed, don't anyone take this too heavily, but some people should perhaps bear in mind that the purpose of rosettacode is to compare programming languages, rather than test the math proficiency of individual contributors. The two other linked references are almost completely incomprehensible to me: the Klazar/Luca paper seems to be about the theoretical bounds of some unspecified function, albeit at least a relevant one, whereas I cannot identify a single reason why wp:Enumerative combinatorics is pertinent |
:Indeed, don't anyone take this too heavily, but some people should perhaps bear in mind that the purpose of rosettacode is to compare programming languages, rather than test the math proficiency of individual contributors. The two other linked references are almost completely incomprehensible to me: the Klazar/Luca paper seems to be about the theoretical bounds of some unspecified function, albeit at least a relevant one, whereas I cannot identify a single reason why wp:Enumerative combinatorics is any more pertinent than say [[wp:Counting|Counting]] --[[User:Petelomax|Petelomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
||