Talk:Multiplicatively perfect numbers: Difference between revisions
Talk:Multiplicatively perfect numbers (view source)
Revision as of 20:28, 17 April 2023
, 1 year agoComment re the inclusion of the number 1.
(Replied to Wherrera.) |
(Comment re the inclusion of the number 1.) |
||
Line 2:
:Assuming the definition is correct, then the Ring solution is not consistent with it. Take the case of n = 64, for example. 16 and 32 are also divisors but he hasn't included them in the product.--[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 20:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:Incidentally, as the definition stands, I don't think '1' should be included as a 'special number' because it has no eligible divisors. However, it is a 'multiplicatively perfect number' because the product of its divisors (namely 1) is equal to 1 x 1. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 20:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
| |||