Talk:Multiplicatively perfect numbers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 20:12, 17 April 2023

I put up an example that fits the Wren code, but then noted its result is very different from the Ring result. Is there a problem with the Ring code or the definition of special?

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.--PureFox (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:06, 17 April 2023 (view source) Wherrera (talk \| contribs) (question about a discrepancy)		Revision as of 20:12, 17 April 2023 (view source) PureFox (talk \| contribs) (Replied to Wherrera.) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I put up an example that fits the Wren code, but then noted its result is very different from the Ring result. Is there a problem with the Ring code or the definition of special?		I put up an example that fits the Wren code, but then noted its result is very different from the Ring result. Is there a problem with the Ring code or the definition of special?

			: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)