Talk:Multiplicatively perfect numbers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 20:28, 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)

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. --PureFox (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:12, 17 April 2023 (view source) PureFox (talk \| contribs) (Replied to Wherrera.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 20:28, 17 April 2023 (view source) PureFox (talk \| contribs) (Comment re the inclusion of the number 1.) Newer edit →
Line 2:		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)		: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)