Talk:Multiplicatively perfect numbers

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)

Vote for deletion

Duplicate of Semiprime except misnamed, poor task description, and incomprehensible example code. Delete. --Thundergnat (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed it before but, yes, it is effectively a duplicate of the Semiprime task, at least for this range of numbers. So I'd second the vote for deletion. --PureFox (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting this task, the example code is completly wrong. --Frisian (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

agree this is a duplicate task as currently defined. --Wherrera (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There are actually 4 'special numbers' under 500 which are not semi-prime, namely: 8, 27, 125 and 343. However, that's because they're cubes of primes and so it's only a trivial difference and not enough to justify a separate task. --PureFox (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Why's this still here... --Petelomax (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Thundergnat (or any other member apart from Mike Mol himself) has the power to delete tasks since the switch to Miraheze. What we could do instead is to blank the page or leave it up (as a non-task) but change the language headers to 'level 3' headings which I think will prevent them from messing up the task statistics. Calmosoft has just requested that another of his putative tasks, Extreme primes, be deleted as that's also turned out to be a duplicate so whatever we do for this we can do for that as well. --PureFox (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)