Talk:N-smooth numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→Disagreement among implementations: added a "Charlie Brown" type comment.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→there are no 9-smooth numbers?: new section) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::: (To quote Charlie Brown) Arrrrgh! I'll get it right, eventually. ... Fixed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC) |
:::: (To quote Charlie Brown) Arrrrgh! I'll get it right, eventually. ... Fixed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
== there are no 9-smooth numbers? == |
|||
From the task description, second sentence: |
|||
<blockquote>The n (when using it in the expression n-smooth is always prime, there are no 9-smooth numbers.</blockquote> |
|||
I don't know, [[wp:Smooth_number#Definition|Wikipedia: Smooth number]] in the Definition section, paragraph 3, sentence 3 seems to directly contradict that. |
|||
<blockquote>Usually B is prime, but composite numbers are permitted as well.</blockquote> |
|||
Ok, they use B rather than N but there isn't anything special about B; that is just the indeterminate they used. (Also, that sentence seems to be missing a closing parenthesis.) --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 22:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||