Talk:Ormiston pairs: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Should Ormiston pairs be disjoint?: Responded to Rdm.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:: Although the remarks in OEIS are confusing, I think you're right so I'm going to change my solutions accordingly which is a minor simplification. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
:: Although the remarks in OEIS are confusing, I think you're right so I'm going to change my solutions accordingly which is a minor simplification. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::: Suggesting a task Ormiston triplets? Perhaps a new OEIS sequence? In this age of artificial intelligence perhaps rc requires a bot which checks OEIS daily and autonomously generates an rc task for each new sequence. I read somewhere that the number of sequences on OEIS increases by about 40 a day, so that should keep everyone busy.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 14:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:33, 1 February 2023
Should Ormiston pairs be disjoint?
Does anyone know the answer to this?
I'd previously assumed they should be - though it makes no difference if they are or not when considering numbers up to 10 million.
However, it does make a difference for numbers up to 100 million - there are 34,901 pairs in total of which 34,876 are disjoint. --PureFox (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the definition used here which requires them to be disjoint. --Rdm (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Suggesting a task Ormiston triplets? Perhaps a new OEIS sequence? In this age of artificial intelligence perhaps rc requires a bot which checks OEIS daily and autonomously generates an rc task for each new sequence. I read somewhere that the number of sequences on OEIS increases by about 40 a day, so that should keep everyone busy.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)