Talk:Ormiston pairs: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 17:11, 31 January 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)

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. --PureFox (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:59, 31 January 2023 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) (→‎Should Ormiston pairs be disjoint?) ← Older edit		Revision as of 17:11, 31 January 2023 (view source) PureFox (talk \| contribs) (→‎Should Ormiston pairs be disjoint?: Responded to Rdm.) Newer edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:

	: I don't see anything in the definition used here which requires them to be disjoint. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)		: I don't see anything in the definition used here which requires them to be disjoint. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 16:59, 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)