Revision as of 01:06, 20 August 2010

Definition Error

The alternate definition is awkward/wrong and doesn't make sense. How can a number have a factor larger than itself?

An equivalent condition is that n is perfect if the sum of n's factors that are less than n is equal to n.

Replaced definition with wp ref and text

perhaps this was referring to the method used in the rational arithmetic task?

--Dgamey 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The difinition above is correct. It doesn't necessarily allow for factors larger than n, but it does not include n in the sum of the factors. For instance, 6 is perfect. Its factors are 1, 2, 3, and 6. The "factors that are less than" 6 are 1, 2, and 3 which add up to 6. I don't see a problem with that definition. --Mwn3d 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... It was the word factor rather than divisor that made it seem wrong. --Dgamey 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 :The difinition above is correct. It doesn't necessarily allow for factors larger than n, but it does not include n in the sum of the factors. For instance, 6 is perfect. Its factors are 1, 2, 3, and 6. The "factors that are less than" 6 are 1, 2, and 3 which add up to 6. I don't see a problem with that definition. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
+:: Hmmm ...  It was the word factor rather than divisor that made it seem wrong. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)