Talk:Proper divisors: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Dupe?) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Yep, it is allied, but deficient, perfect, abundant number classifications as well as Amicable pairs are based on them. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
:Yep, it is allied, but deficient, perfect, abundant number classifications as well as Amicable pairs are based on them. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
::It seems like it'd be easier to just use the "proper divisors" definition in other tasks where appropriate rather than having a separate task with essentially the same code (except for maybe esoteric languages). Especially since any definition with "factors of an integer" could be made using "proper divisors" with one or two extra additions or subtractions. It just doesn't seem worth it. It looks to me like having a task to "print the number 3" and another task to "print the number before 4". --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] ([[User talk:Mwn3d|talk]]) 19:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
::It seems like it'd be easier to just use the "proper divisors" definition in other tasks where appropriate rather than having a separate task with essentially the same code (except for maybe esoteric languages). Especially since any definition with "factors of an integer" could be made using "proper divisors" with one or two extra additions or subtractions. It just doesn't seem worth it. It looks to me like having a task to "print the number 3" and another task to "print the number before 4". --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] ([[User talk:Mwn3d|talk]]) 19:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::From my point of view 'factors' is simpler than 'Proper divisors'. Specifically: 'Proper divisors' are the factors of a number except the number itself except if the number itself is 1. I don't have an opinion on the redundancy, but if people decide that the redundancy is bad, I'd hate to sacrifice the simple concept of 'factors' (all of them, for all cases, instead of just a special case for 1). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::OK. I understand your point. I have just added the third of the triplet of tasks [[Abundant, deficient and perfect number classifications]], they do form a tight triplet, but I am probably pushing it cos I started it. Could it stay guys? (I am definitely not impartial - would be nice to have one champion though in what I hope will be a debate) --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::OK. I understand your point. I have just added the third of the triplet of tasks [[Abundant, deficient and perfect number classifications]], they do form a tight triplet, but I am probably pushing it cos I started it. Could it stay guys? (I am definitely not impartial - would be nice to have one champion though in what I hope will be a debate) --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
||