Talk:Abundant odd numbers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 23:53, 16 May 2019

task requirements

N is a nice number if the sum of its factors is > N.

The word nice shouldn't be capitalized (unless it's name after a person or a location or somesuch).

Perhaps some requirements should be stated, such as:

show the first 25 nice numbers (with an index).
optionally, show the sum of the nice number's factors.
show all output here.

.... or something along those lines. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Abundant numbers

Actually, n is ~~Nice~~ an abundant number if the sum of its factors is greater than n.

Where did the term "Nice numbers" come from? Wikipedia never heard of Nice numbers (with this definition). Neither has Google (in this context).

However, there are a multitude of sources referring to these as abundant numbers or excessive numbers.

Exactly like in the task Abundant,_deficient_and_perfect_number_classifications and the easy part of the task Weird_numbers. --Thundergnat (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Er, no. Nice numbers (according to the definition used in this task) uses the word factors, not proper divisors. If factors was intentionally used in this context, the factors of 12 are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. As such, both (all, as of this time) of the programming entries are wrong, ... unless the task's author meant to use proper divisors instead of factors. In addition, this task (implies) that nice numbers are to be listed, whereas the other task only requires a programming solution to count the three types of numbers within a range (and not to list them). I deferred to the other programming entry's output and mimicked it's output, but not the task's definition. The definition for "nice numbers" will need to be re-defined or re-worded. For instance;

N is a nice number if the sum of its factors is > 2×N

This new definition would make the REXX programming example correct, and make the RING programming example as partly incorrect in that it doesn't list the final factor (N in the list of factors). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Exactly like in the task [[Abundant,_deficient_and_perfect_number_classifications]] and the easy part of the task [[Weird_numbers]]. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 23:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
+: Er, no. &nbsp; Nice numbers (according to the definition used in this task) uses the word &nbsp; ''factors'', &nbsp; not &nbsp; ''proper divisors''. &nbsp; If &nbsp; ''factors'' &nbsp; was intentionally used in this context, &nbsp; the factors of &nbsp; '''12''' &nbsp; are: &nbsp; '''1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12'''. &nbsp; As such, both &nbsp; (all, as of this time) &nbsp; of the programming entries are wrong, ... &nbsp; unless the task's author meant to use &nbsp; ''proper divisors'' &nbsp; instead of &nbsp; ''factors''. &nbsp; In addition, this task (implies) that nice numbers are to be listed, whereas the other task only requires a programming solution to &nbsp; ''count'' &nbsp; the three types of numbers within a range &nbsp; (and not to list them). &nbsp; I deferred to the other programming entry's output and mimicked it's output, but not the task's definition. &nbsp; The definition for "nice numbers" will need to be re-defined or re-worded. &nbsp; For instance; &nbsp;
+:::: '''N''' &nbsp; is a &nbsp; ''nice number'' &nbsp; if &nbsp; the sum of its factors is &nbsp; <big> > </big> &nbsp; '''2&times;N'''
+: This new definition would make the '''REXX''' programming example correct, and make the '''RING''' programming example as partly incorrect in that it doesn't list the final factor &nbsp; ('''N''' &nbsp; in the list of factors). &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)