Talk:Abundant odd numbers

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 18:56, 17 May 2019 by Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (Thundergnat moved page Talk:Nice numbers to Talk:Abundant odd numbers: Rename to more appropriate title)

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)]
Er, yes. Did you even bother to glance at the links I provided? Sample quote from Wikipedia:
   Abundant number
   Definition:
   A number n for which the sum of divisors σ(n)>2n, or, equivalently, the sum of proper divisors (or aliquot sum) s(n)>n.
This task is asking for abundant numbers, regardless of what made-up name was put on it. You (Gerard) complained earlier about how RosettaCode has poor credibility in some circles, attaching made-up names to standardized concepts certainly won't help with that.

(quote)... 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...(end quote)

So? Maybe we should have a task to find the abundant numbers and list them right justified!, or in binary! or in Roman numerals! How do the display parameters have anything to do with finding abundant numbers? It's just needless proliferation of pointless minuscule variations of the same task. Now, I could get behind PureFox's suggestion of listing the first several odd abundant numbers, at least there is some other concept to be exercised (as long as the name and task is updated to reflect what it is actually asking for). But as it stands, my vote would be for deletion. --Thundergnat (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the Ring results correspond to the first 25 terms of A005101 so I don't think there's much doubt that 'abundant' numbers are what CalmoSoft (who's not a native English speaker) had in mind even if he's calling them by an unfamiliar name and using the expression 'factors' rather than 'proper divisors'. Possibly 'nice' is a play on the name of the Greek mathematician, Nicomachus, who appears to have been the first to classify abundant numbers etc. circa 100 AD.
Anyway, if this task is to be retained, perhaps we could make it a bit more interesting by asking for say the first 5 'odd' nice numbers to be calculated as well. I've added a tentative Go solution on this basis. --PureFox (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)