Talk:Sequence: smallest number greater than previous term with exactly n divisors: Difference between revisions
Talk:Sequence: smallest number greater than previous term with exactly n divisors (view source)
Revision as of 16:21, 10 April 2019
, 5 years ago→output for F#
m (→output for F#: added another comment or two.) |
|||
Line 24:
:::::: I didn't have anybody else in mind, the task's author is almost always the best person to do the tidying up. But from my experience, it seems that everybody has an opinion of what's a better way to phrase things, and I can talk from days of past that task requirements and phrasing have been changed/modified/mucked way beyond what the task author intended. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::: Really? Why would someone who understands number theory not be better?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have two tasks: A005179 Smallest number with exactly n divisors; and A069654 a(1) = 1; for n > 1, a(n) = smallest number > a(n-1) having exactly n divisors. <br> If we can only have one I would favour A005179 for its number theoretic interest. Why does the sequence have spikes at prime n? Anyone proposing this task should be able to answer this question!!!! --[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
| |||