Talk:Untouchable numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→1464: added another comment.) |
(→1464) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: That certainly slowed up the search when I extended the search field. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC) |
: That certainly slowed up the search when I extended the search field. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
:: To match up to 1e5 I increased the limit to 18*n, a tactic I would deem rather unsound. Note added to the Phix entry. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 09:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:17, 9 February 2021
1464
Unfortunately, the factors of 14641 are {1,11,121,1331} which sum to 1464.
According to https://oeis.org/A005114/b005114.txt
There are 1212 not 1,216 untouchable numbers <= 10,000
There are 13,863 not 13,886 untouchable numbers <= 100,000
--Pete Lomax (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that I need to extend the search for each range of untouchable numbers. A fix (hopefully) will be forthcoming. Thanks for finding those errors in the REXX's output. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- That certainly slowed up the search when I extended the search field. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- To match up to 1e5 I increased the limit to 18*n, a tactic I would deem rather unsound. Note added to the Phix entry. --Pete Lomax (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)