Talk:Untouchable numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→1464) |
(→reduction in the number of (counting) ranges: added a new talk section.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== 1464 == |
== 1464 == |
||
Unfortunately, the factors of 14641 are {1,11,121,1331} which sum to 1464.<br> |
Unfortunately, the factors of 14641 are {1,11,121,1331} which sum to 1464.<br> |
||
According to https://oeis.org/A005114/b005114.txt <br> |
According to https://oeis.org/A005114/b005114.txt <br> |
||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
:: 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) |
:: 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) |
||
== reduction in the number of (counting) ranges == |
|||
I've reduced the number of ranges for counting untouchable numbers. It seems the upper limit was far higher than I estimated. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:29, 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)
reduction in the number of (counting) ranges
I've reduced the number of ranges for counting untouchable numbers. It seems the upper limit was far higher than I estimated. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)