Talk:Achilles numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (Add signature, commentary) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (indent, add signature) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:For a number to be an Achilles number it must have no perfect roots. 12<sup>3</sup> == 1728. ∛1728 = 12. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 16:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
:For a number to be an Achilles number it must have no perfect roots. 12<sup>3</sup> == 1728. ∛1728 = 12. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 16:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Oh yes ! I thought it was only necessary to check the squares. I had forgotten the other powers. Thanks --[[User:VincentArm| VincentArm]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:28, 20 June 2022
Project Euler 302 asks "How many Strong Achilles numbers are there below 1018?", I think I'll leave that for another day! --Pete Lomax (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Why 1728 is not a achille number ?
1728 = 64 * 27 = 2 puissance 6 * 3 puissance 3
For me it is ok !
thanck. -- VincentArm
- For a number to be an Achilles number it must have no perfect roots. 123 == 1728. ∛1728 = 12. --Thundergnat (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes ! I thought it was only necessary to check the squares. I had forgotten the other powers. Thanks -- VincentArm