Talk:Numbers whose count of divisors is prime: Difference between revisions
Talk:Numbers whose count of divisors is prime (view source)
Revision as of 07:15, 7 September 2021
, 2 years agoPeak moved page Talk:Numbers which count of divisors is prime to Talk:Numbers whose count of divisors is prime: "which" is ungrammatical here, "whose" is acceptable and yields a similar title.
m (small comment) |
m (Peak moved page Talk:Numbers which count of divisors is prime to Talk:Numbers whose count of divisors is prime: "which" is ungrammatical here, "whose" is acceptable and yields a similar title.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
:Brilliant, thanks! --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 15:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
::I think, Nigel enjoys weekend :-) [[User:Horsth|Horsth]] 15:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, he's usually onto these like a flash :) --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks, I was enjoying a weekend until 11pm on Sunday when a bunch of Italians spoiled it. Taking Horsth's analysis a step further, considering n with two Prime factors p<sub>1</sub><sup>a</sup>p<sub>2</sub><sup>b</sup> then (a+1) and (b+1) are factors of CoD(n) which is therefore not prime. This makes the solution set the Cartesian product of n and g mapped to n<sup>g-1</sup> where n is the set of primes and g is the set of of off odd primes. No need to factor, no need to determine primality.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 14:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
| |||