Anonymous user
Talk:Perfect numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Definition Error: increased the indentation (::::).
mNo edit summary |
m (→Definition Error: increased the indentation (::::).) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 9:
:: Hmmm ... It was the word factor rather than divisor that made it seem wrong. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:::A brief search on the wikipedia oracle seems to show that they are the same unless you're talking about graphs. It doesn't make any difference to me or math books which word you use in this case, so whatever it is now I say leave it. FFR they are the same, though. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 03:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: The ''factors that are less than 6 are'' ... --- Another term for that is ''proper divisors''. Proper divisors of '''X''' are all (positive integer) divisors of '''X''' except '''X'''. Unity is treated as a special case. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
=Haskell example may need some attention=
Perhaps the Haskell example needs a little attention ?
It shows a list of results in which 8128 ( a perfectly perfect number ) is mysteriously followed by 8129, which looks like an accident …
(if for example, we define divisors as:
> divisors x = [d | d <- [1..x-1], x `mod` d == 0]
and perfect as
> perfect n = (n == sum (divisors n))
then
> perfect 8128
evaluates to True, but
> perfect 8129
is False ( sum (divisors 8129) == 751 )
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that - I misread a test as a result (mea culpa) (and the code is wonderfully fast, incidentally … ) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
| |||