Talk:Divisor: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Richard L. Peterson (proper divisors) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Here's another perfect example of a topic that could benefit from a plainer-language, if inexact, definition given first (and billed as "rough" or "inexact")--followed by the more precise, but harder-to-understand, definition. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:47, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | Here's another perfect example of a topic that could benefit from a plainer-language, if inexact, definition given first (and billed as "rough" or "inexact")--followed by the more precise, but harder-to-understand, definition. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 17:47, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
=="proper divisors" comment== | |||
1 and -1 might be proper divisors, contrary to the current version. I think they're called trivial divisors instead. My evidence: The statement "6 is perfect because it is the sum of its proper divisors 1, 2, and 3" is ''everywhere''.[[User:Richard L. Peterson|Rich]] 20:09, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 19:09, 31 March 2007
Here's another perfect example of a topic that could benefit from a plainer-language, if inexact, definition given first (and billed as "rough" or "inexact")--followed by the more precise, but harder-to-understand, definition. --Larry Sanger 17:47, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
"proper divisors" comment
1 and -1 might be proper divisors, contrary to the current version. I think they're called trivial divisors instead. My evidence: The statement "6 is perfect because it is the sum of its proper divisors 1, 2, and 3" is everywhere.Rich 20:09, 31 March 2007 (CDT)