Talk:Divisor: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard L. Peterson |
imported>Greg Woodhouse (Further Reading) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::Man I'm over the hill! By my quote about 6 above negative numbers like -1 or -3 can't be proper divisors of 6. Sorry.[[User:Richard L. Peterson|Rich]] 12:37, 2 April 2007 (CDT) | ::Man I'm over the hill! By my quote about 6 above negative numbers like -1 or -3 can't be proper divisors of 6. Sorry.[[User:Richard L. Peterson|Rich]] 12:37, 2 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Further Reading == | |||
"Fearless Symmetry" is certainly a fascinating read, but really out of place in this article. (It's an introduction to the ideas behind the proof of Fermat's last theorem for non-specialists.) I was a bit, well, ebulient, in placing it here. I'll probably use it elsewhere, such as in an article on reciprocity laws. | |||
Revision as of 13:18, 2 April 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)
- I'll fix it. Thanks. Greg Woodhouse 20:21, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
- Man I'm over the hill! By my quote about 6 above negative numbers like -1 or -3 can't be proper divisors of 6. Sorry.Rich 12:37, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
Further Reading
"Fearless Symmetry" is certainly a fascinating read, but really out of place in this article. (It's an introduction to the ideas behind the proof of Fermat's last theorem for non-specialists.) I was a bit, well, ebulient, in placing it here. I'll probably use it elsewhere, such as in an article on reciprocity laws.