Talk:Divisor: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Greg Woodhouse |
imported>Richard L. Peterson |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
:I'll fix it. Thanks. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 20:21, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | :I'll fix it. Thanks. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|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.[[User:Richard L. Peterson|Rich]] 12:37, 2 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:37, 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)