Timeline for What do 84, 96 and 108 have in common?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2023 at 23:04 | history | edited | qwr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7122 characters in body
|
| S Aug 24, 2023 at 22:58 | history | suggested | Greg Martin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected "sum of divisors" for 60
|
| Aug 24, 2023 at 17:51 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 24, 2023 at 22:58 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2023 at 4:44 | comment | added | yanjunk | A rule very close to making sense is that one of the two middle factors (which multiply to the number) is a power of a prime. The rule might involve the two middle factors in some way. | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 4:11 | comment | added | yanjunk | Note also that while the 4-2 and 5-2 sequences both start at p' = 17 (presumably after 2^4), the 6-2 and 7-2 sequences start at 37 (presumably after 2^5). | |
| Aug 23, 2023 at 3:59 | comment | added | yanjunk | A possible observation: in certain sequences where (at least it appears) the factorisation p_0*p_1*p_3*p’ works for any prime p > some amount (for example, 2*2*5*p’ for p’ > 10), possibly excluding the case p’ = p_n. In those cases it appears the “some amount” is the product p_0p_n. For example, I would conjecture that other than 3*5*11*11, the next such number that fits this category in the sequence is 3*5*11*37. This would indicate that the rule may correlate its largest prime with the others (though this may just be a coincidence, as there are exceptions). | |
| Aug 22, 2023 at 5:22 | comment | added | Peter | That's a very important observation! I suspect this will be quite useful for later answers. | |
| Aug 22, 2023 at 3:29 | history | edited | qwr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 18332 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2023 at 2:27 | history | edited | qwr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2023 at 2:16 | history | answered | qwr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |