Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-03 Thread David Hobby
> What is the smallest known odd perfect number? > > > > Is too! You could prove me wrong? There is a > > (large) lower bound, and no known upper bound. > > > Do you have any idea about this lower bound? At least 10^300. See section 5 of: http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/mersen

Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-03 Thread Julia Thompson
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > David Hobby wrote: > > > What is the smallest known odd perfect number? > > > > Is too! You could prove me wrong? There is a > > (large) lower bound, and no known upper bound. > > > Do you have any idea about this lower bound? > > > But you did catch that I was

Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-03 Thread Alberto Monteiro
David Hobby wrote: > What is the smallest known odd perfect number? > > Is too! You could prove me wrong? There is a > (large) lower bound, and no known upper bound. > Do you have any idea about this lower bound? > But you did catch that I was joking? > Yes, of course. I am not yet humour

Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-03 Thread Alberto Monteiro
Ronn Blankenship asked: > > Been reading Rudy Rucker's _Infinity and the Mind_, have you? > No Alberto the one liner ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-03 Thread David Hobby
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > David Hobby wrote: > > > >> Uh? Really? The last time I read about it, the only > > > > KNOWN > > > >> perfect numbers were the few that came from... > >> 2^(n-1) (2^n - 1) > > > Right. I should h

Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-02 Thread Ronn!Blankenship
At 06:53 PM 9/2/03 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: David Hobby wrote: > >> Uh? Really? The last time I read about it, the only > > KNOWN > >> perfect numbers were the few that came from... >> 2^(n-1) (2^n - 1) > Right. I should have written the known part. It

Re: Perfect Numbers

2003-09-02 Thread Alberto Monteiro
David Hobby wrote: > >> Uh? Really? The last time I read about it, the only > > KNOWN > >> perfect numbers were the few that came from... >> 2^(n-1) (2^n - 1) > Right. I should have written the known part. It was yet unknown if there were odd perfect numbers. OTO

Re: Perfect Numbers [was: Test]

2003-09-02 Thread David Hobby
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > David Hobby wrote about 28: > > > > It is nominally the number of days in a month. > >It is a perfect number, the only even perfect number that > >is a multiple of 7. (There are some LARGE odd perfect numbers > >that are

Perfect Numbers [was: Test]

2003-09-02 Thread Alberto Monteiro
David Hobby wrote about 28: > > It is nominally the number of days in a month. >It is a perfect number, the only even perfect number that >is a multiple of 7. (There are some LARGE odd perfect numbers >that are multiples of 7, but they don't count. : ) ) > Uh? Reall