Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
a composite number has more than just 1 and itself as divisors; that is, d(n) > 2; a highly composite number has a number of positive divisors that is greater than any lesser number; that is, d(n) > d(m) for every positive integer m < n. Counterintuitively, the first two highly composite numbers are not composite numbers.
A highly composite number is a positive integer that has more divisors than all smaller positive integers. If d(n) denotes the number of divisors of a positive integer n, then a positive integer N is highly composite if d(N) > d(n) for all n < N. For example, 6 is highly composite because d(6)=4 and d(n)=1,2,2,3,2 for n=1,2,3,4,5 respectively.
An abundant number whose abundance is greater than any lower number is called a highly abundant number, and one whose relative abundance (i.e. s(n)/n ) is greater than any lower number is called a superabundant number; Every integer greater than 20161 can be written as the sum of two abundant numbers. The largest even number that is not the sum ...
The first 15 superior highly composite numbers, 2, 6, 12, 60, 120, 360, 2520, 5040, 55440, 720720, 1441440, 4324320, 21621600, 367567200, 6983776800 (sequence A002201 in the OEIS) are also the first 15 colossally abundant numbers, which meet a similar condition based on the sum-of-divisors function rather than the number of divisors. Neither ...
More generally, an a-by-b rectangle can be covered with square tiles of side length c only if c is a common divisor of a and b. For example, a 24-by-60 rectangular area can be divided into a grid of: 1-by-1 squares, 2-by-2 squares, 3-by-3 squares, 4-by-4 squares, 6-by-6 squares or 12-by-12 squares.
In number theory, a highly abundant number is a natural number with the property that the sum of its divisors (including itself) is greater than the sum of the divisors of any smaller natural number. Highly abundant numbers and several similar classes of numbers were first introduced by Pillai ( 1943 ), and early work on the subject was done by ...
Now we have a number smaller than 7, and this number (4) is the remainder of dividing 186/7. So 186 minus 4, which is 182, must be a multiple of 7. Note: The reason why this works is that if we have: a+b=c and b is a multiple of any given number n, then a and c will necessarily produce the same remainder when divided by n. In other words, in 2 ...
Euler ascertained that 2 31 − 1 = 2147483647 is a prime number; and this is the greatest at present known to be such, and, consequently, the last of the above perfect numbers [i.e., 2 30 (2 31 − 1)], which depends upon this, is the greatest perfect number known at present, and probably the greatest that ever will be discovered; for as they ...