Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!spar!dole
From: dole@spar.UUCP (Harry Dole)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Can you prove/disprove this?
Message-ID: <693@spar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 16:48:09 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.693
Posted: Fri Dec  6 16:48:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Dec-85 07:03:40 EST
References: <34080@lanl.ARPA> <687@spar.UUCP> <103@ISM780C.UUCP>
Reply-To: dole@spar.UUCP (Harry Dole)
Distribution: net
Organization: Yoyodyne Semicunduktur - Where the Futur is Tomorro
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <103@ISM780C.UUCP> tim@ISM780C.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>In article <687@spar.UUCP> dole@max.UUCP (Harry Dole) writes:
>>In article <34080@lanl.ARPA> dxm@lanl.ARPA writes:
>>>
>>>are perfect if n is a prime number.  This was true up to the largest
>>
>>that for n=4 we have x = 120.  Let sigma(y) denote the sum of all
>
>I was not aware that 4 was a prime!
>-- 
>Tim Smith       ihmp4!cithep!tim  || ima!ism780!tim || sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim

Quite true! Four is not a prime number.  Must have been a faulty frontal lobe
on Monday.  Also, as previously reported, for n=11 the precision on the given
machine would be exhausted.  As penance, I shall display ignorance and ask
questions:  How well does the Mersenne formula do as a generator of k-perfect
numbers?  Are there formulas similar to the Mersenne one that use other
primes as a base and generate k-perfects or is the characteristic 2 essential?

				Harry Dole

	{decwrl,hplabs}!spar!dole