Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 18482 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
Perfect numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perfect numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfect numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perfect numbers (Score:4, Funny)
Definition of Perfect Number (Score:5, Informative)
So,
6 = 1 + 2 + 3
28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14
And so on.
Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Interesting)
n mathematics, a perfect number is an integer which is the sum of its proper positive divisors, not including the number itself.
Thus, 6 is a perfect number, because 1, 2 and 3 are its proper positive divisors and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. The next perfect number is 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14. The next perfect numbers are 496 and 8128 (sequence A000396 in OEIS). These first four perfect numbers were the only ones known to the Ancient Greeks.
The Greek mathematician Euclid discovered that the first four perfect numbers are generated by the formula 2n1(2n 1):
for n = 2: 21(22 1) = 6
for n = 3: 22(23 1) = 28
for n = 5: 24(25 1) = 496
for n = 7: 26(27 1) = 8128
Noticing that 2n 1 is a prime number in each instance, Euclid proved that the formula 2n1(2n 1) gives a perfect even number whenever 2n 1 is prime.
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:3, Interesting)
There are no known odd perfect numbers, whether or not they exist is an unsolved problem in mathematics.
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. As pointed out by a previous poster, Euclid knew the relationship between what we now call Mersenne Primes (primes of the form 2^n - 1) and perfect numbers. The proof is simple algebra - consider the factors of (2^n-1)(2^(n-1)), knowing that 2^n-1 is prime. If 2^n-1 isn't prime, you get an abundant number, whose factors add up to more than itself. Try n=4.
Computer nerds of ourse already know the binary representation of these numbers, a bunch of ones, followed by one fewer zeros.
This still says nothing about whether all perfect numbers are of this form. I'm not up on current number theory, but I know that mathematicians plug away at problems as long as they generate interesting mathematics. Does this problem do this?
...laura
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Informative)
This page [utm.edu] has more info about Mersenne primes and how they can be discovered. There is a distributed project to find Mersenne primes [mersenne.org], which can even earn you a decent sum of money. A less selfish reason is that you can find the biggest known prime number, making you famous (among about 100 geeks).
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, we'll make a distinction between factors of a number, and "proper" factors of a number. A "proper" factor of a number is any factor of a number other than the number itself. So, for example, the factors of 6 are 1, 2, 3, and 6; the "proper" factors of 6 are 1, 2, and 3. A perfect number is defined to be a number which is the sum of all its "proper" factors; 6 = 1 + 2 + 3. This means the sum of all its factors is twice the number; 6 * 2 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 6. From here on out, we'll use this latter definition of perfect number, and we won't use the artificial concept of "proper" factors.
Consider the factorization of a number into prime powers. For example, 252 = 2^2 * 3^2 * 7^1.
Every single factor of 252 is of the form 2^a * 3^b * 7^c, where a and b are in {0, 1, 2}, and c is in {0, 1}; and all numbers of this form are factors of 252. Now, consider the product (2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2) * (3^0 + 3^1 + 3^2) * (7^0 + 7^1). If we expand this using the distributive property, we see that this is a sum of all numbers of the form 2^a * 3^b * 7^c described above.
Therefore, a number is perfect if and only if this product is twice the number. We can quickly check if 252 is perfect by seeing if (2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2) * (3^0 + 3^1 + 3^2) * (7^0 + 7^1) is equal to 252 * 2. (It isn't.) Equivalently, we can check if (2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2)/2^2 * (3^0 + 3^1 + 3^2)/3^2 * (7^0 + 7^1)/7^1 is equal to 2 (I just divided both sides of the equation by 252); and given the prime power factorization of any other number, we can check in the same manner. This last check is the one we'll analyze.
Any even number will have a (2^0 + 2^1 +
Thus, all even perfect numbers are a product of a power of 2 and the associated Mersenne prime. (Yes, I left out a few minor details at the end, but if you understood the rest of the proof you can easily figure them out.)
However, the matter of whether odd perfect numbers exist or not is still an open question. I'm not aware of any interesting mathematics this has generated of late, but who knows what it will take to finally solve the problem?
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Insightful)
Note Chris's distinction between "proper" factors and factors. If you were allowed to count the original number, 1 would be the only perfect number. All others would have factors that add up to at least one more than themselves.
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Insightful)
(every number is a divisor of 0, so their sum can't give 0)
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Informative)
6: 1, 2, 3, -1, -2, -3
and so on. Proper divisors must be positive.
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Funny)
Well, in Texas maybe.
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:3, Informative)
(1+(-1)) + (2 + (-2)) + (3 + (-3)) +
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:4, Informative)
"Just for those who don't know, a perfect number is equal to the sum of it's divisiors (excluding itself)."
so one can't be a perfect number, because its only divisor is itself.
Re:Wikipedia is your Phriend (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Definition of Perfect Number (Score:3, Interesting)
Matt Fahrenbacher
Can't seem to find any :( (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't seem to find any :( (Score:5, Funny)
Prove it.
Wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. I agree.
3. This is false. ANSI C++ standard, section 3.6.1, paragraph 5:
"If control reaches the end of main without encountering a return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;"
Justin Dubs
Re:Definition of Perfect Number (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd be looking for a "slightly excessive" number, of which none have been found, but the existance (or lack thereof) has not been proven.
Perfect = divisors add up to the number
slightly defective = divisors add up to one less than the number
slightly excessive = divisors add up to one more than the number (IOW divisors - 1 add up to the number, as you put it)
So, 6 is perfect (1+2+3=6), 8 is slightly defective (1+2+4=7)
See also, "friendly numbers", e.g. 220 and 284 - the divisors of 220 add up to 284, and the divisors of 284 add up to 220.
Re:Definition of Perfect Number (Score:4, Interesting)
8675309 (Score:5, Funny)
858-986-9056 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:858-986-9056 (Score:5, Funny)
This is true. Nothing worse than a gang of mathematicians calling you in the middle of the night, only to giggle and hang up when you answer... ;)
Re:8675309 (Score:5, Funny)
That leaves me only one option. Let's see, 1111111. Hello? Perfect number? Damn. 1111112. Hello? Perfect number? Damn. And so forth.
missing option (Score:5, Funny)
(you can mod me down now: -1, Narcisist)
perfect number? (Score:5, Funny)
silly geeks..
Re:perfect number? (Score:5, Funny)
Ha ha, only if she's 5'3".
Re:perfect number? (Score:3, Informative)
missing option (Score:5, Funny)
Geez, and we call ourselves geeks...
Re:missing option (Score:5, Funny)
The sad thing is, I can't decide whether to test that number out or just to assume you made it up. It's probably a good thing for my sake that I'm at an internet only workstation right now, and not at home.
Re:missing option (Score:4, Interesting)
So no, he didn't make it up.
Okay... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, what is it good for?
(like, say, primes are useful in cryptography, powers of 2 are a basic need of a programmer, pi is about all the round stuff, and so on. So what about the perfect ones?)
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Funny)
Polls on nerdy websites?
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is it good for?
The following is a complete list of inventions which would still exist if mathematicians were required to have specific applications in mind when they start thinking about something:
- The Wheel
That's a joke of course, but seriously, physical principles have to be well established and understood before engineers can make interesting things out of them. And mathematical techniques have to be well established and understood before physicists can use them to understand the world better. Mathematicians generally study things just because they're interesting, but a lot of very useful things come out of that kind of pure research that never would have come about any other way. If prime number theory hadn't already existed, nobody ever would have thought to use primes in cryptography once computers came around--if primes weren't interesting, nobody ever would have noticed that factorization is hard. The basic terminology of statistics--probability, odds, likelyhood, and such--that is a fundamental part of everyday life now did not exist until very, very recently when a few mathematicians took the extremely nonobvious step of applying rules of logic and certainty to study the nature of uncertainty. Just because something doesn't have an obvious application now doesn't mean it never will, or that it's not worth investigating. Let's say that there actually are odd perfect numbers--given their connection to Mersenne primes, perhaps their nature would give some sudden insight into factorization or the discrete log problem, or P =? NP. Or (deliberately crazy speculation follows) what if there exists exactly one, and in hex it spells out the entire text of the Old Testament? Study it because you think it's worth study on its own merits, not just because you think it'll come in handy sometime, because it's impossible to predict what'll come in handy when.It ain't perfect but it's the most fun....... (Score:3, Funny)
Possible responses: (Score:3, Funny)
2) Oh wait, you said "69!" not "69"...
3) Grow up...
4) "the most fun"? I think that depends entirely on who you're with and how good they are.
5) Cowboyneal
Heard that? (Score:5, Funny)
1024x768@24bpp
Re:Heard that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heard that? (Score:5, Funny)
Karma (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Karma (Score:5, Funny)
6 is Perfect , plus it's an odd number of fingers to have on every hand.
Re:Karma (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Karma (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Karma (Score:3, Informative)
It appears I spoke too hastily.
Although no odd perfect number is known (and all numbers up to 10^300 have been tested), it has never been disproven that such a number exists.
My apologies.
here you go (Score:3, Interesting)
3+3+3
Re:Karma (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Euclid's formula... (Score:3, Insightful)
137438691328? (Score:5, Funny)
Wednesday's perfect numbers were (Score:5, Funny)
Mersenne Primes (Score:4, Informative)
p = 2^(n-1)*(2^n-1)
Mn = 2^n-1 where n is prime.
For example, 6=1+2+3, which is 2^(2-1)*(2^2-1)=6
In factored form, that is 2*3, both of which yeild valid Mersenne numbers.
There is a nifty search for the world's largest Mersenne prime number, using the Prime95 program (which is open source).
You can view it here: http://www.mersenne.org/freesoft.htm
For more information on Mersenne primes, visit:
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/mersen
tpircs lreP (Score:5, Interesting)
google (Score:5, Funny)
777 is another good number because it's fun to say.
(try it!)
now say
777 svelty serving swine swerved several spheres around Sven.
If you said this aloud near anyone, they all think you're strange.
Romans like 69 -9 (Score:5, Interesting)
Why 60? because it is so easily divided.
(2,3,4,5,6) * (30, 20, 15, 12, 10)=60.
After establishing 3600 seconds per hour, it would be nice to establish another easuly divisible count of hours in a day. 24 seemed reasonable, and it resulted in a reasonable length of time down to the second. 24 = (2,3,4) x(12, 8, 6) So 24 hours were made to be a day. So 86400 seconds were in a day, meaning that the day/86400 was how long a second was.
Then we use it in GPS on the longitudenal coords. Each minute and second is the distance the sun will travel over that in a minute or second of time.
Since then we've atempted to find a more absolute time base, but it is rather useless. Measuring it atomic periods is crazy when it is solemy meant to be an easy way yo divide the day up.
Re:Romans like 69 -9 (Score:3, Interesting)
What about... (Score:3, Funny)
In hexadecimal please? (Score:5, Funny)
overcomplicated (Score:5, Interesting)
28: 11100
496: 111110000
8128: 1111111000000
33550336: 1111111111111000000000000
these perfect numbers look simple to generate/test
Re:overcomplicated (Score:4, Informative)
It is no coincidence, and it was proven long ago, that all even perfect numbers look like this. What you didn't notice is, that the if you remove all the zero digits and leave just the ones, what is left must be a prime. Those primes have a special name, you will find it if you look on some of the links people have posted. Probably no odd perfect numbers exists, but that haven't been proved.
I never realized... (Score:5, Funny)
858-986-9056
I am the only person with a perfect phone number. Now I just need to find the perfect house, job, girlfriend...
Mr. Spleen
Re:I never realized... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I never realized... (Score:4, Funny)
must... overcome...curiosity...
Re:I never realized... (Score:5, Funny)
858-986-9056
I am the only person with a perfect phone number. Now I just need to find the perfect house, job, girlfriend...
Well, with a phone number like that, which girl would say "no"???
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Next survey... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes.
No.
That'll separate the true geeks from the rest.
HUGE Missing Option... (Score:3, Funny)
1,791,864 digits of perfection.
...continued (Score:3, Informative)
Ob: missing option (Score:3, Funny)
slashdot id (Score:5, Funny)
You rmissed "42" (Score:5, Funny)
my favorite perfect numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
which I co-discovered / discovered. :-)
Re:Where is... (Score:5, Funny)
Perfect, not Prefect (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, that was really bad, wasn't it?
Re:Where is... (Score:5, Funny)
But then, given that life, the universe and everything is not perfect, one cannot expect the answer to the final question about it to be perfect either.
Re:Read the books. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Read the books. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's 666? (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore the true divisors of 666 are:
1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 37, 74, 111, 222, 333
The sum of those numbers is 816, which is not 666, therefore it's clear that 666 is not a perfect number.
Re:Where's 666? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Where's 666? (Score:5, Funny)
Doing so would be quite an evil thing to do.....
Wait a sec, fudging numbers always adds up to 666, it's a fact. I think we're onto something here!!
Re:Where's 666? (Score:3, Funny)
Whoah, I almost jumped out of my chair as I misread that as 1*3*3*7.
isn't 42 to answer to the meaning of life (Score:4, Funny)
Re:isn't 42 to answer to the meaning of life (Score:4, Funny)
Re:isn't 42 to answer to the meaning of life (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where's 666? (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that 666 in base n = 6(n^2+n+1), which is always even. Thus we're looking for an even perfect number to match against, which means we can use all the characterisations of even perfect numbers -- for example, that they are of the form 2^{p-1}(2^p-1) for 2^p-1 a Mersenne prime.
So we want to find an n and p for which
6(n^2+n+1) = 2^{p-1}(2^p-1)
and a necessary condition for this is to find a p for which
6 | 2^{p-1}(2^p-1)
Now, 6 is 2 times 3. The 2 will be absorbed by the 2^{p-1}, which leaves us with the 3 to account for. Look at the factorisation on the right. 3 does not divide 2^{p-1}, and it cannot divide 2^p-1 (which is a prime) unless 2^p-1=3, or p=2. This corresponds to the perfect number 6, and to n=0 -- but we needed n>=7.
In conclusion, then, there is no base for which 666 is a perfect number.
Re:Where's 666? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's 666? (Score:5, Funny)
Then he isn't doing his job here at Slashdot. We have more blind and lame than you can shake a stick at. Especially lame.
You'd need to reform the maths. (Score:5, Funny)
But in our reality, pi=3.14andsomething, and 7 is divisible only by 1 which by no means adds up to 7. Call me heretic, but sorry, it won't work.
Re:You'd need to reform the maths. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not. [slashdot.org]
Re:The jewish view on 666 (Score:3, Funny)
Re: SIX SIX SIX ( http://www.ohr.org.il/ask/ask277.htm#Q1 [ohr.org.il]): You recently wrote about the "messianic" significance of the number 666.
I had a thought a while ago; let me share it with you: The gematria-value of six (each Hebrew letter has a numeric value) is the letter "vav." "Vav" is transliterated as "w" (think of the word "Washington," for example, spelled in Hebrew). So "666," or "vav vav vav," could be transliterated as "www" -- the WorldWide Web
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you?
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:String theory says... (Score:3, Funny)