Timeline for On a GCD approach to odd perfect numbers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10 at 9:15 | history | bounty ended | Jose Arnaldo Bebita | ||
| Jan 10 at 9:14 | vote | accept | Jose Arnaldo Bebita | ||
| Jan 10 at 9:14 | vote | accept | Jose Arnaldo Bebita | ||
| Jan 10 at 9:14 | |||||
| Jan 4 at 2:13 | comment | added | Jose Arnaldo Bebita | Thank you for your answer, @PaceNielsen! | |
| Jan 3 at 22:49 | history | edited | Pace Nielsen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 199 characters in body
|
| Jan 3 at 22:44 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @JoshuaZ I agree with your quibble, and will edit accordingly. | |
| Jan 3 at 19:36 | comment | added | JoshuaZ | I agree with most of this but have a quibble: It does not take that deep arguments to show some things which an OPN must obey that spoofs do not. e.g. Acquaah and Konyagin's bound on the largest prime divisor is tighter than the largest "prime" divisor in Descartes spoof. Similarly, Ochem-Rao type results (especially as tightened by your students Hansen and Clayton) also are tighter than most spoofs. In both types, one is using that the "prime factors" genuinely are primes. | |
| Jan 3 at 16:53 | history | answered | Pace Nielsen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |