(and yes, it's upside-down)Question: What student, even the math-devoted one, doesn't ask this question? (OK, so it's a weak question. I'll be asking more later...)
Comment: It's interesting to see how much Euclid expanding our understanding of mathematics, especially since he lived such a long time ago (about 2300 years). It's pretty funny how little has changed since Euclid's time. Math has advanced, but people haven't changed. I was also wondering why 1 doesn't fit into the accepted view of prime numbers. If 1 fits the bill, what about 1 doesn't work in prime theory? The book expressed little about why the mathematicians find that one doesn't fit the prime number bill... It listed a brief math equation to demonstrate, but it wasn't candid enough to show why (I feel). I also thought that it was funny that, although amicable numbers are more populous than perfect numbers, they still seem to be very few in number (esp. considering that we had only 1 pair for centuries until Euler and Descartes discovered a few more (Euler making some 30 discoveries [minus some for the wrong ones]). It doesn't seem like there are a whole lot more friendly pairs than perfect numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment