4 ms·

What a crap article. > Typically, you might associate to it all multiples of 618 whose smallest prime factor is 103. There are no multiples like that. All mul

by tomp 4y ago

What a crap article. > Typically, you might associate to it all multiples of 618 whose smallest prime factor is 103. There are no multiples like that. All multiples of 618 (= 2 * 3 * 103) have 2as the smallest prime factor. Did anyone figure out what they actually wanted to say?!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kens 4y ago
The tan box in the article explains this set. The multiples are n×618 where the smallest prime factor of n (not of n×618) is ≥103 (if any). I.e. 618, 103×618, 107×618, 109×618, etc.
- tomp 4y ago
  No, the tan box is similarly non-sensical and the example is 3 primes so it doesn’t explain it either. Your explanation is clear though, thanks!
williamscales 4y ago
> Did anyone figure out what they actually wanted to say?! Did you read the paper?
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  No, I tried to read the article.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  You would generally hope that the popular coverage of the paper would (1) avoid making statements that are obviously nonsense, such as "And associated to the number 55 (5 × 11) would be all multiples of 55 whose smallest prime factor is 11"; and (2) not require reading the paper itself in order to interpret the popular coverage. If you're going to read the paper, why would you read someone else's paper-inspired gibberish? What value does that add?
jwilk 4y ago
They make the same mistake earlier on: > And associated to the number 55 (5 × 11) would be all multiples of 55 whose smallest prime factor is 11 (therefore excluding all multiples of 2, 3, 5 and 7).
coliveira 4y ago
Of course there is at least one such multiple: 103 * 618.
- Twisol 4y ago
  > Of course there is at least one such multiple: 103 * 618. 103 * 618 is divisible by 2, which is a prime strictly smaller than 103. Every multiple of 618 is divisible by 618, and so is also divisible by anything that divides 618. A cousin comment clarifies that, for x * 618, we're interested in the divisors of x, not x * 618. The article, however, is at best ambiguous in its language; you'd have to interpret the term "multiple" as meaning the multiplier applied to the base number, not the result of said multiplication. The latter is what is usually understood.

by tomp 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kens 4y ago

The tan box in the article explains this set. The multiples are n×618 where the smallest prime factor of n (not of n×618) is ≥103 (if any). I.e. 618, 103×618, 107×618, 109×618, etc.

tomp 4y ago
No, the tan box is similarly non-sensical and the example is 3 primes so it doesn’t explain it either. Your explanation is clear though, thanks!

williamscales 4y ago

> Did anyone figure out what they actually wanted to say?! Did you read the paper?

Ensorceled 4y ago
No, I tried to read the article.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
You would generally hope that the popular coverage of the paper would (1) avoid making statements that are obviously nonsense, such as "And associated to the number 55 (5 × 11) would be all multiples of 55 whose smallest prime factor is 11"; and (2) not require reading the paper itself in order to interpret the popular coverage. If you're going to read the paper, why would you read someone else's paper-inspired gibberish? What value does that add?

jwilk 4y ago

They make the same mistake earlier on: > And associated to the number 55 (5 × 11) would be all multiples of 55 whose smallest prime factor is 11 (therefore excluding all multiples of 2, 3, 5 and 7).

coliveira 4y ago

Of course there is at least one such multiple: 103 * 618.

Twisol 4y ago
> Of course there is at least one such multiple: 103 * 618. 103 * 618 is divisible by 2, which is a prime strictly smaller than 103. Every multiple of 618 is divisible by 618, and so is also divisible by anything that divides 618. A cousin comment clarifies that, for x * 618, we're interested in the divisors of x, not x * 618. The article, however, is at best ambiguous in its language; you'd have to interpret the term "multiple" as meaning the multiplier applied to the base number, not the result of said multiplication. The latter is what is usually understood.