Talk:Ruth–Aaron pair
(Redirected from Talk:Ruth-Aaron pair)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by PrimeHunter in topic Merge/Redirect?
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge/Redirect?
editI propose this article be merge/redirected into 700 (number). This seems to be a generic term for any property shared by 714 and 715 as a pair of numbers, not any specific term; it is not in common use anywhere other than student mathematics papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power~enwiki (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ruth-Aaron pairs are well-defined in reliable sources and have been studied by Carl Pomerance and Paul Erdős.[1]. Some sources call n a Ruth-Aaron number instead of (n, n+1) a Ruth–Aaron pair. The original paper by Pomerance et al. is [2]. Ruth–Aaron pairs pass all four points at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of sequences of numbers: MathWorld, PlanetMath, OEIS. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's no specific definition of the term given in this article; there are multiple contradictory definitions given (3 different OEIS sequences) based on how prime-power factors are handled. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Whether to count factors with or without multiplicity is a minor variation and doesn't make it "a generic term for any property shared by 714 and 715". We don't remove an article just because the subject has variations. It varies whether 1 is considered a prime number, 0 a natural number, 0 a Fibonacci number, a negative number a divisor, and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's no specific definition of the term given in this article; there are multiple contradictory definitions given (3 different OEIS sequences) based on how prime-power factors are handled. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)