Talk:List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers

Why?

Why isn't this a section of perfect number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.17.53 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Because this is a long list, and people looking specifically for a list of the perfect numbers shouldn't have to look through the whole perfect numbers article. Gug01 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that much of a long list(and it is not likely to be increasing often), and surely it is simple for people to reach the list in the article by simply clicking on the table index link or scoling down to where the numbers table is. 195.188.87.3 (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of perfect numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503154707/http://amicable.homepage.dk/perfect.htm to http://amicable.homepage.dk/perfect.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Outside source with the ENTIRE numbers?

Greetings.

I'm curious as to whether there exists an outside source listing each perfect number WITHOUT ABBREVIATION. I've tried googling them, but I've only been able to find reliable sources up to the 15th one.

--Thank you. Pine (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible smaller Mersenne prime??

Look at these words in the article:

Provisional ranking, as not all possible values less than this entry have been checked and verified (and therefore it could change if a smaller Mersenne prime were discovered)

The chances of this happening (any time before the exponents are all verified) are less than a percent; the way Wikipedia promotes it makes it look as if the chances were at least 10 percent. Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I had added it because the original list on Mersenne prime had it as well. I've deleted the note now (a similar comment was already in the prose). eviolite (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mersenne prime

I disagree with moving the table of known Mersenne primes to a new article. I think the table should stay in the Mersenne prime article, because it is easier to read information in one location instead of jumping back and forth. May be the table shold be simplified, but it should stay. Best regards Szelma W (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Szelma W: I am not sure why you have posted this at three different talk pages, including at an uninvolved user's talk. Please discuss at Talk:Mersenne prime. eviolite (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Maths

Cc 27.61.60.113 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent reversion - is anything salvageable?

@Szelma W: Special:Diff/1255250737 undid a fairly sizeable edit, and I'm glad for your review of my writing, but I'm wondering if there's anything in that edit that is worth preserving. I put a lot of work into it, as I think the status quo ante is kind of muddled, talking about perfect numbers a lot but the discussion tapers off more than ending. In addition to confusing the reader, it tempts the editor into "clarifying" it into a copy of the Mersenne prime article, which is quite undesirable.

I thought the first edit was pretty good. Can you say what you disliked?

As for the larger second edit, as I said in the edit comment, I tried to have one-idea paragraphs. Mersenne primes, then even perfect numbers (notice the paragraph break replacing the word "Meanwhile"), then odd perfect numbers (pretty short: none are known), number and density of Mersenne primes, and finally introduction to the table. So each paragraph wrapped something up.

One thing I did incidentally was add a 3-colum-wide "Discovery" heading to the table, over the "Date", "Discoverer" and "Method" column headings. I quite like that change, and I'd like to preserve it unless you object.

Can you give me some more detailed feedback other than "I liked it better before"? I could re-submit it as smaller edits and see which ones you think are worth reverting, but discussion on the talk page seems simpler. Thank you! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)