Rasta, where did you find the claim that Super Poulet numbers always have μ(n) = 1? AxelBoldt 02:39 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Nowhere. Yes, this should be proven further on. I am much alike Fermat. If Fermat would be alive he would probably be a Wikipedian and he would write such nonsenses as I do :) And BTW, where did you find I am a Rasta? I guess you'll throw away those claimings not to find counter-examples or to show it othervise... Best regard. --XJam 08:45 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
I'll throw this temporarily out:
- The Möbius function μ(n) of super-Poulet numbers is always 1, since these numbers always have two distinct prime factors.
--XJam 15:06 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
Yes, please don't add claims to the math pages unless you read somewhere that they have been proven. AxelBoldt
- Nothing helps me if I read something out there. I have to be shure about that, right. We can make a list of such problems and probably someone would react with answers and solutions. What do you think? --XJamRastafire 17:26 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
- If you have a question or conjecture about something, you can always mention it on the Talk page, and presumably someone interested in the topic will find it eventually, and answer it. But conjectures, unless they have been made by notable mathematicians and not just by you or me, do not belong in the math pages. AxelBoldt 18:02 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)
Super poulet numbers are ordinary
I find the Super poulet numbers ordinary. Why?
A number d, which satisfy is a Primenumber or a Pseudoprime number to base 2, because is a general form of .
So every Poulet number with 2 factors satisfy this. If there is a Poule number with more than two prime factors, every combination of two and more prime numbers must be a pseudoprime to base 2. --Arbol01 08:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A really good super poulet number is 294409, a Carmichael number, because all it's factors 37, 73, 109, 2701, 4033 and 7957 are prime numbers or poulet pumbers. --Arbol01 09:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)