Talk:Fortunate number
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I think these are "Fortunate numbers" (with a capital F) because they're named after Reo Fortune. Am I right or wrong about this? CompositeFan 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- David Bryant has directed my attention to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_24#Capitalization_question. CompositeFan 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
if 2 is not fortunate, why is this a problem? Jhalkompwdr (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- What are you referring to? Has anybody said there is a problem? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Current definition somewhat difficult
editThe opening definition seems roundabout. Reading it, I found it easier to use Google to find other sites on the topic to nail down what this article's current definition was supposed to mean. After which I thought about how to express the idea more directly, and came up with:
Fortunate(n) = Prime(x) - Primorial(n)
where:
Prime(x) > Primorial(n) > Prime(x-1)
Opinions welcome as to which definition is clearer. I suppose spelling out the function names might not be the current policy, if that offends, just replace it with whatever shorthand series or functional notation is current:
Fn = Px - Pn#
where:
Px > Pn# > P(x-1)
One flaw I can see is that it might lead readers to suppose we're out to find 'x' as well, when we don't so much care what 'x' is, just so it's prime. Try again:
Fortunate(n) = NextPrime(Primorial(n)) - Primorial(n)
Seems clear enough.
--AC (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2010
(UTC)
Connection to Reo Fortune
editI see no evidence that "fortunate numbers" have any connection to Reo Fortune. Is there a citation? If not I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1A10:7804:5E73:7390:591B:CF04 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's a short article and already mentions the connection clearly with an inline source:
- "Fortune conjectured that no Fortunate number is composite (Fortune's conjecture).[1]"
- In fact, it's mentioned in every single source in the article (two of them call him R. F. Fortune). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Guy, Richard K. (1994). Unsolved problems in number theory (2nd ed.). Springer. pp. 7–8. ISBN 0-387-94289-0.