Editing 622: Haiku Proof
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:Q. - E.- D., - bit - ches! | :Q. - E.- D., - bit - ches! | ||
β | The haiku proof given is slightly off, as the first line talks about the "top prime's divisors," which makes no sense because the top prime doesn't have any divisors besides itself and one. You need to take the product of ''all'' primes, not just one. But, hey, it's a hallucination. | + | The haiku proof given is slightly off, as the first line talks about the "top prime's divisors," which makes no sense because the top prime doesn't have any divisors besides itself and one. You need to take the product of ''all'' primes, not just one. But, hey, it's a hallucination. |
Haiku was also referred to before in [[554: Not Enough Work]]. | Haiku was also referred to before in [[554: Not Enough Work]]. |