RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 04:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2016, 03:16 PM by a52.)
no.
first of all, that's only got a single 2 in there. it's just barely even.
second, what's so special about the first four perfect numbers? why not the first five? or first 100? it's completely arbitrary.
third, 666 is of no mathematical importance, and 13 is of very little. both are horribly ugly, 666 having far too many threes (and sixes, which I personally consider worse), 13 having no factors at all.
first of all, that's only got a single 2 in there. it's just barely even.
second, what's so special about the first four perfect numbers? why not the first five? or first 100? it's completely arbitrary.
third, 666 is of no mathematical importance, and 13 is of very little. both are horribly ugly, 666 having far too many threes (and sixes, which I personally consider worse), 13 having no factors at all.
![[Image: egg006.png?raw=1]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/xirjasxjrie6qdn/egg006.png?raw=1)
![[Image: Gou1RJu.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Gou1RJu.png)