Perfect number

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Stop hand Warning! This article is Not for <insert name here>]!
“In mathematics, there is no such number as imperfect number. All numbers were created by God”

However, some sarcastic dudes have given a family of numbers such name. They define a perfect number to be exactly equal to the sum of all such numbers which can divide that number such that no part of that number is left unattended for exactly instantaneously in N-field Boolean trignonumerological classification of positive complex roots of every possible linear equation with non-zero real factors as the coefficients of the corresponding variables involved such that exponentiala involved are not purely imaginary and the N-field Boolean trignonumerological classification is a subgroup. (NOT sarcasm.)

edit Origins

Nothing is known as per date about the origin of perfect numbers in the fields of theocratical algebra. However, the research of some mathematicians have revealed that the perfect numbers were known by the prehistoric man. A team of researchers have found a tablet configuring the exact definition given above but in Chinese. Japanese are still not allowed to see that tablet. More information can possibly be there but till now, nobody's perfect.

edit Known perfect numbers

Bouncywikilogo10
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia think they have an article very remotely related to Perfect number.

There are fewer known perfect numbers than the electrons in a lithium atom. This might sound sarcastic, but not this. One number for sure is pi. Other are wanted. You can send your CV's to MIT latest by your death. You must be at least born to apply; no kidding!

edit An Actual formula!

Euclid discovered that the first four perfect numbers are generated by the formula 2n−1(2n − 1) . But this is not a very good formula as it clearly neglects the third assumption about the roots of pseudo-imaginary coefficients as per definition. For God's sake, dude!!!!! Also, as asserted by the famous mathematician trespassingchickendude nihowsopong of Japan, n is not a number here; its a logical operator.

Formula given by the greeks is very simple than the one above. Failed to parse (unknown function\begin): A=\frac{\left \langle \psi ^{e * \pi\ _2} \right \rangle}{\boldsymbol{\alpha} + \boldsymbol{\beta} + \boldsymbol{\gamma}}*\frac{\prod_{\bigodot=-i}^{\quad \nearrow \sin {\left / \frac{n}{c} \right \backslash}}\frac{\frac{\iiint_{U}^{I} \, dn,dc + \sum_{k=0}^N\sqrt{\frac{\lim_{h \to k}e^N}{\dot{y}}}}{{h \choose 69}^{\begin {vmatrix} \alpha\ && x^r \\ \beta\ && \gamma\ \end {vmatrix}}}*f(n)(\bigcap_{b}^{c} \pi\ ^e)-{\coprod_{\aleph _10}^{\pi\ ^\alpha\} xy_k}}*(\begin{matrix} \underbrace{ a+b+\cdots+-a } \\ e^i \end{matrix})}{\widehat{f u {}_te^be\!X_tr^bo}*(4\heartsuit \; J\heartsuit \; Q\spadesuit \; 6\diamondsuit \; 2\clubsuit \;)-(\Bigg\uparrow \mathbb{N} \Bigg\Downarrow)}}{(\begin{bmatrix} z & \cdots & a \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 4 & \cdots & 0\end{bmatrix})_({\iiint_{F}^{U} \, dn\,du\,db}*e^(\sum_{k=monster_e}^69 k^t))}


edit See also

Personal tools
projects