Talk:Betrothed numbers

A better definition
The list of factors summed to analyze for Amicable Numbers excludes the number itself (on grounds of obviousness?) but then why not also exclude the obvious "1" which must be an "obvious" positive-integer factor of every positive integer? Betrothed Numbers can be defined with reference to sums that exclude BOTH of the "obvious" positive-integer factors of positive integers. In other words, Betrothed Numbers are like Amicable Numbers but without the defect of arbitrarily excluding one of the two obvious factors but including the other. This makes more sense than starting with the same list of factors as is used for Amicable numbers and then, for no particular reason, subtracting "1". Why not subtract "5" or "8"? Why "1"? It's more logical just to exclude the factor "1" in the first place for the same reason that we'd exclude the number itself: obviousness. The definition of Betrothed Numbers should be set up as having one LESS arbitrary wrinkle than Amicable Numbers, not one MORE arbitrary wrinkle.2604:2000:C682:B600:9CEE:84D6:D6E:F0C4 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Amicable numbers have to omit the number itself. Otherwise the sum for the larger number would always be larger than both numbers. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and doesn't make its own definitions. Sources define Betrothed numbers to include the factor 1. If you have ideas for original integer sequences then you could try submitting them to OEIS at https://oeis.org/Submit.html. OEIS is unrelated to Wikipedia and has other policies. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)