Timeline for The longest repeating decimal that can be created from a simple fraction
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 2023 at 3:06 | history | edited | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 84 characters in body
|
| Feb 8, 2023 at 2:51 | history | edited | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 67 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2023 at 18:21 | history | edited | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 171 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2023 at 17:29 | history | edited | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 171 characters in body
|
| Oct 15, 2022 at 12:55 | comment | added | q-l-p | @IskyMathews The denominator doesn't have to be a prime number. It depends on the constraints. You can run my program and input an upper bound of 312, for example. The program will correctly calculate the denominator (289 in this case, which is a composite) that will generate the longest repetend (272 digits long). | |
| Jan 22, 2022 at 14:34 | comment | added | Redu | @IskyMathews 9991's repetend seems to be 1632. | |
| Dec 5, 2021 at 4:04 | history | edited | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a loop in the c++ program and clarified the language
|
| Nov 16, 2021 at 23:42 | history | edited | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarified the answer
|
| Jan 30, 2020 at 13:23 | comment | added | smichr | Or even a composite. For example, 1/289 has a repetend of length 272 which is longer than any before it and 289 is not prime. The same is true for 1/361 which has a repetend of length 342. It is interesting to note that each has a deficiency in length equal to its prime factor: 289 = $17^2$ and 272+17=289; 361 = $19^2$ and 342+19=361. (For 1/$17^3$, the repetend length is $17^3 - 17^2$.) | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 19:59 | comment | added | Isky Mathews | It's not actually clear to me that it had to be a full repetend prime. There could have been a prime that was much larger than the largest full repetend prime whose repetend was longer, e.g. 9967 is the largest full repetend prime, giving a period of 9966, but there could have been a prime 9991 (which, for arguement's sake is prime) whose repetend was 9970. This would have not been full but still larger than 9967. | |
| Oct 28, 2018 at 1:35 | review | Late answers | |||
| Oct 28, 2018 at 1:35 | |||||
| May 28, 2018 at 0:44 | review | First posts | |||
| May 28, 2018 at 0:44 | |||||
| May 28, 2018 at 0:41 | history | answered | q-l-p | CC BY-SA 4.0 |