Talk:Even Integer with Abundancy Index greater than 9

For reference, the table in the paper reads:

$\begin{array} {|r|r|}

\hline \text{Abundancy index } > & \text{Distinct factors } \ge \\ \hline 2 & 2 \\ 3 & 3 \\ 4 & 4 \\ 5 & 6 \\ 6 & 9 \\ 7 & 14 \\ 8 & 22 \\ 9 & 35 \\ 10 & 55 \\ 11 & 89 \\

& : \\

\hline \end {array}$

for even numbers. It appears that the entries 9 and 10 may have been mixed up. RandomUndergrad (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Not sure exactly what you mean "mixed up". What is mixed up about them? They look plausible to me. --prime mover (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

No it's okay I understand what you mean. We need to a) craft a new page with the general result on it and b) raise yet another erratum on the Wells work. --prime mover (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

I spent over a year working my way carefully through Wells (both editions) combing it for errors, after I found one or two significant mistakes in it, and now I find we're up to $155$ mistakes (some worse than others). --prime mover (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Lovely job. --prime mover (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2020 (EDT)