No smaller number than 60 has more distinct prime factors ?

Question

I am reading a book on Riemann's Hypothesis by Karl Sabbagh. In the Prologue he references to an interview with a mathematician Michael Berry. Karl had asked him what it felt like to be sixty to which Michael's reply was:

"Sixty, sandwiched between two primes, has the property that no smaller number has more distinct prime factors"

I see that sixty's distinct prime factors as 2, 3 & 5. But so does 30, right ? How is it correct to say "no smaller number has more distinct prime factors" ? Or did I get it wrong ?

Answer 1

Michael said that "no smaller number has MORE distinct prime factors."

He did not say "no smaller number has AT LEAST AS MUCH distinct prime factors."

60 has three distinct prime factors, so what Michael Berry is saying is that no smaller number has more than three distinct prime factors. 30 has three, so that is valid.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
No smaller number than 60 has more distinct prime factors ?
I am reading a book on Riemann's Hypothesis by Karl Sabbagh. In the Prologue he references to an interview with a mathematician Michael Berry. Karl had asked him what it felt like to be sixty to which Michael's reply was:

"Sixty, sandwiched between two primes, has the property that...

Answer 3

this number : P60Q
where P and Q are prime has the desired property. that is alot of prime factors and the number P60Q as small as possible.

i dont get it either , should the number be as small as possible and then the prime factors be maximized, or the other way around ?

Answer 4

--->> Tips---> https://trimurl.im/g98/no-smaller-number-than-60-has-more-distinct-prime-factors

Answer 5

I think that they are using more to mean strictly greater than, rather than greater than or equal.