Page 16 of 17 [ 257 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Rudin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2015
Age: 18
Posts: 1,046
Location: Southern Ontario

24 Dec 2015, 3:25 pm

220 and 284 are amicable numbers, so there factors add up to each other. 220 and 284 are often associated with relationships and love. The factors of 220 and 284 add up of each other.

Perfect numbers are numbers whose factors add up to itself (so perfect numbers are amicable to themselves).

Narcissistic numbers is a number with n digits and when you take each digit in the number, it will add up to itself.

I think perfect numbers should be called narcissistic numbers since they are amicable to themselves and amicable numbers are associated with love, ergo perfect numbers should be called narcissistic.


_________________
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with prime numbers."

-Paul Erdos

"There are two types of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from looking at your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files."

-Bruce Schneider


SippingSpiderVenom
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2015
Posts: 100
Location: Oneiro

06 Apr 2016, 9:20 pm

I've always been fond of 22/7 as a fractional form of pi, but 355/113, is more accurate. For e a similar accuracy can be found with 2721/1001 and I found this landing on an article giving python code which can be generalized for other irrational numbers. So, I'm pretty fond of 355/113 being the number that led me to this.
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2013/01/3 ... ions-to-e/


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 142 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 52 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)

"If I knew that it was fated for me to be sick, I would even wish for it; for the foot also, if it had intelligence, would volunteer to get muddy." - Chrysippus


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,048
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

18 Apr 2016, 6:26 am

Let us restrict the domain to the positive integers. I say there are no uninteresting positive integers. For suppose there were. Then the set of un-interesting positive integers much have a least element. However being the smallest uninteresting integer is interesting. Q.E.D.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,048
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

18 Apr 2016, 6:27 am

Rudin wrote:
220 and 284 are amicable numbers, so there factors add up to each other. 220 and 284 are often associated with relationships and love. The factors of 220 and 284 add up of each other.

Perfect numbers are numbers whose factors add up to itself (so perfect numbers are amicable to themselves).

Narcissistic numbers is a number with n digits and when you take each digit in the number, it will add up to itself.

I think perfect numbers should be called narcissistic numbers since they are amicable to themselves and amicable numbers are associated with love, ergo perfect numbers should be called narcissistic.


If you can come up with an odd perfect number, that would be darned interesting.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


DataB4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,744
Location: U.S.

08 May 2016, 8:01 pm

How do people find these properties? Do they just start calculating away and stumble across them? Is there a method? Do computer algorithms do all the work? Just curious, so feel free to tell me this isn't the place for my question :-)


_________________
"…it is the struggle itself that is most important. We must strive to be more than we are, Lal. It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal. The effort yields its own rewards."
-Data, android, Star Trek TNG, describing becoming more human

-Avatar created by SaveFerris


SippingSpiderVenom
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2015
Posts: 100
Location: Oneiro

14 May 2016, 1:05 am

Yes.

Math is discovered and the discoveries are defined by previous axioms or definitions. Verification is the only requirement.

The methods of discovery, definition and verification vary greatly by circumstance and era.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 142 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 52 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)

"If I knew that it was fated for me to be sick, I would even wish for it; for the foot also, if it had intelligence, would volunteer to get muddy." - Chrysippus


somebody300
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: France

14 May 2016, 10:45 am

Godel numbers. They can be used to transform almost anything into a single number. Not only that, these things, which are encoded into a Godel number, can be retrieved back to their original form.
The whole process is called Godel's encoding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering



somebody300
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2016
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: France

14 May 2016, 10:55 am

SippingSpiderVenom wrote:
Yes.

Math is discovered and the discoveries are defined by previous axioms or definitions. Verification is the only requirement.

The methods of discovery, definition and verification vary greatly by circumstance and era.


What if new axioms and definitions are created? And what if new systems of logic are adopted? There are many non-standard logics which spawn their own fields of mathematics and have a different math proof process. These logics have been created.
If you, for example, remove the law of excluded middle from the standard logic, you will get a rather different field of math, called constructive math.
If you remove the distributive law, you will get a field of logic called quantum logic, which is used in quantum mechanics.



HCHCHC
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 330
Location: f

15 May 2016, 8:34 am

3435 is a very unique number :)



TheAP
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,314
Location: Canada

15 May 2016, 4:52 pm

1089.

Take a three-digit number that is not a palindrome, reverse the digits, and subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Then reverse the digits of the result and add those. You will always get 1089.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,870
Location: temperate zone

15 May 2016, 8:16 pm

TheAP wrote:
1089.

Take a three-digit number that is not a palindrome, reverse the digits, and subtract the smaller number from the bigger one. Then reverse the digits of the result and add those. You will always get 1089.


Thats pretty funky. I tried it just now on paper with a couple numbers, and -holy stuff- I got 1089 both times.

Does it work in say base 8, or does it only work base 10?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,870
Location: temperate zone

15 May 2016, 8:20 pm

DataB4 wrote:
How do people find these properties? Do they just start calculating away and stumble across them? Is there a method? Do computer algorithms do all the work? Just curious, so feel free to tell me this isn't the place for my question :-)


They started fooling around with math, and geometry, long before computers- in ancient Greece, and before that in Babylon.



DataB4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,744
Location: U.S.

15 May 2016, 9:16 pm

LOL that is certainly true, so I wanted to see an example of how this might work. Here's a simple description of pattern discovery from Math Dude:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/educat ... ns-numbers
Pretty cool to see, for someone who is uninitiated.



HCHCHC
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 330
Location: f

16 May 2016, 10:57 am

Come on though, 3435 for the win.



SippingSpiderVenom
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2015
Posts: 100
Location: Oneiro

18 May 2016, 9:00 pm

Well it may be, but it's hardly any fun if you don't explain why. I could just randomly google various numbers. Well that does sound a little fun but it's certainly not in the spirit of the thread.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 142 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 52 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)

"If I knew that it was fated for me to be sick, I would even wish for it; for the foot also, if it had intelligence, would volunteer to get muddy." - Chrysippus


HCHCHC
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 330
Location: f

19 May 2016, 10:32 am

Take each number and raise it to the power of itself and add them together and you get 3435. No other number really has this property (1 doesn't count).
No need to attack me.