Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: PatrickHenry
2 posted on
04/11/2006 3:10:58 PM PDT by
AntiGuv
(The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: LibWhacker
"But the important role played by the number 42 has recently persuaded even the deepest skeptics that the subatomic world might hold the key to one of the greatest unsolved problems in mathematics."Paging Douglas Addams
3 posted on
04/11/2006 3:11:53 PM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: LibWhacker
role played by the number 42 has recently persuaded
No Way!!! This is hilarious, the ultimate answer! God Bless Douglas Adams.
4 posted on
04/11/2006 3:15:26 PM PDT by
tang-soo
(Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks - Read Daniel Chapter 9)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Mathematics is not science?
Who told you that?
5 posted on
04/11/2006 3:15:48 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(-)
To: LibWhacker
Humans are remarkable. We have the ability to view nature in a way that is very abstract and very often correct.
More than just random chance (IMHO).
6 posted on
04/11/2006 3:17:19 PM PDT by
dhs12345
To: LibWhacker
And of course, everyone knows the Primes went on to become the Temptations.
7 posted on
04/11/2006 3:17:59 PM PDT by
stylin19a
(I never put my foot in my mouth...I shoot that sucker off long before it gets anywhere near my mouth)
To: LibWhacker
42
9 posted on
04/11/2006 3:18:33 PM PDT by
Psycho_Bunny
(The MSM is a hate group and we are the object of their disdain.)
To: LibWhacker
There exists a simple, algebraic proof to fermat - I just don't have room for it in this post...
10 posted on
04/11/2006 3:19:14 PM PDT by
patton
(Once you steal a firetruck, there's really not much else you can do except go for a joyride.)
To: LibWhacker
I understand that quantum mechanics can also cook a mean omelet.
12 posted on
04/11/2006 3:22:19 PM PDT by
stacytec
(Nihilism, its whats for dinner)
To: LibWhacker
13 posted on
04/11/2006 3:23:06 PM PDT by
tophat9000
(Illegals:”The Road to Serfdom” for the nation via Elites & Elect importing “better” serf’s)
To: LibWhacker
I read it.
I reread it.
And I couldn't help thinking..."this article is about Prime Numbers, and they're talking about the number 42".
Which isn't a prime number.
I suppose it's the product of the first three primes.
Certainly the article could have added a little but more that air of hocus-pocus mystery (without, however, saying anything), by adding that detail, with a suitably raised editorial eyebrow of course.
14 posted on
04/11/2006 3:23:40 PM PDT by
Vicomte13
(Et alors?)
To: LibWhacker
Does this mean we don't need Deep Thought, or does it mean we do?
23 posted on
04/11/2006 3:34:12 PM PDT by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: LibWhacker
4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42... 4 8 15 16 23 42...
25 posted on
04/11/2006 3:35:34 PM PDT by
Fudd
(If at first you don't succeed, remove all evidence of your attempt.)
To: LibWhacker
"What is so deep about this number 19?" Louis Farrakhan
31 posted on
04/11/2006 3:40:59 PM PDT by
Right Wing Assault
("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
To: Mitchell
32 posted on
04/11/2006 3:41:35 PM PDT by
Allan
(*-O)):~{>)
To: LibWhacker
Okay, when did 42 become a prime number?
39 posted on
04/11/2006 3:49:12 PM PDT by
Doohickey
(Democrats are nothing without a constituency of victims.)
To: LibWhacker
It would mean that the primes behave rather like the random molecules of gas in a room: Although you might not know quite where each molecule is, you can be sure that there won't be a vacuum at one corner and a concentration of molecules at the other. The frequency with which some part of a room will suddenly exhibit a substantial vacuum is - disturbingly - real and calculable. I believe it is many times the age of the universe for most examples, but it is something crazy to consider no less.
To: LibWhacker
Why do I have the feeling there must be some kind of Fatwa against this?
45 posted on
04/11/2006 3:54:45 PM PDT by
colorado tanker
(We need more "chicken-bleep Democrats" in the Senate!)
To: LibWhacker
I am somewhat surprised that the fact that it is indeed possible to generate the primes from a set of diophantine equations doesn't get more play:
Another approach might be to ask if there is a non-constant polynomial all of whose positive values (as the variables range in the set of non-negative integers) are all primes. Matijasevic showed this was possible in 1971 [Matijasevic71], and in 1976 Jones, Sato, Wada and Wiens gave the following explicit example of such a polynomial with 26 variables (and degree 25).
(k+2){1 [wz+h+jq]2 [(gk+2g+k+1)(h+j)+hz]2 [2n+p+q+ze]2 [16(k+1)3(k+2)(n+1)2+1f2]2 [e3(e+2)(a+1)2+1o2]2 [(a21)y2+1x2]2 [16r2y4(a21)+1u2]2 [((a+u2(u2a))2 1)(n+4dy)2 + 1 (x+cu)2]2 [n+l+vy]2 [(a21)l2+1m2]2 [ai+k+1li]2 [p+l(an1)+b(2an+2an22n2)m]2 [q+y(ap1)+s(2ap+2ap22p2)x]2 [z+pl(ap)+t(2app21)pm]2}
|
(From the web page http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php/MatijasevicPoly.html . You can find them broken out here at MathWorld.)
To: LibWhacker
Maybe something to do with harmonics?
61 posted on
04/11/2006 4:01:33 PM PDT by
P.O.E.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson