Skip to comments.
Prime Numbers Get Hitched
Seed Magazine ^
| Feb/Mar 2006
| Marcus du Sautoy
Posted on 04/11/2006 3:08:56 PM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-174 next last
To: LibWhacker
What, an article on Riemann and no mention of John Derbyshire's Prime Obsession?
101
posted on
04/11/2006 5:18:14 PM PDT
by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
To: longshadow
" ....... in base 13!"
All your base belong to us!
102
posted on
04/11/2006 5:21:56 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Vicomte13
When did the number 5 not become a prime?
103
posted on
04/11/2006 5:26:09 PM PDT
by
Hostage
To: freedumb2003
Just like dihydrogenmonoxide will keep the chemist up all night.
To: LibWhacker
To: LibWhacker
Thank you very much for posting this. Fascinating stuff. The tie in to Hitchhikers is great. Mr. Adams is smiling from wherever he is.
106
posted on
04/11/2006 6:40:22 PM PDT
by
zeugma
(Anybody who says XP is more secure than OS X or Linux has been licking toads.)
To: LibWhacker
107
posted on
04/11/2006 6:49:07 PM PDT
by
null and void
(We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit. - Aristotle)
To: LibWhacker
To: longshadow
it is perhaps worth pointing out that it was an astronomer who pointed out to me that "42" = 6 x 9.......... ....... in base 13!
If you play your bases right, Christmas is exactly equal to Halloween...
109
posted on
04/11/2006 6:55:03 PM PDT
by
null and void
(We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit. - Aristotle)
To: null and void
I love threads like this one. It keeps me humble, since about the only thing I understand is prime numbers, and even that subject is merely a familiarity of the term from math classes of many years ago.
Oh, and 42 jumped out at me, too, because of the Hitchhiker's Guide.
110
posted on
04/11/2006 7:10:01 PM PDT
by
Miss Marple
(Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)
To: Vicomte13
5 may be the third prime, technically, but it can be disregarded for our purposes because then the product of the first three primes won't be 42.LOL!
Would that be the environmental whacko addendum to the theory?
111
posted on
04/11/2006 7:21:40 PM PDT
by
zeugma
(Anybody who says XP is more secure than OS X or Linux has been licking toads.)
To: freedumb2003
But you have no way of KNOWING, since no observation takes place.Ya, I believe the folks exploring quantum mechanics might well say that without observation, the forest disappears.
112
posted on
04/11/2006 7:24:50 PM PDT
by
zeugma
(Anybody who says XP is more secure than OS X or Linux has been licking toads.)
To: zeugma
Nope. The forest is in an indeterminant state...
113
posted on
04/11/2006 7:28:12 PM PDT
by
null and void
(We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit. - Aristotle)
To: zeugma
Ya, I believe the folks exploring quantum mechanics might well say that without observation, the forest disappears. The amazing part is it leaves an exact copy in its place ;)
Truth in Adverstising (I have clearly been joshing): I believe in the Thermos Law...
114
posted on
04/11/2006 7:39:04 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
To: LibWhacker; All
Regarding the 42 calculation:
Prime #1 = 1
Prime #2 = 2
Prime #3 = 3
Prime #4 = 5
Prime #5 = 7
Obviously, we only multiply the prime numbers that are prime in sequence.
First = 1 (1)
Second = 2 (1*2)
Third = 6 (1*2*3)
Fourth = 42 (1*2*3*7, skipping 5 because it is the 4th prime, and 4 is not a prime number)
There!
Of course, 546 in next in this sequence, since we skip 11, which is the 6th prime, and 6 is not a prime, thus 1*2*3*7*13.
So, anybody know what 546 means?
To: null and void
And all your base are belong to us?
116
posted on
04/11/2006 7:44:01 PM PDT
by
phantomworker
('Live your life with arms wide open Today is where your book begins The rest is still unwritten')
To: phantomworker
117
posted on
04/11/2006 7:45:55 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
LOL! Sorry. I should have known you already touched that base. ;)
(I wish I had an appropriate blushing emoticon here.)
118
posted on
04/11/2006 7:51:42 PM PDT
by
phantomworker
('Live your life with arms wide open Today is where your book begins The rest is still unwritten')
To: AmishDude
"Look at this picture" doesn't suffice in mathematics. Nonsense. Some of the most beautiful elegant proofs in all of math (and science) are wordless drawings.
To: Poincare
First, there are no proofs in science. Second, if you can find a published paper that has a proof that consists of nothing but a "wordless drawing", I'd love to see it.
There are some "proofs" of the pythagorean theorem which are little more than pictures, but you have to know what you are looking at.
What this article describes is nothing of the sort.
There is no such thing as proof by picture.
120
posted on
04/11/2006 7:56:41 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(AmishDude, servant of the dark lord Xenu.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-174 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson