[math-fun] Microsoft announces move to nonary numbers
Today Microsoft incremented "8" to "10". http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2014/09/30/announcing-windows-10/
Presumably to avoid confusion with "Windows 9x" = 95, 98, and ME. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Today Microsoft incremented "8" to "10".
http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2014/09/30/announcing-windows-10/
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
The sequence of Microsoft Windows versions which are integers: 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 10, ... This is precisely the sort of thing that would end up on the OEIS with the `dumb' keyword: http://oeis.org/search?q=dumb&sort=&language=&go=Search http://oeis.org/wiki/Keywords Sincerely, Adam P. Goucher
Adam, Thanks for that sequence! I was reading a collection of parodies of Hemingway last night - there used to be an annual competition for the Best of Bad Hemingway, which made me think that we might have a contest for the best sequence which is clearly unacceptable for the OEIS. I now have 3 candidates: A248027 (sent in very recently): The years the highest grossing films of all time were released 2009, 1997, 2012, 2011, 2013, 2013, 2011, 2003, 2012, 2012 List may change depending on future films released (rejected) "Number of pages in volume n of the Harry Potter books" a few years ago. Don't recall the values (which were pretty meaningless, of course). And yours:
From Adam P. Goucher, Sep 29 2014: The sequence of Microsoft Windows versions which are integers: 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 10, ...
Yours is at least well-defined, so maybe it should go into the OEIS, which would disqualify it Neil On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
The sequence of Microsoft Windows versions which are integers:
1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 10, ...
This is precisely the sort of thing that would end up on the OEIS with the `dumb' keyword:
http://oeis.org/search?q=dumb&sort=&language=&go=Search http://oeis.org/wiki/Keywords
Sincerely,
Adam P. Goucher
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Dear Friends, I have now retired from AT&T. New coordinates: Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA. Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com Email: njasloane@gmail.com
On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Neil Sloane <njasloane@gmail.com> wrote:
a contest for the best sequence which is clearly unacceptable for the OEIS.
I now have 3 candidates:
. . . . . .
And yours: From Adam P. Goucher, Sep 29 2014: The sequence of Microsoft Windows versions which are integers: 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 10, ...
Yours is at least well-defined, so maybe it should go into the OEIS, which would disqualify it
Surely the "most interesting sequence unqualified for the OEIS" should qualify. --Dan
I was once challenged to find the sequence that started, 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 5 5 4 2... Took me two days to recognize, "Oh say can you see by the dawns early light what so..." Brent Meeker On 9/30/2014 2:57 PM, Neil Sloane wrote:
Adam, Thanks for that sequence! I was reading a collection of parodies of Hemingway last night - there used to be an annual competition for the Best of Bad Hemingway, which made me think that we might have a contest for the best sequence which is clearly unacceptable for the OEIS.
I now have 3 candidates:
A248027 (sent in very recently): The years the highest grossing films of all time were released 2009, 1997, 2012, 2011, 2013, 2013, 2011, 2003, 2012, 2012 List may change depending on future films released (rejected)
"Number of pages in volume n of the Harry Potter books" a few years ago. Don't recall the values (which were pretty meaningless, of course).
And yours:
From Adam P. Goucher, Sep 29 2014: The sequence of Microsoft Windows versions which are integers: 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 10, ...
Yours is at least well-defined, so maybe it should go into the OEIS, which would disqualify it
Neil
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
The sequence of Microsoft Windows versions which are integers:
1, 2, 3, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 10, ...
This is precisely the sort of thing that would end up on the OEIS with the `dumb' keyword:
http://oeis.org/search?q=dumb&sort=&language=&go=Search http://oeis.org/wiki/Keywords
Sincerely,
Adam P. Goucher
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (6)
-
Adam P. Goucher -
Dan Asimov -
Henry Baker -
meekerdb -
Mike Stay -
Neil Sloane