Re: [math-fun] New Year's oddity
Dave Dyer <ddyer@real-me.net> wrote:
The line between math and numerology is pretty thin.
Wikipedia says, "Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts." I can't find any numerology in my post. The distribution of substrings is pretty much pure math, even if it is contaminated by base-ten cooties. For instance, is there likely to be a *highest* power of two that does *not* contain 2019? How about a highest factorial that doesn't contain it? I find these to be interesting questions. Neil Sloane <njasloane@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith, we do have the sequence 10, 0, 1, 5, 2, 8, 4, 15, 3, 12, 10, 40, 7, ..., which of course you will immediately recognize. It also has an easily remembered A-number, A030000
Thanks. I notice that its value for the 9634th term is wrong. I also calculated a second 10,000 terms. I'll upload them when I get a tuit with fewer corners.
I can't find any numerology in my post.
I'm sure that's not your intent, but just as astronomical observations and the ability to track the position of astronomical bodies was joined with a system of divination to make astrology, the ability to perform arcane searches for mathematical curiosities opens the door for lunatics or charlatans to make non-mathematical use. It's easy to stray from abstract math into that territory - witness the recent discussion about messages from god in the expansion of PI, and for that matter, what's the mathematical significance of "2018"?
DD: "... the ability to perform arcane searches for mathematical curiosities opens the door for lunatics or charlatans to make non-mathematical use." Martin Gardner was probably as vehemently antagonistic towards lunatics and charlatans as anyone. His Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science preceded his mathematical columns in Scientific American by four years. And he continued to debunk pseudo-science to the end of his life. Nevertheless, over the years, he promoted some twenty articles of numerological trivia under the guise of Dr. Matrix. Was that wrong?
This is math *fun* after all. I find the search for dates in big numbers as interesting and useless as much of the ``real math'' discussed here. -tom On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 5:40 PM Hans Havermann <gladhobo@bell.net> wrote:
DD: "... the ability to perform arcane searches for mathematical curiosities opens the door for lunatics or charlatans to make non-mathematical use."
Martin Gardner was probably as vehemently antagonistic towards lunatics and charlatans as anyone. His Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science preceded his mathematical columns in Scientific American by four years. And he continued to debunk pseudo-science to the end of his life. Nevertheless, over the years, he promoted some twenty articles of numerological trivia under the guise of Dr. Matrix. Was that wrong? _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --
participants (4)
-
Dave Dyer -
Hans Havermann -
Keith F. Lynch -
Tomas Rokicki