 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Moon47 wrote:
>
> > And the question
> >
> In "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the answer to the "ultimate questtion"
> or whatever is 42. This is in base pi.
>
> --
base pi! you're one sick weirdo :)
ross.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross Litscher wrote:
> base pi! you're one sick weirdo :)
Wasn't my idea!
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricy net> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mark Wagner
Subject: 2011.011012100111020111121111020211101000001001102002020202001100002102010011
Date: 3 Mar 2000 02:19:48
Message: <38bf6794@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross Litscher wrote in message <38BF0E5A.59B3F8EB@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
>base pi! you're one sick weirdo :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So what now, is this in base e?
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mark Wagner
Subject: Re: 2011.011012100111020111121111020211101000001001102002020202001100002102010011
Date: 4 Mar 2000 00:19:00
Message: <38c09cc4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote in message <2Xi=OH200k=3OGUViaCRiROjm6zJ@4ax.com>...
>So what now, is this in base e?
Yes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:23:56 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
My guess base c.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
10:42am up 1 day, 10:55, 3 users, load average: 1.65, 1.27, 1.12
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This doesn't make sense... it's even 1120 in base 3, so the base has to be
lower, to make it longer, but that number has a 3 in it.
Steve wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:23:56 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>My guess base c.
>
>--
>Cheers
>Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
>
>%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
>
>web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
>
>or http://start.at/zero-pps
>
> 10:42am up 1 day, 10:55, 3 users, load average: 1.65, 1.27, 1.12
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's this one?
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
>What's this one?
42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> >What's this one?
>
> 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of which
are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary base.
>
> Mark
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
news:38C269FE.F40D9644@attglobal.net...
>
>
> Mark Wagner wrote:
> >
> > David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> > >What's this one?
> >
> > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
>
> Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of which
> are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary base.
>
> >
> > Mark
wouldn't 100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = -4 in base 10?
and 10000 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = 16 in base 10?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike White wrote:
>
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
> news:38C269FE.F40D9644@attglobal.net...
> >
> >
> > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > > David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> > > >What's this one?
> > >
> > > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
> >
> > Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of which
> > are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary base.
> >
> > >
> > > Mark
>
> wouldn't 100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = -4 in base 10?
No. I read 2*sqrt(-1) as "two times the square root of minus one",
which is equal to 2i.
You're thinking about [sqrt(-1)]^2, or "the square root of minus one,
squared".
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
news:38C2CD79.2F90EB8A@attglobal.net...
>
>
> Mike White wrote:
> >
> > Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
> > news:38C269FE.F40D9644@attglobal.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Fontaine wrote in message <38C1F08E.706E209D@faricy.net>...
> > > > >What's this one?
> > > >
> > > > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
> > >
> > > Huh? 42 is a real number, while i is an imaginary value. Both of
which
> > > are orthognal. You can't express a real number using an imaginary
base.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> >
> > wouldn't 100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) = -4 in base 10?
>
> No. I read 2*sqrt(-1) as "two times the square root of minus one",
> which is equal to 2i.
> You're thinking about [sqrt(-1)]^2, or "the square root of minus one,
> squared".
>
> --
100 in base 2*sqrt(-1) should equal -4
1*((2*sqrt(-1))^2) + 0*((2*sqrt(-1))^1)+0*((2*sqrt(-1))^0) = -4
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
3 * 2^4 * i^4 = 3*16*1 = 48
0 * 2^3 * i^3 = 0*8*-i = 0
2 * 2^2 * i^2 = 2*4*-1 = -8
0 * 2^1 * i^1 = 0*2*i = 0
2 * 2^0 * i^0 = 2*1*1 = 2
----------------------------
42
gotcha
what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:38C32280.8A0A755F@faricy.net...
> Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> > 42 in base 2*sqrt(-1)
>
> 3 * 2^4 * i^4 = 3*16*1 = 48
> 0 * 2^3 * i^3 = 0*8*-i = 0
> 2 * 2^2 * i^2 = 2*4*-1 = -8
> 0 * 2^1 * i^1 = 0*2*i = 0
> 2 * 2^0 * i^0 = 2*1*1 = 2
> ----------------------------
> 42
>
> gotcha
>
> what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
> because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
> take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
> to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
>
Shouldn't all coefficients be "less" than the base?
Is 3 less than 2i ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's all this discussion for anyway? If you know the answer to the
question of life, the universe, and everything, you can't know the
actual question, and vice versa, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote in message <38C32280.8A0A755F@faricy.net>...
>what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
>because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
>take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
>to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
No. Base 2i uses the digits 0 through 3, so the number 40602 cannot be in
base 2i
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well actually you can for less than a fraction of a second and then
................. =)
( if my memory serves me >?)
Scott Reid wrote:
> What's all this discussion for anyway? If you know the answer to the
> question of life, the universe, and everything, you can't know the
> actual question, and vice versa, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
B.T.W.W.W.W.W.W.W.W........ Off Topic......??????????
Mark Wagner wrote:
> David Fontaine wrote in message <38C32280.8A0A755F@faricy.net>...
> >what're the rules for this base? Couldn't I also write it 40602? I mean,
> >because you can't write a number two ways with other bases. (Or do you
> >take the smallest representation possible? If you know what I'm trying
> >to say... if you can cancel out values in two of the digits you do so)
>
> No. Base 2i uses the digits 0 through 3, so the number 40602 cannot be in
> base 2i
>
> Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Moon47 wrote:
>
> Well actually you can for less than a fraction of a second and then
> ................. =)
> ( if my memory serves me >?)
Oh, yeah, there was a fourth book in the trilogy wasn't there? Never did
read that one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Moon47 wrote:
>
> B.T.W.W.W.W.W.W.W.W........ Off Topic......??????????
But if someone were to attempt to render the scene where the
scientists are talking to the giant computer about the question (of life
etc.) then that would make the whole discussion ON topic... A feat
that's far beyond my present skill, however...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I believe even in the first book... It was thought when the answer and the
question were known ...the universe and everything would change completely
as we know it. Was thought that this was the cause of the original "big
bang"
Right///?///
Scott Reid wrote:
> Moon47 wrote:
> >
> > Well actually you can for less than a fraction of a second and then
> > ................. =)
> > ( if my memory serves me >?)
>
> Oh, yeah, there was a fourth book in the trilogy wasn't there? Never did
> read that one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think i will have to read the book again to get a good pict...?
Skill does not necessarily make an artist...
Scott Reid wrote:
> Moon47 wrote:
> >
> > B.T.W.W.W.W.W.W.W.W........ Off Topic......??????????
>
> But if someone were to attempt to render the scene where the
> scientists are talking to the giant computer about the question (of life
> etc.) then that would make the whole discussion ON topic... A feat
> that's far beyond my present skill, however...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Moon47 wrote:
>
> I think i will have to read the book again to get a good pict...?
There was a good depiction in the TV series, actually. The scientists
are up on a platform, fog swirling about, and the computer was a giant
robot with glowing red eyes (at least that's how I remember it), only
the head and shoulders visible. The series airs from time to time on PBS
in the US and Canada. I imagine it could be found on British TV fairly
often, too...
As for your previous posting, it's been too long since I read it, I
guess...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Base 2i uses the digits 0 through 3
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike White wrote:
>
> Shouldn't all coefficients be "less" than the base?
Yes.
>
> Is 3 less than 2i ?
Is a pound less than two inches?
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mark Wagner
Subject: Because you don't need any other digits. (Was: Why?)
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:15:20
Message: <38c49e78$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Scott Reid wrote:
>
> Moon47 wrote:
> >
> > Well actually you can for less than a fraction of a second and then
> > ................. =)
> > ( if my memory serves me >?)
>
> Oh, yeah, there was a fourth book in the trilogy wasn't there? Never did
> read that one...
And a 5th book...
CU,
Christian
PS: 42 was in the first one IIRC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
