« first day (95 days earlier)      last day (304 days later) » 

00:59
0
A: How to solve $x\sin x=a$ for any number $a$?

Simply Beautiful ArtIf $x=f(a)$ is solved for $a\in\mathbb Q$ and $f(a)$ is continuous, then $x=f(a)$ for $a\notin\mathbb Q$. Next, we see that if $a\ne0,a\in\mathbb Q$, then $x$ is not algebraic. If $x$ were algebraic, then $\sin(x)$ would be transcendental, and thus $x\sin(x)$ would be transcendental, a contradi...

 
19 hours later…
19:45
‮@Nilknarf
Lol, pinged you backwards
Hey @AlexanderDay
@Nilknarf @AlexanderDay :-) Thought I'd ping you together, as you both do some large number stuff
@AlexanderDay Wanna try making a number larger than I can?
U would win
Of course, but its still fun :P
19:52
:D
Try beating this function:
def f(a,b=a,c=a)a.times{a*=c>0?f(a,b,c-1):b<0?a:f(a,b-1)}&&a end
I wrote it in Ruby
?????????¿??
Wanna play?
lol
Write it in English
f(n,-1,0)=n^2^n
Amwhy just poked his head in
19:55
f(n,a,0)=x(a,n,n)
Uh......
I'm confused
x(a,n,k)=f(x(a,n,k-1),a-1,x(a,n,k-1))
Lol, shall I try explaining differently?
@SimplyBeautifulArt so f(n, a, 0)=n^2???
19:57
No
f(n,-1,0)=n^2^n
BOOOOOOOO!¡!!!!!!!!!!¡
f(n,a,b+1)≈f(f(f(...f(n times,a,b)...,a,b),a,b),a,b)
f(n,a,0)≈f(n,a-1,n)
So its like my angular numbers
Sorta
Nah, its actually much much stronger
19:59
Okay, so my number shall be f(10,-1,1)
Can you make a larger number?
f(10,-1,1)=f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(10,-1,0),-1,0),-1,0),-1,0),-1,0),-1,0),-1,0),-1,‌​0),-1,0),-1,0)
where f(n,-1,0)=n^2^n
F(16, -2, 1
Hello @adamscott
I Don't know
@AlexanderDay Could you define F(16,-2,1)?
You can beat my number with your triangles and stuff
I repeat, I don't know
20:03
@AlexanderDay My number is approximately pentagon(10) (but its larger than this)
F(f(f(f...f(16, -2, 0)...)
:| But what is this f()?
Oh, sorry, I forgot to say, you can't copy me...
auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrr4rrrrrrrrrrruuuuuugggggghhhhhhh
Heptagon(2)
Yeppers!!!
20:08
f(10,-1,3) ≈ Heptagon(10)
:D Your turn!
Aw dang, hit me up with that... :P
Lolololololololololol
I guess off is next
f(10,0,0) ≈ fω+1(10)
:D Your turn!
So its too tiny
20:11
What's too tiny?
Isosagon(47)
That is 20
As opposed to isosahedron
Isosagon(47) ≈ f21(47)
<< fω+1(3)
< f(10,0,0)
Hectogon(1000)
He he he...
Hectogon = ?
100 sides
20:14
n-gon(x) ≈ fn+1(x)
Hectogon(1000) ≈ f101(1000) << fω+1(3) < f(10,0,0)
May I point out...
fω+1(n) = fω(fω(...fω(n times)...))
fω(n) = fn(n) ≈ n-gon(n)
Megagon(10^^^^^megagon(10))
1 million
20:17
Okay...
fω+1(3) = fω(fω(fω(3)))
Y'know, the amount of money I wish to have someday...
= fω(fω(f3(3)))
≈ fω(fω(triangle(3)))
= fω(f_triangle(3) (triangle(3)))
≈ fω( (triangle(3))-gon(triangle(3)) )
Nonagon(9)
≈ ((triangle(3))-gon(triangle(3))-gon(triangle(3))-gon(triangle(3)))
Boooooooopoommmmmmm!!!!¡!
Mind blown
20:21
Nonagon?
That's much smaller
Well, anyways, my point is that for you to continue making larger numbers, you'll need to use a 10-gon(10) sided shape...
Now how about fyotillion(yottilion)
and then an x-gon(x) sided shape, where x = previous number with the 10-gon(10) sided shape
Or fw•2(yottilion)
20:24
and then you'll need a y-gon(y) sided shape, where y = the previous...
And you need to do this at least ten times before you catch up to my number
f(10,1,0) ≈ f_(ω2+1)(10)
:P
Wanna know something crazy?
Well, do you program @AlexanderDay ?
Sorta
I have invented something called binagraphics
Which instead of saying 101001001001001010001001 or whatnot
It says what numbers are on or off
Like 1 4 8 10 14 18 22 26 29
I've coded it on scratch.MIT.edu
20:32
lol, scratch.MIT.edu
They make great games, like paper Minecraft
My favorite game on there
What do u think of my idea, binagraphics
20:35
Have you watched the Flash?
@AlexanderDay It sounds interesting...
@AlexanderDay okay :-)
In it, it is easier to translate to b10but is ineffective at other bases, like b3
Oh, did you ever know about pi in base 16?
If you have x, y, z to get in b10u do 2^x-1+2^y-1+2^z-1
The -1 since if z=1, you get 1, not 2
Pi in b16??
No
20:39
:D
Did you know you can calculate any digit of pi in b16 without calculating all the other digits?
What!!!!!!
How
22
A: Where do Mathematicians Get Inspiration for Pi Formulas?

Markus ScheuerHere are three more gems presented in chronological order. Viète and the first infinite product in the history of mathematics (1593) \begin{align*} \frac{2}{\pi}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}...

@AlexanderDay were you going to say "How in the world?!"
No. How does one do that??
So basically one formula for pi is real nice
Do you know of the Leibniz series?
The lebbiez-what??¡
There is a glitch that flips some of my !!¡
20:43
Beautiful formula to derive, requires integrals/calculus + trig
@AlexanderDay Do you understand sigma notation? Σ
Make sense so far?
Well, there's this amazing formula for pi
The 1/16ⁿ more or less corresponds to base 16
But isn't pi\4=90° in radians
20:49
Oh no, this isn't some radians to degrees conversion
@SimplyBeautifulArt this
It's meant to be taken as pi = 3.1415926...
So each digit is just n in the formula
Well, if you plug it into a calculator, you'll find that pi/4 ≈ 0.7854
@AlexanderDay More or less. You just have to check above and below a bit for digits that carry over
or carry under
:D But yeah, easy way to find digits of pi in base 16
I gotta go. Be back soon
20:52
Cya @AlexanderDay
:D
whatever, I'll be here
21:49
@AlexanderDay tic toc
22:24
@SimplyBeautifulArt studying BBP Style formulas, are you now?
Hey @BrevanEllefsen
BBP?
That is the style of Pi formula you have up above
Ramanujan studied them extensively iirc
but I could be wrong on that
The Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula (BBP formula) is a spigot algorithm for computing the nth binary digit of pi (symbol: π) using base 16 math. The formula can directly calculate the value of any given digit of π without calculating the preceding digits. The BBP is a summation-style formula that was discovered in 1995 by Simon Plouffe and was named after the authors of the paper in which the formula was published, David H. Bailey, Peter Borwein, and Simon Plouffe. Before that paper, it had been published by Plouffe on his own site. The formula is π = ...
That sum is called the BBP Formula
similar sums are known as BBP-Style formulas
Ah, yes @BrevanEllefsen
What brings you 'round these parts?
@BrevanEllefsen Here to try and make larger finite numbers than me?
I trust you will forever beat me on that one XD Just checking in to this chat; been a while. I still read MSE daily (I'm at 640 days straight or something at the moment) but I rarely have time to chat anymore
xD
@BrevanEllefsen Well, the game is a learning progress
22:33
@SimplyBeautifulArt Any new and exciting results recently?
I enjoyed your comments beneath the MSE Addiction Meta post
Mmm... I recently made new version of PAIN notation, if that's what you meant xD
it has seemed like your participation has weaned somewhat
XD
In some ways
I can't say that I know what PAIN is
I can't be everywhere all the time
22:34
Google results are very different from math
Google results?
xD
Doubt you'll find it there
I'm afraid to ask what it is
you are too far down the rabbit hole
I can't dive in myself
why not?
I think its a rather easy thing to learn
and basic versions of PAIN aren't sooo.... bad.
22:37
XD
Fine
500 character summary
500 character summary?!
xD
Well...
Consider a function defined as follows:
$$P(x)=x+1\\ P(x,a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k)=P( P(x,a_1-1,a_2,\dots,a_k),a_1-1,a_2,\dots,a_k)\\ P(x,\underbrace{0,0,\dots,0,0}_n,a_1,\dots ,a_k)=P(x,\underbrace{x,x,\dots,x,x}_n, a_1-1,\dots, a_k)\\ P(x,a_1,\dots,a_k,0)= P(x,a_1,\dots,a_k)$$
@BrevanEllefsen You think you can understand this?
I'm working at it. Give me a minute. That is a lot to read
is $P(x) \equiv P(x,0,0,\cdots,0)$?
I don't see where plain ol' $P(x)$ comes into play
@BrevanEllefsen Inductively follows from the last rule
$P(x)=x+1$
$P(x,1)=P(P(x,0),0)=P(P(x))=x+2$
That is a terrifying function. Extremely terrifying
$P(x,2)=x+4$
Not so terrifying yet
22:45
Oh boy
$P(x,k)=x+2^k$
$P(x,0,1)=P(x,x,0)=P(x,x)=x+2^x$
$P(x,1,1)=P(P(x,0,1),0,1)=x+2^x+2^{x+2^x}$
$P(x,1,1)>2^{2^x}$
$P(x,2,1)>2^{2^{2^{2^x}}}$
etc.
$P(x,0,2)=P(x,x,1)$
Can't effectively approximate without more notations beyond this
22:49
lol
I get the picture
@SimplyBeautifulArt did you know I have been kicked from Constructive Feedback? I don't know why...?
Did you give unconstructive feedback?
@BrevanEllefsen I didn't even give feedback. Me and simple were just having a discussion.
2 days later the room is locked.
and amwhy refuses to let me in for some reason
22:50
*Simple and I
ffs
who cares?
Some constructive, grammatical feedback XD
@BrevanEllefsen But do you get the picture?
@SimplyBeautifulArt yeah. I've worked with Ackermann enough to get what you are doing
Cool... so I can approximate with the Ackermann function?
22:51
Yeah
Hyperoperations were my first dabble in math.... I was browsing the tetration forum before I ever studied calculus XD
$P(x,y,z)>A(z,2^y)$
I might have gotten the arguments of the Ackermann function backwards, I hope I didn't though
BTW, this is the lowest version of PAIN
$P(x,0,0,1)=P(x,x,x)≈A(x,x)$
Then $P(x,1,0,1)$...
0
Q: If a parametric surface is continuous, is it reasonable to expect that an integer grid will also be continuous?

TheGreatDuckThis is somewhat of a follow-up to a previous question which asked in a roundabout way about how to walk upon a parametric surface approximated by triangular faces. Now I want to know is whether or not my proposed construction of the model itself will actually work in the way I imagine. Suppos...

@BrevanEllefsen You know anything higher than hyperoperations/Ackermann function?
@SimplyBeautifulArt help?!? :p
@TheGreatDuck I got nothing for that D:
22:59
it should be a simple question, right?
i mean, I'm just asking if the continuity of a parametric surface means that the adjacent regions are the ones with the next values for a and b?
imagine if I drew a grid on a parametric surface
will this match up with values for a and b?
@SimplyBeautifulArt no, that is where I got terrified
@BrevanEllefsen xD

« first day (95 days earlier)      last day (304 days later) »