Most Likes Page: @mfb Approaching 5000 Likes on Physics Forums

[jedishrfu]

Yay @fresh_42! 10110001001110 is impressive!

and then there's the numdict analysis:

https://numdic.com/11342

 

[fresh_42]

Not anymore! I really ( and literally) liked your post. And suspense. Germans ahead.

This is probably due to the fact that against all rumors we actually do have humor!
E.g.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPZX7EZIFD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lddoHQIZQto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n7VI0rC8ZA

 

[WWGD]

mfb 106•107 + 2 ...

= 709x2⁴

Also the previous (13342)/2 = 53•107 ...

Finally, Drakkith 4884 = 1221•4 = 407•3•4

There are other interesting ones around, like 40320=8!

 

[sysprog]

There are other interesting ones around, like 40320=8!

That one's good $-$ the problem of finding all mathematically interesting ZIP codes may be tougher than NP-hard or NP-complete $-$ what about halving the length? $-$ in the Chinese historical novel The Water Margin (the term refers to a swampy area) (the novel is part of The Three Kingdoms set of works) the Monks in the Shao-Lin Temple were killed as the Ching dynasty overthrew the Ming Dynasty and General Kwan and his 2 friends escaped and swore an oath of fidelity in the Peach Garden, and went to the marshy area with 108 Disciples.

$108=1^1 \times 2^2 \times 3^3$

 

[mfb]

That one's good the problem of finding all mathematically interesting ZIP codes may be tougher than NP-hard or NP-complete

All of them are interesting. If there would be a boring ZIP code then there would be a smallest boring ZIP code, which would be an interesting property - contradiction.

 

[sysprog]

All of them are interesting. If there would be a boring ZIP code then there would be a smallest boring ZIP code, which would be an interesting property - contradiction.

Of course that's right, but of course, that doesn't make all numbers equally interesting $\dots$

 

[Ibix]

Of course that's right, but of course, that doesn't make all numbers equally interesting $\dots$

But in that case the least interesting number is surely more interesting than the least-interesting-but-one number, which presents a problem.

 

[sysprog]

Of course we do know, interestingness partly inheres in us; not only in the things in which we're interested.

 

[WWGD]

All of them are interesting. If there would be a boring ZIP code then there would be a smallest boring ZIP code, which would be an interesting property - contradiction.

Still, we will always have boring machines ;).

 

[fresh_42]

Still, we will always have boring machines ;).

I use mine if I want to make whipped cream.

 

[mfb]

But in that case the least interesting number is surely more interesting than the least-interesting-but-one number, which presents a problem.

No, numbers can get decreasingly interesting as they get larger.

 

[Drakkith]

No, numbers can get decreasingly interesting as they get larger.

Well I hope you didn't tell them that. No reason to be rude to already overly-sized numbers.

 

[mfb]

Hey, it's not my fault that 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³ is so large.

PS: This is likely the first time anyone ever considered this specific number. I made it far more interesting than before.

 

[fresh_42]

Hey, it's not my fault that 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³ is so large.

PS: This is likely the first time anyone ever considered this specific number. I made it far more interesting than before.

You should name it and demand its prime factor decomposition to be listed on OEIS! Did anyone ever wondered that although we stress that $n\to \infty$ all the time, we rarely deal with anything larger than say 1,000,000?

 

[mfb]

A57534454646343
Prime factorization of 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³:

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 (list; graph; refs; listen; history; text; internal format)

 

[fresh_42]

A57534454646343
Prime factorization of 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³:

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 (list; graph; refs; listen; history; text; internal format)

Fresh conjecture: The 62,624th number of this sequence is greater than 3.

 

[mfb]

It's not:
758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³ = 2^{5425224273734}*379177^{5425224273734} + 2^2*62623 * 3⁶²⁶²³ * 626977795351⁶²⁶²³
The first 125246 numbers are all "2".

The first term is not divisible by 3 but the second is, so we do not get a factor 3.
Mod 5 the first term is 4 and the second term is 3, so the number is not divisible by 5 either.

@PeterDonis joined our club of 11,000+.

 

[WWGD]

How about an unlikely Benford number? Isn't then , e.g., 999.999 interesting, given it is unlikely to appear in a human-generated document? It seems the more you know the more you know , either everything looks interesting or nothing does.

 

[fresh_42]

There are lists of special numbers on Wikipedia.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Hey, it's not my fault that 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³ is so large.

PS: This is likely the first time anyone ever considered this specific number. I made it far more interesting than before.

How about converting that into a password. Then we'll probably see that "Sorry! This password has been used ..." (Don't you hate that!? ...)

 

[diogenesNY]

Just for fun: type 'interesting numbers' into your favorite search engine.

Plenty of options for losing a whole bunch of time :)

--diogenesNY

 

[fresh_42]

Just for fun: type 'interesting numbers' into your favorite search engine.

Plenty of options for losing a whole bunch of time :)

--diogenesNY

List of notable numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers

but the German version is better for browsing:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_besonderer_Zahlen

 

[BillTre]

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers:

Even the smallest "uninteresting" number is paradoxically interesting for that very property. This is known as the interesting number paradox.

 

[fresh_42]

It seems that everybody who ever dealt with number theory has their own number:
Catalan, Fermat, Mersenne, Wilson, Smith, Waring, Euler, Khinchin, Frans´en, Robinson, Feigenbaum, Fibonacci, Golay, Goldbach, Kaprekar, Carmichael, Giuga, Wieferich, Münchhausen, Wolstenholme, Sierpinski, Cataldi, Ramanujan, Lucas, Riesel, Beaver, Hurwitz, Selfridge, Gillies, Cullen, and so on, and even this strange mathematician called Mirp has numbers.

I want my number, too!

 

[BillTre]

I've got your number.

 

[Klystron]

Hey, it's not my fault that 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³ is so large.

PS: This is likely the first time anyone ever considered this specific number. I made it far more interesting than before.

I think I understand the interest in the first term in the addition but fail to grasp the second. I almost get it but the second exponent does not pattern for me. Assistance? @WWGD?

 

[Klystron]

It seems that everybody who ever dealt with number theory has their own number:
Catalan, Fermat, Mersenne, Wilson, Smith, Waring, Euler, Khinchin, Frans´en, Robinson, Feigenbaum, Fibonacci, Golay, Goldbach, Kaprekar, Carmichael, Giuga, Wieferich, Münchhausen, Wolstenholme, Sierpinski, Cataldi, Ramanujan, Lucas, Riesel, Beaver, Hurwitz, Selfridge, Gillies, Cullen, and so on, and even this strange mathematician called Mirp has numbers.

I want my number, too!

From contemporary correspondence and reports, despite frère Marin's prodigious accomplishments and standing in the science community, le Père Mersenne remained a humble person.

One can imagine his mirthful reaction to learn a sequence of prime numbers of the form M_n = (2ⁿ − 1) carries his name.

 

[WWGD]

This is one for high posters : 4294967217. I remember it because I did a small presentation for a number theory seminar in undergrad.

$4294967297 = 2^{32} +1 = 2^{2^5}+1 =(641)(6700417)$

I think it is the smallest counter that $2^{2^n} +1$ is always prime. From Euler, IIRC; a real

"Tour de France" ( Tour de Force)".

So, what do you say, @mfb , @berkeman and other high posters? ;).

 

[jedishrfu]

Sadly we can only list some of the countable numbers before our time is up but there are innumerable others that we can’t.

 

[mfb]

I think I understand the interest in the first term in the addition but fail to grasp the second. I almost get it but the second exponent does not pattern for me. Assistance? @WWGD?

That's surprising given that all four numbers are the result of number-mashing on the keyboard.

@vanhees71 reached 8000 likes!

 

[Klystron]

That's surprising given that all four numbers are the result of number-mashing on the keyboard.

@vanhees71 reached 8000 likes!

Ha, I mean LOL. Sarcasm, never a strong point, escapes me more and more with age.

@vanhees71 writes excellent physics with concise math. I particularly enjoy the instructive exchanges with our resident Bohmians. Hopefully, I contributed many likes.

 

[mfb]

@PeterDonis took the lead in "likes"!
~12100, a bit ahead of @fresh_42.

 

[WWGD]

This is one for high posters : 4294967217. I remember it because I did a small presentation for a number theory seminar in undergrad.

$4294967297 = 2^{32} +1 = 2^{2^5}+1 =(641)(6700417)$

I think it is the smallest counter that $2^{2^n} +1$ is always prime. From Euler, IIRC; a real

"Tour de France" ( Tour de Force)".

So, what do you say, @mfb , @berkeman and other high posters? ;).

Sorry about this; it is bizarre. I have no clue what point I was trying to make here.

 

[phinds]

Sorry about this; it is bizarre. I have no clue what point I was trying to make here.

Uh huh. I've TOLD you about late night drinking and posting !

 

[dextercioby]

Here's a nice 3 here.