142857
en.wikipedia.org
142857
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: 142857
#2Hahaha, I like how they include: "If it is multiplied by 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, the answer will be ... 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, or 6/7 respectively."
Was it surprising to multiply 1/7 by two and get 2/7? Has science gone too far?
Re: 142857
#3Hey neat, my favorite number is on HN!
Here's an interesting video showing this stuff (And more) in a more user-friendly way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlaUalgxqI
Re: 142857
#4Hahaha, I like how they include: "If it is multiplied by 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, the answer will be ... 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, or 6/7 respectively." Was it surprising to multiply 1/7 by two and get 2/7? Has science gone too far?
The point of that sentence, which you have excluded, was about the cyclical permutations.
Re: 142857
#5Hahaha, I like how they include: "If it is multiplied by 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, the answer will be ... 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, or 6/7 respectively." Was it surprising to multiply 1/7 by two and get 2/7? Has science gone too far?
The point of that sentence, which you have excluded, was about the cyclical permutations.
I said the clause was an unnecessary inclusion, the ellipses are there specifically to highlight that. The rest of the article is about the cyclicity of the digit.
Re: 142857
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of that sentence, which you have excluded, was about the cyclical permutations.
I said the clause was an unnecessary inclusion, the ellipses are there specifically to highlight that. The rest of the article is about the cyclicity of the digit.
Your ellipses completely change the meaning. The clause may be unnecessary (as is the entire article) but the bit you complain about is useful if you don't chop things out first.
Re: 142857
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said the clause was an unnecessary inclusion, the ellipses are there specifically to highlight that. The rest of the article is about the cyclicity of the digit.
Your ellipses completely change the meaning. The clause may be unnecessary (as is the entire article) but the bit you complain about is useful if you don't chop things out first.
Well, not sure it was a complaint, I was just lightheartedly commenting that it was a bit redundant, but ok, umbrage seems a reasonable response.
And yeah, that's pretty much the point of eliding bits of text, to put things together that weren't together before; I'm almost positive that's why we invented that specific punctuation mark.
It's like saying: "The 35th president of the United States, JFK, who was widely known for the space race and the bay of pigs, was elected after the 34 presidents before him."
And my comment is like: "The 35th president of the United States ... was elected after the 34 presidents before him."
Re: 142857
#81/7 = 0.14+0.0028+0.000056+0.00000112+0.0000000224+...
14=2(7) 28=4(7) 56=8(7) 112=16(7) 224=32(7)
Re: 142857
#9Hey neat, my favorite number is on HN! Here's an interesting video showing this stuff (And more) in a more user-friendly way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlaUalgxqI
It's also my favorite number, but I don't think any of us likes it more than the guy in the video :) Thanks for sharing.
I learned about 142857 when reading The Man Who Counted as a kid. I remember getting obsessed with it and discovering more properties (much fewer than the ones shown on the video), e.g.:
142 + 857 = 999
14 + 28 + 57 = 99Re: 142857
#10There is a detailed explanation on Quora [0] that I stumbled upon some time ago.
[0]: http://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-number-142857-have-such-in...