The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#61

Post by philsnow » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #43

Cullinet wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without any basis whatsoever, and I really must one day put this idea out of its misery with some studying, I long suspected that quantum mechanics involved parallel universes where different bases more aptly fit with that other reality. My thought is surely crackpot but I'll explain how my idea arose : A fraction eg 1/3 describes a decimal number to infinite accuracy but creates a challenge for base 10 calculations.…

Base 10 doesn't fit particularly well with our reality, it was picked for historical reasons. Every other base works just as well.

including fractional bases (rational or irrational) and even negative bases, I think.

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#62

Post by paulpauper » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

alisonkisk wrote: post #26

burlesona wrote: post #2

Okay, as a non-mathematician, I see something like this and I think... “neat coincidence?” But the world of numbers seems to be full of these neat coincidences. So do any of the math folks here have a theory or explanation of why ?

You might also enjoy tan(1 degree/55555555555)

not impressive given that more 5s are needed than correct decimals produced

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#63

Post by grahamlee » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

forinti wrote: post #42

eythian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if it's not remarkable, then that is in itself remarkable.

Aren't most transcendental numbers unremarkable?

No number is unremarkable. Let's construct the set of all unremarkable numbers. Now, let's construct the sequence of those numbers in order. The first member of that sequence has the remarkable property that it is the smallest unremarkable number. That is remarkable, so remove it from the set. By induction, the set must be empty.

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#64

Post by asveikau » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

grahamlee wrote: post #54

Did nobody tell Fibonacci that rabbits are mortal?

I think it would be built into the curve or sequence that the new births replace the dying ones.

Obviously though they would have limited resources and couldn't keep growing indefinitely.

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#65

Post by anonu » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

This is cool. The proof is a bit over my head though. How does someone go about learning or dissecting the syntax of this proof...?

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#66

Post by sabujp » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

fibonacci retracements are used heavily in trading, i wonder how prices/averages line up so nicely around those points

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#67

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

prezjordan wrote: post #48

alisonkisk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might also enjoy tan(1 degree/55555555555)

Fun video about this one on Numberphile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMY2_yzDm9I

"they say there's a fine line between a numerator and a denominator" --?

another one of those maths jokes that makes me smile and confuses a lot of other people of why i'm laughing

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#68

Post by dreamcompiler » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #59

chrismorgan wrote: post #34

On the decimal expansion part, 1⁄7 has always fascinated me, having something very similar going on. Doubling from 7, you get 14, 28, 56; and 1⁄7 is 0.1̅4̅2̅8̅5̅7̅, 2⁄7 is 0.2̅8̅5̅7̅1̅4̅, 3⁄7 is 0.4̅2̅8̅5̅7̅1̅, &c. (just changing which digit you start the recurring sequence with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/142,857 talks about it a bit more; the doubling sequence thing is covered in the section 1⁄7 as an infinite…

Coming from video, I've always been a fan of 1/1001. 30000/1001 = 29.970029797002997 and 24000/1001 = 23.97600239760023976. There's something about it's clean repeating that I liked. I hear people confusing frame rates by saying something like 29.976. I also don't like 23.98 as that rounding is going to cause problems later. However, you have to be a special math something to have any of these kind of number "odditie…

I had forgotten why the number 1001 mattered in video (it's been too long since I worked with NTSC circuits), so I looked it up. It has to do with avoiding dot crawl in color analog video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#69

Post by noncoml » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

chrismorgan wrote: post #34

On the decimal expansion part, 1⁄7 has always fascinated me, having something very similar going on. Doubling from 7, you get 14, 28, 56; and 1⁄7 is 0.1̅4̅2̅8̅5̅7̅, 2⁄7 is 0.2̅8̅5̅7̅1̅4̅, 3⁄7 is 0.4̅2̅8̅5̅7̅1̅, &c. (just changing which digit you start the recurring sequence with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/142,857 talks about it a bit more; the doubling sequence thing is covered in the section 1⁄7 as an infinite…

Does this work or other bases too? Other than 10?

Re: The Remarkable Number 1/89 (2004)

#70

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #68

dylan604 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from video, I've always been a fan of 1/1001. 30000/1001 = 29.970029797002997 and 24000/1001 = 23.97600239760023976. There's something about it's clean repeating that I liked. I hear people confusing frame rates by saying something like 29.976. I also don't like 23.98 as that rounding is going to cause problems later. However, you have to be a special math something to have any of these kind of number "odditie…

I had forgotten why the number 1001 mattered in video (it's been too long since I worked with NTSC circuits), so I looked it up. It has to do with avoiding dot crawl in color analog video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

It also had to do with allowing the additional of the color information to not break compatibility with the existing B&W TVs in existence. Had the decided to not make 1 video signal that could be broadcast to both color and B&W TVs, they could have just broadcast color at 30fps (and man would my life had been so much easier).