[deleted]
[deleted]
42
21–30 of 62 posts
Re: 42
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was never quite sure whether the number (42) or the decimal representation thereof (4*10 + 2) was relevant. Your interpretation would tend to the latter…
I believe I read this in The Salmon of Doubt , where Douglas Adams explained he pretty much chose it arbitrarily. "42 will do", were his words, IIRC.
I second that: I definitely remember reading something in which Douglas Adams explained that he chose 42 arbitrarily. And I think he was surprised at and amused with everyone’s theories of the significance of the number.
Re: 42
#23Good stuff.
Also,
The picture of Klein’s quartic curve was made by Greg Egan, and you should also check out his page on Klein’s quartic curve.
Re: 42
#24Good stuff. Also, The picture of Klein’s quartic curve was made by Greg Egan, and you should also check out his page on Klein’s quartic curve. For anyone curious, Greg Egan writes interesting hard scifi. A particularly interesting and hardcore piece of scifi which rests on a significant pile of graph theory et al. is his novel "Schild's Ladder." [1] (one of these days, one of these days I am bound to attempt to finis…
I read his novel Incandescence recently which was also really interesting. It's about a seemingly primitive civilization of non-humanoids who have to work out relativity quickly to avert disaster. I can't claim to follow it entirely but I enjoy his work nonetheless.
Re: 42
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every number has special properties :) Edit: In fact, I'd be astounded to encounter a number that did not exhibit any special properties. Until, of course, one makes "having no special properties" a special property. In that case, I would no longer be astounded.
We proceed by induction. Clearly n =1 is special, as it divides every integer. Assume k is special. If k +1 is not special, then it is special, as it is the first non-special number to come after a special number. This is a contradiction; then k +1 is special. ■
Can you categorize the next non-special number in the same way? Now k+1 is no longer non-special, but the reason why it is special still exists, so you can't use it a second time.
Re: 42
#26Obviously the article is written for fun, but for those interested Douglas Adams' answer to why 42 was:
"The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story."
Re: 42
#27Obviously the article is written for fun, but for those interested Douglas Adams' answer to why 42 was: "The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story."
Probably subconscious effects affecting D.A. after pan-dimensional rodents played with us for eons
Re: 42
#28Re: 42
#29Obviously the article is written for fun, but for those interested Douglas Adams' answer to why 42 was: "The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story."
It's a bit silly he had to say this-- this is made very explicit in the books. I feel like a lot of people missed the point of the whole exercise.
Re: 42
#30Fascinating read. He did say what the question was though: "What is six times nine?" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=6%20times%209...
But note that that isn't the "real" question, just the incorrect result of the Earth experiment.