Live data from Hacker News

Numbers Are Leaves

christo.sh

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#51

A more compact and beautiful relation exists between integers and finite rooted trees exist, imo. David W. Matula found a correspondence between trees and integers using prime factorization, and reported it in 1968 in SIAM: "A Natural Rooted Tree Enumeration by Prime Factorization", SIAM Rev. 10, 1968, p.273 [1] Others have commented on it before, search the web for Matula Numbers I independently found this relation…

From [2]:

> EG: 165 = P5 * P3 * P1

Shouldn’t the last component be P2 (= 3)?

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#52
> set theory is the foundation of all of mathematics

I disagree. I would say set theory is a foundation, not the foundation.

Which system is the "correct" foundation of mathematics? Does it even make sense to talk about correctness in this context? These are open questions and they're very interesting! Don't prematurely close yourself off to them by assuming that set theory's role is some kind of scientific fact.

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#53
I'm not really sure what to say to this, other than watch this video and apply similar thinking to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK32jo7i5LQ

The leaf structure itself doesn't really have anything to do with ZF set theory or Von Neumann ordinals, other than supplying the inspiration for the base structure. Same way prime numbers don't generate the spirals in the video, all numbers do. So leave the ordinals out of this, experiment with different tree construction methods and you might uncover something cool about trees (but not necessarily about set theory)

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#54

Too few examples. Get to 2039484 and report back if it looks like a leaf or a blob.

The number of nodes and edges is quadratic and the number of Coulomb repulsions is quartic, so I expect that only is possible to draw up to ~100, perhaps ~1000 or ~10000 using some tricks or aproximations.

Anyway, if you look at the graph of #5, it has two clear parts, the left part (with 16 nodes) that is #4 and the right part (with 16 nodes) that is just another copy of #4. So the structure is like 4-4.

But if you look more carefuly, you can find four copies of #3.

  3---3
   \   \
    3   3
If you magicaly pull the second one to the left, you get 3-3-3-3.

This construction work in all level, so even for 1000000, you will have four parts 999999-999999-999999-999999

And you can expand this in smaller parts, but the structure get's more tricky.

So I expect the 1000000 still to have a fractal like structure with four big parts that are quite similar.

One problem is that each branch can go to the right or to the left, and that is probably choosen a random. At the low level ir cause some noise in the final graphic, but at the high level you get different symmetries of the whole figure. From almos to mirror parts in #13 to a propeler in #6.

I'm not sure how spiky is #1000000. If it's a circle, I epect to see a fer radial lines that show the division 999999-999999-999999-999999. If it' not a circle, I expect to see something like in the images.

The tricky part may be to select the correct ratio of the Coulomb and Hooke forces (and the default rest lenght of the edges?). Sometimes to get a nice limit he contants used in the force model should change with N.

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#55

This has almost nothing to do with numbers or ZFC and almost everything to do with how graph layout algo's produce their outputs...

I agree. The layout makes it difficult to point out the node in the set that actually represents the graph. In the layout proposed, I'm not sure which node is 5 from the graph representing 5, unless someone can clue me in?

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#56
post #51

A more compact and beautiful relation exists between integers and finite rooted trees exist, imo. David W. Matula found a correspondence between trees and integers using prime factorization, and reported it in 1968 in SIAM: "A Natural Rooted Tree Enumeration by Prime Factorization", SIAM Rev. 10, 1968, p.273 [1] Others have commented on it before, search the web for Matula Numbers I independently found this relation…

From [2]: > EG: 165 = P5 * P3 * P1 Shouldn’t the last component be P2 (= 3)?

You are exactly correct - thank you for reading and letting me know, appreciate your curiosity!

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#57
I like this - nice playing around. We usually think of this kind of tree as having directed edges from parent to child, e.g. from set to element. In your graphs, you're erasing the direction of the edges, which uncovers a neat little symmetry that I never thought about before.

All the (non-limit) von Neumann ordinals are of the form X+1 = {X, {X}}, where X is the previous ordinal in the set. If you just look at trees of this form:

X+1: X {X}, or X node -> X

then you ignore the direction of the parent-child relation, you get this:

X+1: X -- node -- node -- X

So that's why your trees are symmetric as undirected graphs; and of course, every lower ordinal has its own version of this symmetry, which is also contained in the tree. All the large gaps between sections correspond to node--node edges of the larger ordinals. Kinda neat!

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#59
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the last point doesn't really hold its own in any way. Many discoveries throughout history have started from someone just playing around with an idea, toying with it at first, but eventually becoming obsessed. The thing is, there's no way to tell beforehand. It might be a toy with no ultimate use or meaning, or it might lead to something entirely novel somewhere down the line. That's why play, in a very broad…

If 1 out of 10 chmessicians discover something useful, the discoverer had good taste and deserves credit. There is no insurance redistributing credit amongst all of the pointless searches. The guys who invented imaginary numbers or eigenvectors weren't just throwing darts at a board and got "lucky".

It sounds like you have an infallible instinct for exactly which lines of research should be funded and which are useless dead ends. The NSF should hire you immediately!

Re: Numbers Are Leaves

#60

This has almost nothing to do with numbers or ZFC and almost everything to do with how graph layout algo's produce their outputs...

I agree. The layout makes it difficult to point out the node in the set that actually represents the graph. In the layout proposed, I'm not sure which node is 5 from the graph representing 5, unless someone can clue me in?

The graph itself is 5. I think OP is just saying that as the graph “fills in”, it looks like a botanical leaf.
Post reply on HN