**From:** Eric Burton (*brilanon@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Sun Mar 11 2012 - 15:44:17 MDT

**Next message:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Previous message:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**In reply to:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Next in thread:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Reply:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

512... 5 - (1 - 3) = 2

This got screwed up. Should say 5 - (2 + 1) = 2.

It -does- spell 512. I'm rootkitted and the CIA can edit stuff while

I'm working on it and stuff. Well come on. If you do this and try to

say 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, with it, something says to you,

1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 1, 2

-Why- would it go and spell a power of two. That's what I found on

shrooms. That's why I did all that. Sorry if parts are wrong. I'm

proofing it now

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Just this prints something not draws it. I don't know if it's as good
*

*> as that thing the other day where you divide 1 by something and it
*

*> prints every real number up to 100 or something buffered by zeroes.
*

*> But this is pretty good. I think I found it on shrooms. I forget how.
*

*> Bear with me. I try some things in this
*

*>
*

*> math one
*

*>
*

*> Check out what this is. If you try to print powers of two this particular
*

*> wrong way, in order to represent them using fewer digits, it prints powers
*

*> of two instead, in certain bases, including ours. It prints powers of two
*

*> you can't represent with that rule because it becomes ambiguous with more
*

*> than two digits per number. You need a high and a low one. But I've tried to
*

*> extend it here too. Which took some time. Darn. Please continue. Brix'll be
*

*> shat.
*

*>
*

*> if you mistakenly (ha, ha) represent the powers of two that have two digits
*

*> by subtracting the low one from the high one until the rule breaks at 128
*

*> which has three digits, ah, you see,
*

*>
*

*> OK I just realized you can extend the rule and ...
*

*>
*

*> look. If you say 16 by going 6-1 = 5, 32 by saying 3-2 = 1, and 64 by saying
*

*> 6-4 = 2, for some crazy reason, and place them after the powers of 2 before
*

*> them, that way, you get:
*

*>
*

*> 1 2 4 8 5 1 2
*

*>
*

*> See how it spells 512. One of the first powers of 2 you won't be able to
*

*> represent that way since the rule should break down at two digits but I'll
*

*> come back to that. Even representing them that way for the powers of two
*

*> that are only two digits long you get 1 and 2 again which aren't unique
*

*> though 5 is. And I just figured out, you can extend the rule to the
*

*> three-digit powers of two, by figuring out which two digits add up to a
*

*> number large enough to subtract the remaining digit from, if there isn't
*

*> already one digit long enough... the way I did it, I got,
*

*>
*

*> 128... 8 - (2 + 1) = 5
*

*> 256... (2 + 5) - 6 = 1
*

*> 512... 5 - (1 - 3) = 2
*

*>
*

*> So 512 serves to print itself suddenly. Holy shit! Let's see if you can use
*

*> that rule on those numbers another way.
*

*>
*

*> Trying 128 again:
*

*>
*

*> If we add 2 to 8 to get 10 and subtract 1 we get 9. Good, there's another
*

*> way. I just happened to find one that did spell 512 again. Well let's try to
*

*> do it this way, making the biggest number we can from two digits and
*

*> subtracting the smallest one, and see what it spells.
*

*>
*

*> 128 : (8 + 2) - 1 = 9
*

*> 256: (5 + 6) - 2 = 9
*

*> 512: (5 + 2) - 1 = 6
*

*>
*

*> Wow then it says 996. See that system isn't any good. That's what it's
*

*> trying to tell me. Look what happens if you do it in octal, where 8, 16,
*

*> and 32 are said 10, 20, and 40. If you try that rule you go 1 - 0, 2 - 0 and
*

*> 4 - 0 and just get 1, 2, 4 again. It says,
*

*>
*

*> 124124
*

*>
*

*> Then you can use the same rule on the higher powers of two, in octal, and
*

*> only one way, because all the other digits will be zeroes. So you extend it
*

*> and just get
*

*>
*

*> 124124124...
*

*>
*

*> From,
*

*>
*

*> 1
*

*> 2
*

*> 4
*

*> 10
*

*> 20
*

*> 40
*

*> 100
*

*> 200
*

*> 400
*

*> ...
*

*>
*

*> No good at all. So I figured this out walking around just now, about what it
*

*> does in octal and guess what, in binary, every power of two also has only
*

*> one high digit, the rest zero, so you can use the rule in that too, where
*

*> you get,
*

*>
*

*> 111111111
*

*>
*

*> Now maybe that's not saying much
*

*>
*

*> So I got home and thought about other bases of course, what about really
*

*> weird numbers of fingers or whatever? In hexadecimal, a power-of-two base
*

*> like octal, you can say "128" as "80" but at 256 it's "100" which in this
*

*> weird system I made up goes "8", "1". It goes,
*

*>
*

*> 124812481248
*

*>
*

*> Because unlike octal it has 8, 80, 800... ok. So,
*

*>
*

*> Seriously what is going on. I got this javascript open that does bases 1
*

*> through 20. So let's try the powers of 2 and spell them this way and see
*

*> what -that- spells, in each. Hell I'll even do the ones I just did, over
*

*> again. If you've forgotten what we're doing,
*

*>
*

*> We're representing powers of 2 by subtracting the lower digits from the
*

*> higher one, if we can. Because of the amazing effects on the human mind it
*

*> has. Like something is trying to tell us we're doing it wrong if we try to
*

*> represent them that way, the numbers. What would happen if you did this to
*

*> other numbers than powers of 2? Other series? Well hold. Let's try this first
*

*>
*

*> I would do this in python but I'm too lazy.
*

*>
*

*> Binary: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.....
*

*>
*

*> Trinary [way one]: 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1
*

*> Trinary [way two]: 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 4 8 8 10 10 8 10
*

*>
*

*> Sorry I did the rules on the digits of trinary powers of two but I showed
*

*> the decimal equivalents there. Interestingly way one is unchanged since it
*

*> didn't print any values over 2, weird. In trinary that's:
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Trinary [way one]: 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1
*

*>
*

*> Trinary [way two]: 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 4 22 22 101 101 22 101
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Notes
*

*>
*

*> Trinary: This was weird. I always got zeroes. For instance 32 goes 1012 in
*

*> trinary so you go 2 - (1+1+0) and get 0. Then 64 is 2101 so you do the
*

*> -same thing- and get 0 again, that's just up to 64 though. If you do 128,
*

*> 11202, you could either go (2+2)-(1+1), 4-2 and get 2, or you can apparently
*

*> go (1+2)-(1+2) and get another 0. So what I did, I figured if you spell 32
*

*> as 2-2=0 and 64 as 3-1=2 although they have the same digits and it'd be
*

*> arbitrary do so, well golly you can get a "2" out of 11202 too, and if you
*

*> add the 1's in 100111, trinary for 256, and subtract the zeroes, you get a
*

*> 4... but you could also subtract the ones from each other and get another 0
*

*> that's what I did in way one.
*

*>
*

*> So this is cool, 512 goes 20022 where even the first rule cannot make another
*

*> zero, it can only make a 2, unless you subtract the twos "by each other" which
*

*> look there's an odd number of them you can't, haha, maybe that is a joke about
*

*> that. -goes cross-eyes, throws up an alien-. So otherwise you add up the twos
*

*> and subtract the zeroes and get yes the next power of 2, grrr, and now I
*

*> really want to know if it's going to print 16 next or say something else so
*

*> let's continue. 1024=1101221. Both rules are ambiguous now I think, I mean,
*

*> one was just to get zeroes and one was just to get powers of two, so probably
*

*> with this many digits there are new rules we can try on these to get other
*

*> kinds of numbers. But ah, I think rule 1 might go (2+2)-(1+1+1+1) and get
*

*> another 0. Weird that on 512 it couldn't. Rule 2 though adds em and
*

*> subtracts the zero by now and we get oh my god, another 8. Look it doesn't
*

*> even try to say sixteen. 2048? 2210212. Rule 1 can go 5-5 for another 0.
*

*> OK... rule 2 goes 5+5, gets 10. Well. These rules are to avoid saying any
*

*> 2-digit numbers. But what will that -do-?
*

*>
*

*> God I'm still on base 3. 4096 = 12121201 in base 3. By rule 1 we can say
*

*> (1+2+1+2)-(1+2+1) and get another 2. By some other damn old rule we could
*

*> say ie (2+2+2)-(1+1+1+1) and still get 2, ok. Or (2+2+2+1)-(1+1+1) and get
*

*> 4. Or (2+2+2+1+1+1)-1 and get 8, another power of two. OOPS
*

*>
*

*> But you cannot say 0. So rule 1 gets another 2 instead, three zeroes after
*

*> the last one. So who cares? I'm really interested in what rule 2 will say
*

*> after that "10". 1+2+1+2+1+2+1-0 = 10. No it says 10 again. Ok.
*

*>
*

*> 8192 = 102020102 . Rule 1 can't make a zero the lowest number it can make is
*

*> another 2. Rule 2 adds em all up and we get ... an 8. 16384 = 211110211.
*

*> Rule 1 goes "5-4" and gets a 1. Rule 2 goes 2+1+1+1+1+2+1+1, another 10. 101
*

*> in trinary. Just realized I'm looking at these in decimal, "wrongly". I'll
*

*> make a copy of the trinary chart showing it in that too. OK
*

*>
*

*> I've decided it doesn't spell anything in trinary. I'll try it in base 5
*

*> then give up for now
*

*>
*

*> Base 5: 1 2 4 [4/2] [4/2] [4/2/0] [8/4/0] [4/2] [4/2/0] [8/4/0] [8/6/4/2/0]
*

*>
*

*> Wow that was pretty cool. Look how the sums of the digits all different
*

*> ways, adding and subtracting them from each other, are always powers of 2
*

*> somehow. I mingled the digits every way I could think of up to 1024. 0 is
*

*> the only non power of two you see til you get that 6 which you get by adding
*

*> 1 to 4 and 4 to get 9 and removing 3, weirdly. Oh shit I better represent it
*

*> in base 5 too. Though I don't think it does say anything, even in that. In
*

*> decimal though it says "512" (!) so it should say something in base 5 too.
*

*> Here it is again...
*

*>
*

*> Base 5: 1 2 4 [4/2] [4/2] [4/2/0] [13/4/0] [4/2] [4/2/0] [13/4/0] [13/6/4/2/0]
*

*>
*

*> Dunno. OK. So for base 5 we could just take the low ones and say
*

*> 12422002000. That doesn't spell anything. The next one the lowest number you
*

*> can get is 2 not 0 so now we can see 20020002. Maybe it continues 00002
*

*> 0000002. Then it's kind of funny that it starts with 22. Ah. WE DON'T KNOW.
*

*>
*

*> Spelling it with the high ones it's
*

*>
*

*> 1 2 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 8 8
*

*>
*

*> Eh
*

*>
*

*> I've probably bored you all. The juicy bit is at the top, what this does in
*

*> decimal (especially), binary, octal and hex. Well. OK. I will try base 20,
*

*> though.
*

*>
*

*> So 32 (in base 20) is C1, C - 1 is B. Uh
*

*>
*

*> 64 is 34 and becomes 4 - 3 = 1. B1
*

*>
*

*> 128 = 68, 8 - 6 = 2. B12
*

*>
*

*> 256 = CG... G - C = 4. B124
*

*>
*

*> 512 = 15C ... C - (5+1) = 6. B1246. Or if we say C+5, 17, -1, we get 16,
*

*> wow. Of course we could add them together to get 18 but why. At least it has
*

*> one and eight not a lousy six.
*

*>
*

*> 1024 = 2B4... B - (2+4) = 5. B12465. -or- (B+4) - 2 = 13; or (B+2) - 4 = 9,
*

*> who cares
*

*>
*

*> 2048 = 528... 5+8 - 2 = 11... uh-oh another weird 11. Can't (2+5)-8.
*

*> (8+2)-5=3. So you can say eleven or three. Or five or nine.
*

*>
*

*> 4096, A4G, ... well... In decimal they seem to go,
*

*>
*

*> Base 20: 1 2 4 8 16 12 1 2 4 [18/16/6] [15/11/3] [15/13/5/9] [31/23/3]
*

*>
*

*> Notice I spelled the "B" 12 up there and the next thing it prints is a "12",
*

*> 1 and 2. Pretty cute. But I'm not totally sure. Well
*

*>
*

*> Listen. I better go
*

*>
*

*> flamoot
*

**Next message:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Previous message:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**In reply to:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Next in thread:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Reply:**Eric Burton: "[sl4] Re: Math: It's like in Contact the book not the movie"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:06 MDT
*