[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Representations of Pi, etc.
[email protected] (Timothy C. May) wrote:
>I didn't see this result you mention, but it surprises me. The part about
>how it works in some bases, but not in decimal.
>
>The "hand-waving" (motivational/informal) explanation for why I am
>surprised is that "Nature doesn't care about bipeds with 10 digits vs.
>bipeds, or whatever, with 2 digits or 16 digits." That is, results
>applicable in base 16, hexadecimal, should be easily applicable in base 10.
Since we're talking about digits rather than numbers, I can see why base to
some power of 2 might turn out to be significant. The trivial base 2 or 16
to base 10 conversion isn't useful if you're working with a single digit. A
well, its fruitless to guess without looking at the result. Let me close by
saying that in decimal notation, not a single digit of Klarner's Konstant
is known. Not really relevant, but its as close a chance as I get to
mentioning my research. :-)
Dietrich J. Kappe | Web Publishing: http://www.redweb.com
Red Planet, L.L.C. | Chess Space: http://www.redweb.com/chess
1-800-RED 0 WEB | MS Access: http://www.redweb.com/cobre
[email protected] | Comics: http://www.redweb.com/wraithspace