I personally can usually recognise 2^n numbers, if you spend any time studying maths or comp sci you use them often enough that they get ingrained into your mind to some degree.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Welcome Tom!
- Thread starter Doctor Q
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I personally can usually recognise 2^n numbers, if you spend any time studying maths or comp sci you use them often enough that they get ingrained into your mind to some degree.
Why was the sequel to that movie named Cube 2? It should have been Cube^3 or maybe Fourth Power. I think Cube 2 sounds like somebody projected the cube into a 2D square.I want you guys on my side if I ever wake up inside any cube-shaped rooms.
If you represent them in a base that's a power of 2, they are even easier to recognize!
It's coming up on 2 months since we last checked on member 262144 (packerfan43042). He/she has been visiting MacRumors, as recently as this week, but has still not posted. Therefore, my prediction (about members 2 through infinity) has now held up for 3 years. It's just more evidence of Occam's Razor.
In other math news, Math in Your Feet is coming to a preschool near you! I support this effort to indoctrinate little minds just as they are forming critical synapses that will determine whether or not they can balance their checkbook decades later.
all this math talk is making my head spin...So Q have fun with your numbers..
i'm off to rant about the powerbook g5
i'm off to rant about the powerbook g5
I have to admit that I've made a mistake. Member #2 posted for the first time today, after 8 years without posting! Clearly, my ridiculous theory about primeness of minuends of binary logarithms wasn't correct. What was I thinking?
Luckily, I have a new theory that is no less elegant. For a positive-power-of-two member number 2^L, the user will post if and only if glue(L,L+6) is prime, where "glue" concatenates two numbers together.
Let's test:
member #2 = 2^1: L=1, L+6=7, 17 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #4 = 2^2: L=2, L+6=8, 28 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8 = 2^3: L=3, L+6=9, 39 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #16 = 2^4: L=4, L+6=10, 410 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32 = 2^5: L=5, L+6=11, 511 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #64 = 2^6: L=6, L+6=12, 612 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #128 = 2^7: L=7, L+6=13, 713 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #256 = 2^8: L=8, L+6=14, 814 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #512 = 2^9: L=9, L+6=15, 915 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #1024 = 2^10: L=10, L+6=16, 1016 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #2048 = 2^11: L=11, L+6=17, 1117 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #4096 = 2^12: L=12, L+6=18, 1218 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8192 = 2^13: L=13, L+6=19, 1319 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #16384 = 2^14: L=14, L+6=20, 1420 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32768 = 2^15: L=15, L+6=21, 1521 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #65536 = 2^16: L=16, L+6=22, 1622 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #131072 = 2^17: L=17, L+6=23, 1723 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #262144 = 2^18: L=18, L+6=24, 1824 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #524288 = 2^19: L=19, L+6=25, 1925 not prime, user will not post - yet to be tested
member #1048576 = 2^20: L=20, L+6=26, 2026 not prime, user will not post - yet to be tested
If you don't like my English description of the glue function, you can use this mathematical version of my theorem instead:
Luckily, I have a new theory that is no less elegant. For a positive-power-of-two member number 2^L, the user will post if and only if glue(L,L+6) is prime, where "glue" concatenates two numbers together.
Let's test:
member #2 = 2^1: L=1, L+6=7, 17 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #4 = 2^2: L=2, L+6=8, 28 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8 = 2^3: L=3, L+6=9, 39 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #16 = 2^4: L=4, L+6=10, 410 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32 = 2^5: L=5, L+6=11, 511 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #64 = 2^6: L=6, L+6=12, 612 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #128 = 2^7: L=7, L+6=13, 713 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #256 = 2^8: L=8, L+6=14, 814 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #512 = 2^9: L=9, L+6=15, 915 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #1024 = 2^10: L=10, L+6=16, 1016 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #2048 = 2^11: L=11, L+6=17, 1117 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #4096 = 2^12: L=12, L+6=18, 1218 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8192 = 2^13: L=13, L+6=19, 1319 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #16384 = 2^14: L=14, L+6=20, 1420 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32768 = 2^15: L=15, L+6=21, 1521 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #65536 = 2^16: L=16, L+6=22, 1622 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #131072 = 2^17: L=17, L+6=23, 1723 is prime, user will post - confirmed!
member #262144 = 2^18: L=18, L+6=24, 1824 not prime, user will not post - confirmed!
member #524288 = 2^19: L=19, L+6=25, 1925 not prime, user will not post - yet to be tested
member #1048576 = 2^20: L=20, L+6=26, 2026 not prime, user will not post - yet to be tested
If you don't like my English description of the glue function, you can use this mathematical version of my theorem instead:
member number 2^L posts iff L + 6 + (L x (10 ^ floor(1 + logbase10(L + 6)))) is prime
Wow! I guess the newly released Macs are really something to talk about.
Last edited:
My revised theory has failed. askfranklin, who is member #524288, joined last month and has posted. I'll have to go back to the drawing board.
I guess that's the nature of science. Using all available evidence, you postulate theories that fit the evidence, then test them against new evidence. You have to be willing to revise theories in the light of new discoveries.
I pity the poor abacus that's going to get this new theory thrust upon it. Get the tweezers ready 'cause you're gonna get some splinters!
Somehow I've happened upon this post for the last 2+ years. What are the odds of that? I had to post in it now just so I know I'll never miss it when it comes around again in another 2-3 years!
Somehow I've happened upon this post for the last 2+ years. What are the odds of that? I had to post in it now just so I know I'll never miss it when it comes around again in another 2-3 years!
Last edited:
This thread has given me a headache.
Don't you mean a nerdache?
I'm proud to be a geek but tracking this theory over what, 4 years now? is pretty hardcore.
Thank you. I prefer being a software/math nerd to being a hardware guru. I once helped replace the hard drive in an desk lamp iMac and it was so frightening that I decided to leave tricky Mac surgery to others and limit myself to changing the wireless mouse battery, which I'm proud to say I've almost mastered.
Sorry, that instruction covers a new installation only.
There is no step allowed to remove the old batteries.
This is the first time I read this thread and I thought of this...
Not going to lie. I thought he joined for a second there.
I came up with a new theory: For a positive-power-of-two member number 2^L, the user will post unless L and the number 210 are co-prime.
member #2 = 2^1: L=1, 1 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #4 = 2^2: L=2, 2 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8 = 2^3: L=3, 3 and 210 share divisor 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #16 = 2^4: L=4, 4 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32 = 2^5: L=5, 5 and 210 share divisor 5, user will not post - confirmed!
member #64 = 2^6: L=6, 6 and 210 share divisors 2 and 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #128 = 2^7: L=7, 7 and 210 share divisor 7, user will not post - confirmed!
member #256 = 2^8: L=8, 8 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #512 = 2^9: L=9, 9 and 210 share divisor 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #1024 = 2^10: L=10, 10 and 210 share divisors 2 and 5, user will not post - confirmed!
member #2048 = 2^11: L=11, 11 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #4096 = 2^12: L=12, 12 and 210 share divisors 2 and 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8192 = 2^13: L=13, 13 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #16384 = 2^14: L=14, 14 and 210 share divisors 2 and 7, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32768 = 2^15: L=15, 15 and 210 share divisors 3 and 5, user will not post - confirmed!
member #65536 = 2^16: L=16, 16 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #131072 = 2^17: L=17, 17 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #262144 = 2^18: L=18, 18 and 210 share divisors 2 and 3, user won't post - true as of the middle of last year (see note below)
member #524288 = 2^19: L=19, 19 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
Note: It turns out that packerfan43042 (user number 262144) made a post last October, so my new theory is obviously as worthless as my previous one.
Back to the drawing board.
In other words, the user will post if and only if L and 210 share no divisors except 1.
Let's test:member #2 = 2^1: L=1, 1 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #4 = 2^2: L=2, 2 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8 = 2^3: L=3, 3 and 210 share divisor 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #16 = 2^4: L=4, 4 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32 = 2^5: L=5, 5 and 210 share divisor 5, user will not post - confirmed!
member #64 = 2^6: L=6, 6 and 210 share divisors 2 and 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #128 = 2^7: L=7, 7 and 210 share divisor 7, user will not post - confirmed!
member #256 = 2^8: L=8, 8 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #512 = 2^9: L=9, 9 and 210 share divisor 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #1024 = 2^10: L=10, 10 and 210 share divisors 2 and 5, user will not post - confirmed!
member #2048 = 2^11: L=11, 11 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #4096 = 2^12: L=12, 12 and 210 share divisors 2 and 3, user will not post - confirmed!
member #8192 = 2^13: L=13, 13 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #16384 = 2^14: L=14, 14 and 210 share divisors 2 and 7, user will not post - confirmed!
member #32768 = 2^15: L=15, 15 and 210 share divisors 3 and 5, user will not post - confirmed!
member #65536 = 2^16: L=16, 16 and 210 share divisor 2, user will not post - confirmed!
member #131072 = 2^17: L=17, 17 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
member #262144 = 2^18: L=18, 18 and 210 share divisors 2 and 3, user won't post - true as of the middle of last year (see note below)
member #524288 = 2^19: L=19, 19 and 210 share only divisor 1, user will post - confirmed!
Note: It turns out that packerfan43042 (user number 262144) made a post last October, so my new theory is obviously as worthless as my previous one.
Back to the drawing board.
this thread is hilarious.
keep going Dr. Q i am sure the final formula is just behind the corner.
keep going Dr. Q i am sure the final formula is just behind the corner.
this thread is hilarious.
keep going Dr. Q i am sure the final formula is just behind the corner.
Maybe some help?
Wonder if Matt Damon is busy at the moment?
