The Lurker Lounge Forums
One for the math nerds. - Printable Version

+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: One for the math nerds. (/thread-4615.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

One for the math nerds. - Doc - 03-28-2006

Griselda,Mar 27 2006, 07:12 PM Wrote:What I mean is that usually when people want to be part of a discussion where many people contribute topics of discussion, they visit a forum.  When people want to be in charge of most or all of the topics of discussion, they have a blog.
[right][snapback]105596[/snapback][/right]

Gris, er, people are contributing to this discussion, and by all accounts, it is shaping up to be a great lounge topic.

As for being in charge, are you offering me a mod spot?

One for the math nerds. - Jack - 03-28-2006

I couldn't resist registering just for this. An algorithm for computing decimal digits of pi does exist, and indeed extends to many other irrational constants as well:

http://www.lacim.uqam.ca/%7Eplouffe/Simon/articlepi.html

Oh, and hello loungers. I've been lurking for an inordinate amount of time so I suppose I had to register/post eventually!

Cheers

SwissMercenary,Mar 28 2006, 07:17 AM Wrote:Which, is unfortunately, not good enough for a proof.  ;) It may very well be an unprovable (And naturally, undisprovable) claim, for all we know.
[right][snapback]105619[/snapback][/right]


One for the math nerds. - Doc - 03-28-2006

Ah, my post got somebody to register and contribute to our growth. Howdy, how you doing, welcome, glad to have you here, etc.

The reason I posted so much on Monday was that the Lounge was practically dead over the weekend, and wanted to make sure there was plenty to talk about come Monday so those of us slaving away at a desk would have some small hope of an interesting day.

The only reason I posted this at all was the tie in with 42. :D

One for the math nerds. - Occhidiangela - 03-28-2006

Jack,Mar 28 2006, 06:54 AM Wrote:Oh, and hello loungers. I've been lurking for an inordinate amount of time so I suppose I had to register/post eventually!
[right][snapback]105639[/snapback][/right]
Hail, and well met, Jack! Care for a Guinness?

Occhi

One for the math nerds. - Griselda - 03-28-2006

Doc,Mar 28 2006, 05:50 AM Wrote:Gris, er, people are contributing to this discussion, and by all accounts, it is shaping up to be a great lounge topic.

As for being in charge, are you offering me a mod spot?
[right][snapback]105638[/snapback][/right]

I picked this topic because it was a fairly benign one and it would be clear that I wasn't trying to complain about the subject matter. Yes, people are responding to your threads. It's just that you create so many topics that you're pretty much the only show in town these days.

Now, we're small enough and quiet enough that I don't know how much discussion we'd have otherwise. But, it seems to me that no one person should dominate the discussion on any forum.

I got a private message from somebody who worded this much less diplomatically. It was from somebody who would post more if you posted less. So, It's not just my own personal opinion that I'm going on here.

I wasn't just trying to be diplomatic about the blog. What makes somebody an overbearing forum member is exactly what would make them a good blogger. You wouldn't have to worry about your language or subject matter, for example. The more you posted, the more people would find the time to stop by and read what you had to say. Plus, there's comment sections where discussions could take place.

There are people who are really interested in the threads you create and what you have to say. Some of them have posted already to this thread. But, I feel like you're drowning out discussion here on the Lounge, and I'd like you to keep that in mind.

One for the math nerds. - Doc - 03-28-2006

Griselda,Mar 28 2006, 11:13 AM Wrote:I picked this topic because it was a fairly benign one and it would be clear that I wasn't trying to complain about the subject matter.  Yes, people are responding to your threads.  It's just that you create so many topics that you're pretty much the only show in town these days.

Now, we're small enough and quiet enough that I don't know how much discussion we'd have otherwise.  But, it seems to me that no one person should dominate the discussion on any forum.

I got a private message from somebody who worded this much less diplomatically.  It was from somebody who would post more if you posted less.  So, It's not just my own personal opinion that I'm going on here.

I wasn't just trying to be diplomatic about the blog.  What makes somebody an overbearing forum member is exactly what would make them a good blogger.  You wouldn't have to worry about your language or subject matter, for example.  The more you posted, the more people would find the time to stop by and read what you had to say.  Plus, there's comment sections where discussions could take place.

There are people who are really interested in the threads you create and what you have to say.  Some of them have posted already to this thread.  But, I feel like you're drowning out discussion here on the Lounge, and I'd like you to keep that in mind.
[right][snapback]105654[/snapback][/right]

Drowning out? Sorry, bollocks.

I average 1.6 posts a day. Just looked. A very small % of total posts to the Lounge. Out of our active members, all of you know who you are, my numbers are practically sedate in comparison. I have a long way to go and would need to make a lot more posts if I wanted to play catchup with a couple of folk here. I fail to see you publicly saying that the people way ahead of me in the numbers game are "drowning out" the forum.

Sorry, but the numbers, the facts, do not support your claim.



One for the math nerds. - ShadowHM - 03-28-2006

Doc,Mar 28 2006, 11:33 AM Wrote:Drowning out? Sorry, bollocks.

Now that was a rather undiplomatic response to a diplomatic suggestion by a Forum Administrator. :( A Forum Administrator, I must add, that we all respect and admire. :wub:

Quote:I average 1.6 posts a day. Just looked. A very small % of total posts to the Lounge. Out of our active members, all of you know who you are, my numbers are practically sedate in comparison. I have a long way to go and would need to make a lot more posts if I wanted to play catchup with a couple of folk here. I fail to see you publicly saying that the people way ahead of me in the numbers game are "drowning out" the forum.

Sorry, but the numbers, the facts, do not support your claim.
[right][snapback]105660[/snapback][/right]

Irrelevant. This is not a court of law. And I do not think Griselda was referring to 'history'. She was telling you what she sees right now.

Please don't shove your foot in your mouth any deeper. :( I am already wondering how you wedged it in that deep in the first place.





One for the math nerds. - SwissMercenary - 03-28-2006

Crusader,Mar 28 2006, 09:59 AM Wrote:Fascinating. This may prove to become an important breakthrough in quantum mechanics if it can be applied to determining the position of subatomic particles in relation to each other at any given moment of time (something that has been eluding mankind up to this point). Also, a formula to determine ALL primes is comething methematicians have dreamed off for ages. Physics & maths rejoice!
[right][snapback]105634[/snapback][/right]

If such a formula could be determined, would that mean that there would be a pattern to the madness of the entire 'There's only a probability that the particle is there' thing? If so, would that imply that we very well could be living in a 100% deterministic universe? (Divine intervention aside) Please pardon my ignorance on the subject.

One for the math nerds. - LemmingofGlory - 03-28-2006

Hi,

Pete,Mar 27 2006, 06:32 PM Wrote:No.  All bases are isomorphic.  Anything done in one can be done in any other.  Sometimes a given base is more useful because of the underlying problem (e.g., binary for logic) but most of the time it really doesn't matter.  For example, pi is transcendental in all bases (except, of course, base pi ;) ).

Transcendence has nothing to do with number base. To say that something is transcendental is to say that it is never the zero of a polynomial with coefficients from some field. Pi is transcendental over Q, because it is never the zero of an element of Q[x] (the set of polynomials with rational coefficients). It is not transcendental over R or C, because (x - pi) is an element of R[x] and C[x].

-Lemmy

One for the math nerds. - Occhidiangela - 03-28-2006

Doc,Mar 28 2006, 10:33 AM Wrote:Drowning out? Sorry, bollocks.

I average 1.6 posts a day. Just looked.

Sorry, but the numbers, the facts, do not support your claim.
[right][snapback]105660[/snapback][/right]
Doc

Figures lie, and liars figure. Since 23 March, 2006, you have initiated 8 topics

In those topics, in the topics since then started by others, (the one about coffee drinkers,) you have posted 60 times.

That works out to about 10 posts per day. Your arithmetic stinks. I was going to go back 30 days, but I don't need to in order to show that you are full of beans. Maybe that is why your arithmetic stinks. :P

That wasn't even a nice try at insulting Gris' intelligence, or anyone else's who can differentiate between averages, trends, medians, and means.

May I suggest you take a voluntary seven day breather?

When Gris put Ghostiger on seven days leave recently, I voluntarily stood down for seven days, since I was part of the scuffle that got him into hot water with her. (I think I broke cover once.)

How about it, Doc?

Can you show more quality than you just demonstrated in your brusque response to a polite chiding by Gris?

Occhi

One for the math nerds. - Doc - 03-28-2006

[Image: picture19tt.gif]

[Image: picture20hg.gif]

[Image: picture37dr.gif]

Hrm, I was actually going by the numbers posted by the forum software. One is your profile, the other is mine.

And while I do post a lot, I am not the postess with the mostess.

Singling me out and saying I am "drowning out" others with to many posts and not offering the same kindness to others that post far more is just blatant hypocracy or favouritism. Take your choice.

Looks like the numbers do, in fact, support my earlier claims. My apologies for having to point this out.

I have spoke my piece, I'll go away now.

One for the math nerds. - jahcs - 03-28-2006

*impersonation of Rebel Pilot in Star Wars

"Stay on Topic...

...Stay on Topic."


This is the sort of thing I would like to see taken to PMs.

One for the math nerds. - Occhidiangela - 03-28-2006

jahcs,Mar 28 2006, 01:04 PM Wrote:*impersonation of Rebel Pilot in Star Wars

"Stay on Topic...

...Stay on Topic."
This is the sort of thing I would like to see taken to PMs.
[right][snapback]105680[/snapback][/right]
Right.

Hypothesis: Any thread with more 42 posts can be shown, statistically, to be a prime candidate for a Godwin event.

Secondary hypothesis: an algorithm exists that can predict how many posts it takes to induce a Godwin event, within three standard deviations, using the zeros of the prime series as the basis for determining the uncertainty threshold of Godwin onset.

Occhi

One for the math nerds. - Hammerskjold - 03-28-2006



Those are all great points. Web logs nowadays are fairly easy to set up. And Doc's style and frequency of postings suits blogs like peanut butter and chocolate.

But let's get real here. A much easier solution would be to rename the 'General Discussion' forum to 'Doc's Forum'. He earned at least that much for his hilarious joke of 'are you offering me a mod status?'

One for the math nerds. - Occhidiangela - 03-28-2006

Hammerskjold,Mar 28 2006, 03:19 PM Wrote:Those are all great points.  Web logs nowadays are fairly easy to set up.  And Doc's style and frequency of postings suits blogs like peanut butter and chocolate.

  But let's get real here.  A much easier solution would be to rename the 'General Discussion' forum to 'Doc's Forum'.  He earned at least that much for his hilarious joke of 'are you offering me a mod status?'
[right][snapback]105696[/snapback][/right]
Should I revise my hypothesis in order to have a better chance at a Doctoral degree?

Back to Prime numbers and quantum theory: if no one opens a post, how do we know if anyone actually made one?

Occhi

One for the math nerds. - Griselda - 03-29-2006

I'm not talking about your posting habits from 2003 on. I'm talking about your posting habits lately. Therefore, Occhi's numbers regarding the past 5 days are in fact more relevant than the numbers you cite.

I agree that you're not the only person here who posts a lot. Both Occhi and DeeBye seem to have some self awareness about that, and as a result I trust them to monitor themselves more often than not.

I don't get the same impression from you. That's why I singled you out, and that's why I will continue to single you out if I don't get the impression that you have taken my words to heart.

One for the math nerds. - Archon_Wing - 03-29-2006

Oh no! I've been knocked out from the l33t hall of fame. :P

But I don't know what you're arguing here. People aren't complaining about your posts overall; If you did indeed post too much for a long time, then you would have been notified about it a while ago. Of course, people are commenting about it now-- you should note that 7 of the topics in the front page are started about you.

Not that I care. :P



One for the math nerds. - Archon_Wing - 03-29-2006

I must respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, who starts a thread is irrelevant as long as useful discussion is generated. It's the people that respond that are more important. If Doc was creating spam threads, or irrelevant threads, or clogging the thread with irrelevant replies, then I could see a problem. If he also dominated the discussion (the thread is mostly him talking to himself) that would be bad too. I don't really see any of it.

It's just natural that some people will have more to say and others won't. It is the Lurker Lounge after all, and many people prefer to simply Lurk. It's not like Doc stops people from making threads. So is the problem him making too many threads, or other people choosing to make less threads?

Quote: I got a private message from somebody who worded this much less diplomatically. It was from somebody who would post more if you posted less. So, It's not just my own personal opinion that I'm going on here.

Ah so much conflict. Well, remember this forum does have an ignore feature. I'd also mention that if someone doesn't want to post just because I am posting a lot, I really wouldn't care. Can't we all just get along? ;) Seriously, I think it is petty that one would not talk because one has a grudge against a person. It's another case if someone's aggressive flaming prevents people from posting, but I don't see that either. If he makes stupid arguments or comments, then tear them apart. Isn't that fun anyways?

Well, of course, if this opinion is more widespread, then that is another issue.

Of all honesty, I really don't see the issue. Perhaps something is going on that I haven't noticed yet. This is only my 2 cents, peace. :)

One for the math nerds. - Chaerophon - 03-29-2006

I'm afraid that I agree with Archon. I'd rather have something to talk about (although I don't do much these days). I'm not sure that I'm a fan of posting whole articles and asking "any questions", but for the most part, if it succeeds in generating discussion, it was worth posting. If not, it will quickly find its way to the bottom of the page, and there's not a ton of harm in it. I'd say that Doc was still a ways away from "ruining" the forum... The subject matter was engaging, and people engaged it. Had his threads flopped, or had he continued bumping them, then it would be problematic.



Archon_Wing,Mar 28 2006, 08:11 PM Wrote:I must respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, who starts a thread is irrelevant as long as useful discussion is generated. It's the people that respond that are more important. If Doc was creating spam threads, or irrelevant threads, or clogging the thread with irrelevant replies, then I could see a problem. If he also dominated the discussion (the thread is mostly him talking to himself) that would be bad too. I don't really see any of it.

It's just natural that some people will have more to say and others won't. It is the Lurker Lounge after all, and many people prefer to simply Lurk. It's not like Doc stops people from making threads. So is the problem him making too many threads, or other people choosing to make less threads?
Ah so much conflict. Well, remember this forum does have an ignore feature. I'd also mention that if someone doesn't want to post just because I am posting a lot, I really wouldn't care. Can't we all just get along? ;) Seriously, I think it is petty that one would not talk because one has a grudge against a person. It's another case if someone's aggressive flaming prevents people from posting, but I don't see that either. If he makes stupid arguments or comments, then tear them apart. Isn't that fun anyways?

Well, of course, if this opinion is more widespread, then that is another issue.

Of all honesty, I really don't see the issue. Perhaps something is going on that I haven't noticed yet. This is only my 2 cents, peace. :)
[right][snapback]105758[/snapback][/right]


One for the math nerds. - Chaerophon - 03-29-2006

Two agreements with the same person in the same thread! A lurker record!

Archon_Wing,Mar 28 2006, 07:57 PM Wrote:Oh no! I've been knocked out from the l33t hall of fame. :P

But I don't know what you're arguing here. People aren't complaining about your posts overall; If you did indeed post too much for a long time, then you would have been notified about it a while ago. Of course, people are commenting about it now-- you should note that 7 of the topics in the front page are started about you.

Not that I care. :P
[right][snapback]105755[/snapback][/right]