Show older

Boring Math (11.0) 

I don't know if I mentioned I read this a week or so ago:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersen

It's certainly interesting.

Boring Math (11.0) 

{3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 61, 127}^2 - 6

The first 5 are prime, which I imagine would relate to the Fermat primes:

3 <-> 3
19 <-> 5
43 <-> 17
163 <-> 257
283 <-> 65537

Boring Math (11.0) 

This leaves

{3, 19, 43, 163, 283, 355, 955, 3715, 16123}

Multiples of 5: {71,191,743}
Multiple of 23: {701}

Boring Math (11.0) 

pi function({3,19,43,163,283,71,191,743,701})

-->

{2, 8, 14, 38, 61, 20, 43, 132, 126}

Which made me look at

2657 = (15/4)*prime(2^7 - 1) - 7/4

Boring Math (11.0) 

pi function({3,19,43,163,283,71,191,743,701})

-->

{2, 8, 14, 38, 61, 20, 43, 132, 126}

~=

{1, 9, 16, 36, 58, 22, 37, 127, 127}

Boring Math (11.0) 

sqrt(pi function({1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163}))

-->

{0, 1, 1.41421, 2, 2.23607, 2.82843, 3.74166, 4.3589, 6.16441}

Which may imply 1, 2, and 7 are special.

Boring Math (11.0) 

I have a theory that

2657/prime(7^2-7/4) ~= 12

When extrapolating / interpolating

Boring Math (11.0) 

Oh, cool, I forgot this is essentially solvable and I'm correct- ish:

2657/prime(7^2-7/4) ~= 12

prime(7^2-7/4) ~= 2657/12

7^2-7/4 ~= pi function(2657/12)

And

7^2-2 = pi function(2657/12)

Boring Math (11.0) 

prime(23)*x = 2657

--> x~=32

prime(24)*x = 2657

--> x~=30

Boring Math (11.0) 

The prior was based on:

(3^2-1) = pi function(2657/120)
(7^2-2) = pi function(2657/12)

And made me curious about

15 = 3*5
31 ~= 3^(3/2)*6
63 = 3^2*7

Boring Math (11.0) 

sqrt(pi function({1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163}))

-->

{0, 1, sqrt(2), 2, sqrt(5), sqrt(8), sqrt(14), sqrt(19), sqrt(38)}

{0, 1, 2}

sqrt({5, 8}) --> 4 + 1, 9 - 1; (8 - 5) + 1 = 4, (8 + 5) + 3 = 16

sqrt({2, 19}) --> ?

sqrt({14, 38}) --> 16 - 2, 36 + 2; (38 - 14) + 1 = 25, (38 + 14) - 3 = 49

Boring Math (11.0) 

2+19 = 22 - 1
2*19 = 37 + 1
2<*>19 ?= 58 // can't find an operator

Boring Math (11.0) 

19*2^e ~= 5^3
19*2^pi ~= 13^2

Boring Math (11.0) 

(19*2^pi - 13^2)/(19*2^e - 5^3) ~= -36

Boring Math (11.0) 

This made me curious about:

(7)^(23/9) ~= 12^2

Which has interesting complex roots as well.

Boring Math (11.0) 

I just realized

19*2^((e+pi)/2) ~= 144.79...
19*2^((e*pi)^.5) ~= 144.02...

So it checks out pretty well with the previous idea.

Boring Math (11.0) 

(19^2 + 2)/3 = 11^2
(12^2 + 1/2)*2 = 17^2

Which I'm gonna try to relate back to 12 & 19 in music theory.

Boring Math (11.0) 

((15.5^2)*(2/3))-14^2 ~= -36

Boring Math (11.0) 

(36 - (19*2^pi - 13^2)/(19*2^e - 5^3))/6 ~= 12

Boring Math (11.0) 

2657 = 2000*2^(-e + π) - 5^2

Boring Math (11.0) 

For the above, the values are essentially 11^2 + epsilon & (17/2)^2 + epsilon, which sort of relates back to:

(19^2 + 2)/3 = 11^2
(12^2 + 1/2)*2 = 17^2

Boring Math (11.0) 

factor 14^4-prime(3^4) --> 37997
factor 15^4-prime(6^4) --> 39998 = 2*7*2857

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm curious about:

28,30,34,43,67,163,953...

Which is based on

floor(sqrt(k*28)), k=163

Exploration is like:

floor(sqrt(k*28)), k=32437
floor(sqrt(k*28)), k=32504

primes near 32470 (7 candidates)

Boring Math (11.0) 

a(n+1) = floor(sqrt(a(n)*163)), a(0)=28

n | a(n)
0 | 28
1 | 67
2 | 104
3 | 130
4 | 145
5 | 153
6 | 157
7 | 159
8 | 160
9 | 161

Where 67, 130, 145, 157 are of interest to me, particularly in the context of

math.stackexchange.com/questio

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm thinking 145 & 34 are the relevant ones here:

(6^2 - 2)/2 = 17
(12^2 + 1/2)*2 = 17^2

Which may imply 17 is relevant to music theory.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/34_equ

Boring Math (11.0) 

So I'm thinking 72, 77, 80 is relevant here, for:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/34_equ

9^2, 80 for 12 notes
5^2, 24/"72" for 17 notes

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm thinking about oeis.org/A107360

{3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 61, 127 }

2^n - 3 = p --> {3, 4, 6} | {5, 13, 61}
2^n - 1 = p --> {2, 3, 5, 7} | {3, 7, 31, 127}
2^n + 1 = p --> {1, 2, 4} | {3, 5, 17}
2^n + 3 = p --> {-inf, 1, 2, 4} | {3, 5, 7, 19}

3 occurs 3x
5 occurs 3x
7 occurs 2x
All other terms occur 1x

Boring Math (11.0) 

Another aggregation:

2 happens 3x
4 happens 3x
1 happens 2x
3 happens 2x
All others -inf, 5-7 happen 1x

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm looking at

2^({1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 28, 30, 32, 36, 40, 42, 48, 54, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 78, 80, 84, 88, 90, 96, 100, 104, 108, 112, 120, 126, 128, 132, 140, 144, 150}+2) - 3 (practical numbers)

Example:

factor {5, 13, 61, 253, 1021, 16381, 262141, 1048573, 4194301, 67108861, 1073741821, 4294967293, 17179869181, 274877906941, 4398046511101, 17592186044413, 1125899906842621, 72057594037927933}

Prime for

{5, 13, 61, 1021, 16381, 1048573, 4194301}

Boring Math (11.0) 

It looks like practical numbers may not be relevant, based on

Table[(n-2)*Boole[isprime(2^n - 3)]], n= 2 to 1000

Boring Math (11.0) 

I was looking at

"3, 4, 6 -seq:7 -seq:9 -seq:11 -seq:13 -seq:15" on oeis.org

And realized the 3, 4, 6... may just be prime(n) + 1

Boring Math (11.0) 

There's two features in this picture that interest me:

grantjenks.com/wiki/_detail/pr

One is at coordinate (165, 363), the other is at (318, 477), which may essentially be related to the Heegner number 163 (& 2*163).

Boring Math (11.0) 

You can draw a 45 degree angle and find another feature of interest at (250, 450) -- that's my estimate based on the features at (240, 422) & (254, 437):

This makes me interested in prime(54), and prime(38) / prime(70).

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm leaning towards 163, 251, 342 now.

Follow

Boring Math (11.0) 

Now I'm leaning towards 163, 251, 339:

This image shows a line that essentially is supposed to represent 339 at location (338, 367):

Boring Math (11.0) 

For the above image, you can't see the bottom right of the line segment, but it seems to have 5/20 pixels to the left, unlike the other one which is a 50:50 split.

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm a little interested in:

prime(20)*e ~= 193
prime(30)*pi ~= 355 = 5*prime(20)

Boring Math (11.0) 

(339+71)/(5/2) = 163+1 = 41*4

Boring Math (11.0) 

So if sigma(n) < 2*n - 1 (powers of 2), I think n cannot be a practical number. I'm curious if there is an upper limit where n must be a practical number.

Creating code isn't that hard, although sigma and practical numbers are obscure-ish.

Boring Math (11.0) 

from itertools import chain, cycle, accumulate, combinations
from typing import List, Tuple

# %% Factors

def factors5(n: int) -> List[int]:
"""Factors of n, (but not n)."""
def prime_powers(n):
# c goes through 2, 3, 5, then the infinite (6n+1, 6n+5) series
for c in accumulate(chain([2, 1, 2], cycle([2,4]))):
if c*c > n: break
if n%c: continue
d,p = (), c
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...

while not n%c:
n,p,d = n//c, p*c, d + (p,)
yield(d)
if n > 1: yield((n,))

r = [1]
for e in prime_powers(n):
r += [a*b for a in r for b in e]
return r[:-1]

# %% Powerset

def powerset(s: List[int]) -> List[Tuple[int, ...]]:
"""powerset([1,2,3]) --> () (1,) (2,) (3,) (1,2) (1,3) (2,3) (1,2,3) ."""
return chain.from_iterable(combinations(s, r) for r in range(1, len(s)+1))
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...

# %% Practical number

def is_practical(x: int) -> bool:
"""Practical number test with factor reverse sort and short-circuiting."""

if x == 1:
return True
if x % 2:
return False # No Odd number more than 1
mult_4_or_6 = (x % 4 == 0) or (x % 6 == 0)
if x > 2 and not mult_4_or_6:
return False # If > 2 then must be a divisor of 4 or 6
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...

f = sorted(factors5(x), reverse=True)
if sum(f) < x - 1:
return False # Never get x-1
ps = powerset(f)

found = set()
for nps in ps:
if len(found) < x - 1:
y = sum(nps)
if 1 <= y < x:
found.add(y)
else:
break # Short-circuiting the loop.

return len(found) == x - 1
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...


if __name__ == '__main__':
highest_practical = 1
lowest_practical = 1
highest_nonpractical = 1
lowest_nonpractical = 1

highest_practical_value = 0
lowest_practical_value = 1e10
highest_nonpractical_value = 0
lowest_nonpractical_value = 1e10
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...

max = 3000
for x in range(1, max + 1):
normalized_sigma_value = sigma(x, 1)/x
if is_practical(x):
if normalized_sigma_value < lowest_practical_value:
lowest_practical = x
lowest_practical_value = normalized_sigma_value
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...
elif normalized_sigma_value > highest_practical_value:
highest_practical = x
highest_practical_value = normalized_sigma_value
else:
normalized_sigma_value = sigma(x, 1)/x
if normalized_sigma_value < lowest_nonpractical_value:
lowest_nonpractical = x
lowest_nonpractical_value = normalized_sigma_value
...

Boring Math (11.0) 

...
elif normalized_sigma_value > highest_nonpractical_value:
highest_nonpractical = x
highest_nonpractical_value = normalized_sigma_value

print(lowest_practical, " (", float(lowest_practical_value), ") - ", highest_practical, " (", float(highest_practical_value), ")")
print(lowest_nonpractical, " (", float(lowest_nonpractical_value), ") - ", highest_nonpractical, " (", float(highest_nonpractical_value), ")")

Boring Math (11.0) 

Oh, right, the output is:

1 ( 1.0 ) - 2520 ( 3.7142857142857144 )
2999 ( 1.0003334444814937 ) - 1608 ( 2.537313432835821 )

Basically, the lower values (both near 1) are uninteresting.

The upper values seem to increase without bound, but maybe the ratio between them is predictable. highest_nonpractical_value may have a strict bound, but I need to get a more efficient algorithm set to figure that out.

Boring Math (11.0) 

I forgot to paste some modifications from yesterday (mostly after midnight):

Looking at records over time. I think I'm interested in the narrow band starting at the perfect numbers and going up to a factor of 2 of the upper limit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisor_

Boring Math (11.0) 

Essentially this means I'm looking for a modified definition of practical numbers that excludes powers of 2 and the most composite practical numbers. I'm wondering what the density of this set of numbers is compared to the primes, and also wondering if I can e.g. construct a 1:1 relationship between primes and "modified practical numbers".

Boring Math (11.0) 

Using e**(log(sigma(v, 1))/(log(v)*log(log(v)))):

The values seem to approach ~7/4 and 1/2. think the 1/2 is exact based on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisor_

But I'm not sure about the other one.

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm wayyy off lol:

oeis.org/A335030

e**(log(sigma(52307529120))/(log(52307529120)*log(log(52307529120)))) ~= 1.39127

Boring Math (11.0) 

I was trying to consider practical numbers where the negative sign could be used e.g.:

1
3-1
3
3+1
9-3-1
9-3
9-3+1
9-1
9

Notably, there is a common math question related to base-3 and a balance scale.

Which likely results in the sequence:

oeis.org/A196149

Although it's still possible there are exceptions.

Boring Math (11.0) 

This helped me realize a useful property / algorithm optimization of practical numbers:

Divisors of practical numbers seem to increase by at most a factor of 2. I think this is necessary, but I'm not sure if it is sufficient.

Show newer
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Gamedev Mastodon

Mastodon server focused on game development and related topics.