Show older

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.

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.

Follow

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.

Boring Math (11.0) 

And just as I say that I get rekt by 78

Boring Math (11.0) 

78 is practical:

1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 26 | 39 | 78 (8 divisors)

Boring Math (11.0) 

Aww yee:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comple

Which leads to an interesting sequence:

oeis.org/A203074

I still want to figure out a sequence containing 78 specifically.

Boring Math (11.0) 

This references arxiv.org/abs/1405.2585

Which seems to have a mention of the maximal ratio (and it may be unbounded?)

Boring Math (11.0) 

Table[(2*n)*Boole[Max[Ratios[Divisors[(2*n)]]] > 2 and not isprime(n)]], n=1 to 200

Which leads me to

oeis.org/A317412

Boring Math (11.0) 

I'm curious about:

72-80 & 81 -- 3
81*(9/2) -- 33/2
81*9 -- 63

For

oeis.org/A317412

Boring Math (11.0) 

Not great rn, but:

Table[n^n+1], n=0 to 9

-->

factor { 2, 5, 28, 257, 3126, 46657, 823544, 16777217, 387420490}

Where I'm curious about 5 & 257 as Fermat primes.

This makes me curious about the neighboring 2, 28, 3126

2 = 2*1
28 = 4*7
3126 = 6*521

Boring Math (11.0) 

I started thinking about this because I was comparing primes to practical numbers and noticed the first major difference was the gap between primes 23 & 29 where there are two practical numbers (i.e. 24 & 28).

I also was particulary curious about comparing 8 (practical) to 11 (prime).

Boring Math (11.0) 

But n^n + 1 where n=2*k + 1 (i.e. odd) is interesting because it seems to result in a multiplier of 2*k + 2.

Boring Math (11.0) 

This leads to

Table[((n)^(n)+1)/(n+1)], n=0 to 26

-->

{Indeterminate, 1, 5/3, 7, 257/5, 521, 46657/7, 102943, 16777217/9, 38742049, 10000000001/11, 23775972551, 8916100448257/13, 21633936185161 ...}

Boring Math (11.0) 

One of these numbers looks familiar:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-HN_ICa

46657/7 versus 420514/7

The ratio 420514 / 46657 = 9.01288...

420514 - 9*46657 = 601 = prime(11*10)

Boring Math (11.0) 

1367 ~= (521*(3/2 + sqrt(5)/2) + 3)

Boring Math (11.0) 

Of interest:

(2 (17 - 3))/(3 + sqrt(5))
(2 (251 - 3))/(3 + sqrt(5))

Which have numerators that resolve to 28 & 496 (both perfect numbers).

Notably, 6 maps onto 6, but it isn't prime so it's not an "Ibrishimova number".

Boring Math (11.0) 

There's two elements with sub-2 ratios:

Round[sigma(n*2 - 6)/(n*2 - 6), .000001], n=5
Round[sigma(n*2 - 6)/(n*2 - 6), .000001], n=61

7/4
105/58 = (3*5*7)/(2*29)

Boring Math (11.0) 

sigma(n*2 - 6)/(n*2 - 6), n=283

-->

(3*31)/(5*7)

Boring Math (11.0) 

The best way to find the center of the 4 is not a 4-way average (mean or geometric average), but finding the middle two of the 4 and then doing that:

((sigma(13*2 - 6)/(13*2 - 6)) + (sigma(1367*2 - 6)/(1367*2 - 6)))*(1/2)

((sigma(13*2 - 6)/(13*2 - 6)) * (sigma(1367*2 - 6)/(1367*2 - 6)))^(1/2)

2.105715 ~= (23/14)^(3/2) ?

Boring Math (11.0) 

If you add these ratios, except 283, the sum is about 16.01. 283 has a ratio of about 2.65, and the ratio between these two values is about 6.

Not sure if it's meaningful.

Show newer
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Gamedev Mastodon

Mastodon server focused on game development and related topics.