Turtle Posted December 27, 2008 Report Posted December 27, 2008 (edited) . Edited September 21, 2013 by Turtle modest 1 Quote
belovelife Posted December 27, 2008 Report Posted December 27, 2008 i am unfamiliar with these could you define please Quote
Don Blazys Posted December 30, 2008 Report Posted December 30, 2008 Interesting. Now we have a palindromic pattern of last digits that is eleven digits long and does not contain 2, 6, 7 or 8. Don. Quote
Don Blazys Posted December 31, 2008 Report Posted December 31, 2008 The even exponents give us eight digit palindromic patterns while the odd exponents do not. That's "odd". The exponents (2 and 8), (3 and 9), and (4 and 10) result in the exact same patterns. That's "even odder". (I know... "even odder" is bad grammar... but I like the "play on words" and the way it sounds! Try saying it really fast four or five times in a row!) Quote
Qfwfq Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 it appears this length is "long" if the divisor is prime, and "short" if the divisor is composite.Methinks you're wanting to look up the topic of finite fields, in paticular of [imath]\mathbb{Z}_p[/imath] in comparison to any other [imath]\mathbb{Z}_n[/imath] (where [imath]p, n\in\mathbb{N}[/imath] but [imath]p[/imath] is also prime). The short shot is that, in the fields, 0 is the only divisor of 0... Turtle 1 Quote
Qfwfq Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 roger. will read up. is this a "solution" to the mystery, or rather symbology to represent it?Gosh, I'm not sure exactly how the problem is stated now. Quote
Qfwfq Posted November 11, 2010 Report Posted November 11, 2010 that lean versing prompts me to ask, "aren't the ranges of the katabatak/digital root function rings & not fields?", as we cannot sensibly divide the range elements by one-another.That is pretty much the point, [imath]\mathbb{Z}_n[/imath] is always a ring; a necessary and sufficient condition in order for it to also be a field is for [imath]n[/imath] to be prime. Quote
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 I Bump thee!Back from the near dead the greatest mathematical thread since Bucky Fulster!!!! Quote
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted December 13, 2012 Report Posted December 13, 2012 So much stuff missing here.....Oh well the missing bits still live here http://scienceforums.com/topic/1304-katabatak-math-an-exploration-in-pure-number-theory/ Quote
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted December 15, 2012 Report Posted December 15, 2012 For now anyway maintaining a link to the other thread for reference is no biggie...it opens in a new window so, for instance if one needs an explanation to what a katabatak is a link is not something that has to be chased down. Shame there's no way to cleanly and easily merge the two. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.