Turtle Posted March 6, 2005 Report Posted March 6, 2005 ___I intend to self-promote here soon enough, but in the mean time I direct the discussion to number theory discoveries in general. Moreover, I wish to draw attention to the idea that many of the discoveries in Number Theory come from "ameteurs". Maybe a better phrase is 'non-professionals'.___The distinction I intend here is whether or not an enthusiast of Number Theory makes a living by math or not; whether they have a position or standing in acedemia or not. ___When it happens that a person without standing, without 'hand', makes a discovery in NumberTheory, the struggle to bring said discovery to light is daunting. Firstly, any such discovery which is truly "deep' shall we say, can only be evaluated by equivalently deep minds. Secondly, such deep minds have their own concerns & motivations in regard to their own discoveries & advances & so have a disinclination to affirm the discoveries of others.___Enter Hypography. Here, anyone may adduce a discovery or idea while circumventing the prejudice of acedameditions in putting forward discoveries to the world at large. That is to say, with Hypography, new discoveries (Number Theory discoveries or otherwise) may forgo the prejudices of acedemia & immediately confront the challenge of sharp minds at large in the World.___That said, I invite you to comment on your own discoveries or comment on mine.(look for threads started by Turtle in Physiucs & Math)
Turtle Posted March 7, 2005 Author Report Posted March 7, 2005 ___I did a search (Googel I think) using the title of this thread today.Here is a link to a 'newest' discovery.http://prime.haugk.co.uk/25964951.htm ___Still, primes are nothing new. I want something new. :Alien:
C1ay Posted March 7, 2005 Report Posted March 7, 2005 I have participated in GIMPS myself from time to time.
Turtle Posted March 7, 2005 Author Report Posted March 7, 2005 ___I like the distributed processing idea; cooperation in spite of differences in the pursuit of knowledge. Not to mention that no one can do these things on their own.___I proposed this approach in the Strange Numbers thread, ie. distributed processing to look for the next anomolous Strange Number. I already know I can't do it myself, at least not in this lifetime. The difficulty then lies in the subject of this thread; how to interest others in participating.___By the way C1ay, thanks for all you interest & input regarding my math posts. It is exactly what I hoped to find here at Tormod & Company's Hypography. Already new insights abound. :Alien:
Turtle Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Posted March 8, 2005 Eureka! What a coinkydink; over in the thread Big R, Qwfwq has cooperatively pitched in his time & inadvertantly on purpose discovered the largest anomolous Strange Number known.The number is... 33,501,184 It is abundant by 12 (the very definition of 'Strange'), but is anomolous because it does not have 8 divisors & it does not divide by the perfect number 6. The number has 26 divisors & Q found it with a 'recipe' for Thin Numbers. See his description in thread Big R. The game is afoot! :confused:
Recommended Posts