3 ms·
I wonder why the authors took the time to generate an image of their pattern but refrained from giving the actual DEFINITION. This does not foster constructive
by m00n 8y ago
I wonder why the authors took the time to generate an image of their pattern but refrained from giving the actual DEFINITION. This does not foster constructive discussion of any possible ideas present. As can be seen in dozens of well-meaning comments here, people waste time reversing and guestimating parameters etc.
Looking at the layman letters that my institute gets on a regular basis, I can say, that this is unfortunately a recurring theme with amateur mathematicians: They fail to state their basic definitions and assumptions and seem all to eager to dive right into applications, be it computer graphics, cryptography or finance.
More to the point: This picture seems from a cursory inspection to plot T(k,n) with n=row, k=column from the top left. But why is this interesting?
- andrepd 8y agoAs far as I could gather from one of the links in the article, the definition seems to be "cell n is black if there is a prime in the interval [Rn , R(n+1)[, for R a natural number". The "pattern" supposedly holds for R rows when displayed in a triangular arrangement, equivalently R^2/2 cells
- Recursing 8y agoThat's what they say, but the generated image is different (e.g. the first cell of the second row should be red)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- macawfish 8y agoThat's because amateur mathematicians are artists :)
- svat 8y agoI think I figured out what the authors were claiming/drawing, and an actual definition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17106193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17106193
- jhayward 8y agoI fail to see how this reply is helpful to anyone other than your ego. Perhaps you could state your view in a way that constructively improves their observations.