7 ms·
42
- bjoe_lewis 13y agoIs this guy a, genius?
- ChuckMcM 13y agoNo. But its fun to play with numbers. One of the reasons I like 12, its so dividable.
- dakotasmith 13y agoIf you like 12, should definitely check out 60! It has so many factors, especially prime factors.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoProbably my second favorite number after 12. And not surprisingly nearly the ideal "small" company size, as it tends to provide excellent team partitioning.
- coherentpony 13y agoEvery number has special properties :) Edit: In fact, I'd be astounded to encounter a number that did not exhibit any special properties. Until, of course, one makes "having no special properties" a special property. In that case, I would no longer be astounded.
- quarterto 13y agoWe proceed by induction. Clearly n=1 is special, as it divides every integer. Assume k is special. If k+1 is not special, then it is special, as it is the first non-special number to come after a special number. This is a contradiction; then k+1 is special. ■
- samatman 13y agoWe may also proceed by ordinary semantics: every number is special, as it specifies itself.
- coherentpony 13y agoThat was extremely enjoyable to read.
- devgutt 13y agoCan you categorize the next non-special number in the same way? Now k+1 is no longer non-special, but the reason why it is special still exists, so you can't use it a second time.
- coherentpony 13y agoI think it was meant to be in jest.
- witek 13y agoI can't find it on the net, but in Umberto Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum' the final monologue by the wife illustrates that really well.
- btilly 13y agoYes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez for some basic background. See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ for more articles from him if you enjoyed this one. One of my favorites is http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/our-galactic-environment/ http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/our-galactic-... which describes our galactic neighborhood. Everyone knows that Alpha Centauri is our nearest star. But I bet you don't know a lot more about it. It is a much more complex place than I had realized.
- gems 13y agoHe's a somewhat successful mathematician. Does that make him a genius?
- abecedarius 13y agoHe's my favorite math popularizer these days. This article's a good sample of why.
- quarterto 13y agoHurwitz's automorphisms theorem always astounds me. 84 is such a weird number to see in it. Fun fact: a group for which the maximum of 84(g-1) is reached is called a Hurwitz group. The Monster Group a Hurwitz group. So there is a Reimann surface of genus 9619255057077534236743570297163223297687552000000001 whose group of automorphisms (via orientation-preserving conformal mappings) is the Monster group. I don't even want to start trying to imagine that surface. For more unlikely Monster Group fun, there's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurwitz%27s_automorphisms_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurwitz%27s_automorphisms_theor...
- tel 13y agoThe Monster made me a Platonist. Group classification is damn alien stuff. It's like discovering Moby Dick except a million times larger and scarier, buried in the dark depths between science and philosophy.
- jmmcd 13y ago> But why is this stuff the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything? I’m not sure, but I have a crazy theory. Maybe all matter and forces are made of tiny little strings! Come now, be serious!
- maeon3 13y ago42 is the age after which women can not be expected (without the help of 21st century technology) to produce children. And thus is exposed the meaning of the life the universe, and everything: "eat, stay alive, and produce more units that do the same". It is not your responsibility to decide what the meaning of life is, it is the universe's and physics responsibility to decide which loops are best at creating more eaters/stay-alivers/reproducers.
- kirubakaran 13y agoThe explanation that I liked the most was: 42 For-tea-two Tea for two
- claudius 13y agoI was never quite sure whether the number (42) or the decimal representation thereof (4*10 + 2) was relevant. Your interpretation would tend to the latter…
- tripzilch 13y agoI believe I read this in The Salmon of Doubt, where Douglas Adams explained he pretty much chose it arbitrarily. "42 will do", were his words, IIRC.
- roryokane 13y agoI second that: I definitely remember reading something in which Douglas Adams explained that he chose 42 arbitrarily. And I think he was surprised at and amused with everyone’s theories of the significance of the number.
- faxilux 13y agoFascinating read. He did say what the question was though: "What is six times nine?" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=6%20times%209&defid=1303817 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=6%20times%209...
- Cushman 13y agoBut note that that isn't the "real" question, just the incorrect result of the Earth experiment.
- fjordan 13y agoThe number on HN lately seems to be 300,000.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wfn 13y agoGood stuff. Also, The picture of Klein’s quartic curve was made by Greg Egan, and you should also check out his page on Klein’s quartic curve. For anyone curious, Greg Egan writes interesting hard scifi. A particularly interesting and hardcore piece of scifi which rests on a significant pile of graph theory et al. is his novel "Schild's Ladder." [1] (one of these days, one of these days I am bound to attempt to finish it..) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schild%27s_Ladder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schild%27s_Ladder
- itsboring 13y agoI read his novel Incandescence recently which was also really interesting. It's about a seemingly primitive civilization of non-humanoids who have to work out relativity quickly to avert disaster. I can't claim to follow it entirely but I enjoy his work nonetheless.
- chii 13y agowow, that schild's latter book sounds very interesting. Is there any more similar kind of books like it (that deals with hardcore scifi themes)?
- wfn 13y agoI'd ditto the question ;) Semi-recent thread with some interesting-looking suggestions, not sure of 'hard' scifi label though: http://www.reddit.com/r/printSF/comments/1eyt3b/is_there_any_sf_book_that_gets_orbital_mechanics/ http://www.reddit.com/r/printSF/comments/1eyt3b/is_there_any... I'd recommend other books by Greg Egan, though. Permutation City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City) is particularly interesting and makes some very interesting conjectures dealing with computation, cognition, 'quantum ontology', etc. Character development is somewhat poor, but eh! (there's also a FAQ on the author's website: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ...)
- gmu3 13y agoObviously the article is written for fun, but for those interested Douglas Adams' answer to why 42 was: "The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story."
- RBerenguel 13y agoProbably subconscious effects affecting D.A. after pan-dimensional rodents played with us for eons
- Cushman 13y agoIt's a bit silly he had to say this-- this is made very explicit in the books. I feel like a lot of people missed the point of the whole exercise.
- aninhumer 13y agoWhile I do agree that the amount of speculation over such a simple joke is a little ridiculous, Douglas Adams' actual thought process doesn't invalidate the alternatives as valid interpretations of the text. While Adams may have had no particular question in mind when he wrote the joke, it is nonetheless a key point of the story that there is such a question, and as such it is to be expected that some people's interpretations of the story will include one. Now personally, I would argue that the actual question is unknowable, and that this is central to the point of the story, but this is just my opinion.
- vph 13y agoSee the Strong Law of Small Numbers, of which 42 is one.
- Arjuna 13y agoI always thought that this was interesting... I am sure that many of you are familiar with Dr. Feynman's 7-part lecture series entitled The Character of Physical Law, which were part of the "Messenger Lectures" [1], given at Cornell University in 1964. In the first lecture, Law of Gravitation - An Example of Physical Law, Feynman states the following: "Question: what is the ratio of the gravitational force to the electrical force? That is illustrated on the next slide. The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electrical repulsion is given by a number with 42 digits, and goes off here: all this is written very carefully out, so that's 42 digits. Now, therein lies a very deep mystery: where could such a tremendous number come from? That means if you ever had a theory from which both of these things are to come, how could they come in such disproportion? From what equation has a solution which has for one, two kinds of forces, an attraction and a repulsion with that fantastic ratio? People have looked for such a large ratio in other places. They're looking for a large number. They hope, for example, that there's another large number. And if you want a large number why not take the diameter of the universe to the diameter of a proton. Amazingly enough, it also is a number with 42 digits." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_Lectures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_Lectures [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk#t=48m11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk#t=48m11s
- jimmaswell 13y ago42 digits in base 10 though, and base 10 is just an arbitrary convention. It can be more or less in other equally valid bases.
- dylangs1030 13y agoYes, but within that base it's significant. Just as within other bases the corresponding number would be significant. This is important because if you operate a system universally with the same base, the significant number begins to take on an objective importance intra-system. Stated another way, it's mathematical semantics, the same as arguing an idea is not significant because you can express it in a multitude of different languages, each having an arbitrary words. Developing via Django (Python) or Rails (Ruby) is similarly predisposed to making one think it's all relative, but when you look closely, the framework doesn't matter at all - there are universal abstractions inherent in web development. The representation is arbitrary and insignificant, what is significant is what the number or word represents, and what you can do by unraveling it.
- geraldalewis 13y agoI'm not a math guy, but I was thinking about a number series the other day, and 42 popped up. Do the numbers 1,806; 3,263,442; and/or 10,650,056,950,806 happen to have any significance as well?
- scythe 13y agoThat sequence is called "Sylvester's sequence": http://oeis.org/A000058 http://oeis.org/A000058 The Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences is one of the coolest things on the net.
- geraldalewis 13y agoThanks! Interesting that mine's off by one...
- Natsu 13y agoThis article is making me hungry for mathematically perfect hyper donuts.
- dnautics 13y agoit's also the Jackie Robinson number
- X4 13y agoWow all these numbers put me into an endorphine rush, I love these kind of posts!! Keep them coming, it's no as theoretical as you may expect, it's applications are endless. 42, (Endo-)Fullerenes, the Omega Particle. Do you remember the Star-Trek series that was about the Omega Particle? Isn't it crazy that they were right?! They actually exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=454uu96gFzU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=454uu96gFzU
- jpatokal 13y agoHandy reminder: All natural numbers are interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
- gonzo 13y agoThis is where I point out that the answer was wrong. In HHGTG, a massive computer was built to answer the Question. The computer spent millions of years calculating, and arrived at the answer "42". The problem, it said, was that the Question had never been formulated. The computer then designed another computer to calculate the Question. After millions of years of calculation, this computer was inadvertently destroyed. The last remnants of the computer were only able to provide the question "What is six times nine?" Also, knowing the answer without knowing the question is Jeopardy!