Brother Emsworth Tue Nov 11 16:14:26 2003
Speaking of belated birthdays...
The honorable meta-cartoonist had his natal anniversary on November 8, I believe. Heartiest congratulations and one "Get Out of Mauling Free" certificate from the wolverines.
|
Michael Tue Nov 11 16:31:30 2003
Re: Speaking of belated birthdays...
> The honorable meta-cartoonist had his natal anniversary on November 8.
Indeed. I'm two to the fifth plus five. I agree that's not quite as synchronicitous as twenty-three on the twenty-third, but there's still structure enough to keep Speaker with Numbers happy for a few hours. And it's prime.
|
Eric Schissel Tue Nov 11 18:03:14 2003
Re: Speaking of belated birthdays...
> Indeed. I'm two to the fifth plus five. I agree that's not quite as
> synchronicitous as twenty-three on the twenty-third, but there's still
> structure enough to keep Speaker with Numbers happy for a few hours. And
> it's prime.
The 8th, hrm? I was in Indianapolis for a conference at the time...
Also (just to contribute my own two small-denomination pieces) is a square plus one, and (according to a google search) a difference of cubes (hexagonal number. Goes to calculate its primitive roots- the number classes for which b, b squared, b cubed, etc. don't repeat remainder-wise. 13 of them, the number of #s 2-35 that don't have divisors in common with 36.) Hope you had a very happy birthday!
|
mouse Tue Nov 11 19:05:44 2003
Re: Speaking of belated birthdays...
> Indeed. I'm two to the fifth plus five. I agree that's not quite as
> synchronicitous as twenty-three on the twenty-third, but there's still
> structure enough to keep Speaker with Numbers happy for a few hours. And
> it's prime.
and me wondering for a few hours on how long it took you to figure out that combination of numbers....
still, many (belated) returns!
|
spinclad Thu Nov 13 00:43:00 2003
Re: Speaking with birthdays...
> Indeed. I'm two to the fifth plus five. I agree that's not quite as
> synchronicitous as twenty-three on the twenty-third, but there's still
> structure enough to keep Speaker with Numbers happy for a few hours. And
> it's prime.
and myself, just turned fifty two on the third, give you my deep and belated appreciation for your unexpected but very sweet and timely birthday present. fifty two is of course, numeralogically, the count of the cards in a deck (without the major arcana and only three court cards instead of the usual four), and bears deeply on the hands of spin poker.
if i recall correctly, thirty seven is the smallest irregular prime, if you follow kummer's work on fermat's last conjecture (something about it doesn't appear in the product of the first thirty seven bernoulli numbers, or some such, doubtless dreadfully misrecalled; and i have only hazily recollections of their significance). i only find twelve primitive roots, though: two, thirty two, seventeen, thirteen, fifteen, eighteen, and their negatives. what one have i missed?
|
spinclad again Thu Nov 13 00:57:51 2003
Re: Speaking with birthdays...
> ... (something about it
> doesn't appear in the product of the first thirty seven bernoulli numbers,
> or some such, ...
gaah. follow myself up. teach me to proofread. this would be clearer (only at a level of surface grammar, of course, i've no notion that its deeper obscurities are at all lifted hereby, but at least one may see the inner murk more clearly through the outer mud) so:
... (something about: _that_ it [thirty seven] doesn't appear in the product ...
|
Emsworth Thu Nov 13 01:00:51 2003
Re: Speaking with birthdays...
> and myself, just turned fifty two on the third, give you my deep and
> belated appreciation for your unexpected but very sweet and timely
> birthday present. fifty two is of course, numeralogically, the count of
> the cards in a deck (without the major arcana and only three court cards
> instead of the usual four), and bears deeply on the hands of spin poker.
My father was 65 on 10/18/2003. Add the first two entries to 23 and one arrives at 51.
|
Eric Schissel Fri Nov 14 09:48:08 2003
Re: Speaking with birthdays...
> if i recall correctly, thirty seven is the smallest irregular prime, if
> you follow kummer's work on fermat's last conjecture (something about it
> doesn't appear in the product of the first thirty seven bernoulli numbers,
> or some such, doubtless dreadfully misrecalled; and i have only hazily
> recollections of their significance). i only find twelve primitive roots,
> though: two, thirty two, seventeen, thirteen, fifteen, eighteen, and their
> negatives. what one have i missed?
Well, I look over my work and see I miscounted badly (looked over the list of powers of two, looking for ones whose exponents had no factors in common with 36, and got myself rather confused.) Tried again, then, and got your result. As makes more sense, since phi(36) (?) (I think that's the one, according to a webpage- it's been ages) = phi(4) phi(9) and couldn't have been 13 since neither of them are 1. Taptapnothingin_there_, Eric... (rushing away amicably)
|
|
