### Today's success:

Feb. 20th, 2016 12:18 amComposite numbers whose largest prime factor are less than their second-largest prime factor's square, counting by multiplicity so that the factors of 18 are 2, 3, 3

You're viewing cnoocy's journalCreate a Dreamwidth Account Learn More | light | Reload page in style:

- Today's success:
- Elseblogging
- Unique connections of N circularly-spaced points
- Crazy idea! Who's with me?
- Blog recommendation: Laura Wattenberg
- Massachusetts Senate Bill No. 1400
- Hey mathy people
- Two of the amusing things I did yesterday
- Dumb math fact
- Prime Music returns
- Numbers in the news
- About that music
- Random Math Fact
- Extremely silly math musing
- Script to watch the approach of the binary gigasecond
- The sort of news that makes me happy
- New cnoocy toy

No cut tags

Composite numbers whose largest prime factor are less than their second-largest prime factor's square, counting by multiplicity so that the factors of 18 are 2, 3, 3

http://blog.safariflow.com/2013/11/29/

My crazy idea is to have one of these hours be sponsored by the letter R and the number 7, as if it were an episode of Sesame Street. We'll be essentially anonymous to the show's listeners.

It'll cost some money (the total for a sponsorship is $150), but I can put up a lot of it, and I have at least one co-conspirator.

Anyway, let me know, by comment, email, or private message, if you want to be part of this. Or if you have any questions.

If you find statistical analysis at all interesting (and I would give odds you've spent some time reading fivethirtyeight.com), her blog is highly recommended.

I suspect that Bert has something to do with this.

warning: Beginning of clip is a bit staticky.

2. Taught Jeffrey Rowland the word "zarf"

1.1K MIDI 336K MP3 (Both are 14 seconds long)

I'd love to hear what you think!

If the popular version of Moore's law (computing speed increases by a factor of 2 every 18 months) were to apply continuously,(which it doesn't) at what point does a process become not worth hitting start on.

That is, if I have a program that takes 80 years to run, I shouldn't start it now. I can get it done in 23 years by waiting 3 years, at which point the program will only take 20 years. So at what point (expressed as current time to completion) should I hit start?

I have an answer, but I'd like someone to check my math. So if you're interested in trying it yourself, do so before clicking on the cut-tag.

Run on a unix machine, pick one-character arguments if desired, pipe through uniq.

ETA: 08:37:04 on Saturday morning, Eastern Time.

- Base style: EasyRead by
- Theme: High Contrast White by

Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 02:42 am

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios