The fifth hyperfactorial: 5⁵ × 4⁴ × 3³ × 2² × 1¹ milliseconds is exactly 1 day
twitter.com
twitter.com
> 1.000692286 milliseconds – time taken for light to travel 300 km in a vacuum
(I have checked the assertion and it is correct)
10 hour 10 second easier.
A quarter pass 7.
(Actual 12 is a human number of look from earth. Both chi-na and ... is it a copy.)
1 metric minute = 100 seconds = 1.667 Babylonian minutes
1 metric hour = 100 metric minutes = 166.7 Babylonian minutes = 2.78 Babylonian hours.
1 day = 8.61 metric hours = 1436 Babylonian minutes = 23.93 Babylonian hours.
Thoughts?
1 metric minute = 100 metric seconds
1 metric hour = 100 metric minutes
1 day = 10 metric hours.
Why not 4?
If you think about it, it is a bit weird but makes so much sense working in base 60. We all do it all of the time.
I think the gp just generalized a bit to much. Units of time weren't chosen for those (prime) factors. People had simply figured out long time ago that a dozen is a nice round number.
Usually people omit c because it's power can be inferred.
And then they fail to mention to students that they're just omitting the c, causing a hilarious amount of confusion, half-truths and cargo-culting on the topic of natural units...
------
Saying that the speed of light in natural units is 1 is like saying that one meter in SI units is 1.
(s, m, kg, 10) can be seen as basis vectors of a vector space. (Multiplication is "addition", power is "multiplication".) Another base of this vector space is (h, c, GeV, 10).
I suspect this is precisely the half truths and cargo cutting you're referring to. Maybe you could explain what the problem here is.
Conversion Here: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+light+in+feet...
Why is that a thing?
The first Cray computers were designed in a cylindrical shape to keep the signal wires short. [2]
Ok..the backplane was annular
And the weird thing is that it almost is not a coincidence! The meter was almost defined as a second pendulum (implying pi^2 is exactly g) but then the variability in g was considered to impractical.
So then they choose the first meter definition (1/4 circ. if the earth)... which is suspiciously close to what they wanted to define the meter with in the first place
true
Nice one.
> 12345678910111210 + 1 == 12345678910111211
true
> 12345678910111210 + 1 == 12345678910111212
true > 19774**3 + 257049**3 == 257088**3
true> two true statements
What?
> n=12345678910111210
> n+1 === n+2
true> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5].map(Math.pow).reduce((a, b) => a * b) === 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24
true
a=1;for(i=1;i<=5;i++)a*=Math.pow(i,i);a === 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24
a=1;i=1;while(i++<5)a*=Math.pow(i,i);a === 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24 5**5*4**4*3**3*2**2*1**1===24*60*60*1000
true 864e5 === 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000 864e5;A sidereal day is not exactly 24 hours, it is closer to 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
(At least that's how ISO8601 defines time periods: 11pm-12am is a one hour period even if leap seconds cause the last minute to have 59 or 61 seconds)
(1..5).map{|n| n n}.reduce(:) == 24 60 * 60 * 1000
(1..5).map{|n| n**n}.reduce(:*) == 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000
(1..5).reduce{|t,n|t*n**n} product (map (\n -> n ^ n) [1..5]) == 1000 * 60 * 60 * 24
=> True product $ map (\x -> x^x) [1..5]
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f (g (h x)) == f . g . h $ 5 (*/ 1000 60 60 24) = */ ^~ 1 2 3 4 5
1 (24*60*60*1000)=*/x^x:!6
1
(24*60*60*1000)=*/(!6)^!6
(24*60*60*1000)=1{x*y^y}/!6
(24*60*60*1000)=prd xexp[x;x]til 6
1b
Numerologists of centuries past wasted lots of intellectual potential by obsessing over simple coincidences.
Obviously our concept of time is based on 60 and 24 because there are loads of factors in those numbers which enables lots of convenient clock based shenanigans.
However, is it obvious that the set of numbers {5,4,3,2,1} when raised to their own power and multiplied together is equal to the number of milli-seconds in one day? It is when it is pointed out.
I doubt that there is any deeper meaning but it is simply a bit of fun. I recall that an Indian bloke who was close to death noted that the number of a taxi that some British mathematician took to get to the hospital was fleetingly interesting. If Ramanujan and Hardy can play silly games with numbers then why the hell can't us mere mortals.
You are a clever person and I'm not daft either. We can have a laugh over how some numbers do silly things.
1^3 + 12^3
10^3 + 9^3
The other sum is 1000 + 729, much easier for a decimal-preferring mentat like Ramanujan to pull from thin air.
[1] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/numbers/
Little point in hacker news users upvoting every little such coincidence. There's a large number of similar trivial coincidences if one bothered to look.
Flightless birds can carry around the extra weight, so grow big penises to impress mates, while flying birds can't afford the weight and so must result to colorful feathers to impress mates.
Do you seriously believe that "intellectual potential" is tied so closely to time or specific efforts?
These exercises may not be useful on their own, but as exercises, they are useful to [s]he who exercises.
Could someone manage a Brain Fuck proof or perhaps ASM?
> (product . map (Control.Monad.join (^)) $ [1..5]) == (1000 * 60 60 24) True
On the other hand, it IS very close to a day, which is neat.
But it's not exactly a day. Within a few miliseconds, days drift quite a bit because of shifts in the center of gravity and the moment of inertia.
The Three Gorges Dam and the Boxing Day quake both measurably changed the rate of the Earth's spin.
It doesn't match solar days, but most people don't actually use solar days.
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, this is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not be chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic. 'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing
Care to elaborate? I think virtually all religions believe that God existed before humans and therefore existed when no one had faith in God.
From this and other similar works such as Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods or Neil Gaiman’s Ameeican Gods, deities pop into existence from the pure belief of people. It’s a great literary conceit.
Man is certainly stark mad: he cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen.
Michel de Montaigne, 1533-1592.
(Still, Small Gods is one of the best revisions of the topic!)
I can't think of any religion where pure belief of people cause deities pop into existence. Unless of course you are calling the fact that people talk about the deity as popping them into existence. In that case, you can say that JK Rowling caused Voldemort to pop into existence (how evil of her).
If on the other hand you start with the premise that there is a magical world created somehow then lesser gods can exist and cease to exist for all manner of reasons. We can apply it to the real world in the context of cultural memes. J.K. Rowling didn’t cause Voldemort to pop into existence, the fans of the books and those who got hysterical over depictions of witchcraft did.
You are of course correct but for a decent discussion of the issues around religion, I'll direct you to "Small Gods" by Sir Terry Pratchett. I don't think it is considered a classic by fans but for me I think it is close to being one of the great critiques about religion. If nothing else it is a damn good page turner.