Re: prime numbers and African artifact

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Alex Duncan: "Re: webbing"
• Previous message: Alex Duncan: "Re: Bipedalism and other factors"
• Maybe in reply to: Jeffrey Shallit: "prime numbers and African artifact"
• Next in thread: Erik Wahlstrom: "Re: prime numbers and African artifact"

seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) writes:

>In article <3u3tom$3js@utaipx02.uta.edu>, SEELIGER <jes7123@omega> wrote:
>>Peter Seebach (seebs@solutions.solon.com) wrote:
>>: > What's the easy way to show that 254365465431652436514232 is not
>>: >prime again?
>[proof elided]

>>Yeah, but what's an easy way to show 254365465431652436514232 is not a
>>binary number?

>Duh. It is. It's
>110101110111010010110111110100011101000001011111000011000001111001010110111000.

>What gave you the idea it wasn't representable in binary? All even numbers
>can be represented in binary. [..........]

Um. The question wasn't whether or not is was REPRESENTABLE in
binary. The question was whether or not the number itself is binary. Which
is isn't, since it uses 6 different symbols to represent it. So it's
written in base 6 or higher. (When HappyNet finally gets here, ALL numbers
will be written in base 6 or higher...)
jma

• Next message: Alex Duncan: "Re: webbing"
• Previous message: Alex Duncan: "Re: Bipedalism and other factors"
• Maybe in reply to: Jeffrey Shallit: "prime numbers and African artifact"
• Next in thread: Erik Wahlstrom: "Re: prime numbers and African artifact"