Comments for Nathaniel Johnston
http://www.njohnston.ca
A blog of recreational math and quantum information theoryMon, 06 Apr 2015 20:57:28 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Comment on A Derivation of Conway’s Degree-71 “Look-and-Say” Polynomial by Neil
http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/10/a-derivation-of-conways-degree-71-look-and-say-polynomial/#comment-1275199
Mon, 06 Apr 2015 20:57:28 +0000http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=1230#comment-1275199Oh ok. Thank you Nathaniel.
]]>Comment on 11630 is the First Uninteresting Number by Nathaniel
http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-1275179
Mon, 06 Apr 2015 13:23:59 +0000http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-1275179@LSK – I downloaded the raw contents of the OEIS database here. Beyond that, it was just basic tinkering and Excel commands, I believe.
]]>Comment on A Derivation of Conway’s Degree-71 “Look-and-Say” Polynomial by Nathaniel
http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/10/a-derivation-of-conways-degree-71-look-and-say-polynomial/#comment-1275178
Mon, 06 Apr 2015 13:19:23 +0000http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=1230#comment-1275178@Neil – There almost definitely *isn’t* an exact closed form representation for it. Roots of polynomials of degree 5 and higher often can’t be expressed exactly using things like plus, minus, multiplication, and roots (this is the Abel-Ruffini theorem), so it would be quite a surprise if this root of a degree-71 polynomial could be.
]]>Comment on A Derivation of Conway’s Degree-71 “Look-and-Say” Polynomial by Neil
http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/10/a-derivation-of-conways-degree-71-look-and-say-polynomial/#comment-1275177
Mon, 06 Apr 2015 12:52:29 +0000http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=1230#comment-1275177Where do I find the irrational number of Conway’s Constant? I’ve only been able to find the decimal representation and the polynomial that has it. Has anyone gotten the exact closed form representation for the constant?
]]>Comment on 11630 is the First Uninteresting Number by Adam P. Goucher
http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-1274792
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:35:48 +0000http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-1274792Your sequence A232668 of ‘uninteresting numbers’ contains 1729, which is:

— the smallest absolute (weak) Euler pseudoprime (a stronger property than being a Carmichael number);
— the smallest positive integer expressible as the sum of two cubes of positive integers in two distinct ways.

]]>Comment on 11630 is the First Uninteresting Number by LSK
http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-1271456
Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:16:14 +0000http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-1271456How did you generate these spreadsheets? I’d be interested in looking at updated versions.
]]>