cmloegcmluin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:32 am
Perhaps I should pick myself up a copy of OTSOT, then. Or at least stop publicly admitting that I haven't read it.
I suggest just using the Internet Archive version: https://archive.org/stream/onsensations ... 5/mode/2up
Sometime you might read the table of contents and skim the index and follow up anything that piques your interest.
cmloegcmluin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:40 am
That 2.920050977... number in particular seems exciting, but I think your description of it and Mill's number as mere "compressions" for the primes is on point.
Numberphile recently released a new video on this constant:
Around 5:45 James notes that the constant is not "predictive", AKA it won't be able to find primes you don't know about yet. Which is another way of capturing its uninterestingness. Or as Brady puts it, it's the primes generating the constant, not the other way around.
It would be cool if a particular prime-to-constant compression algorithm resulted in a constant which had other properties of interest, but I don't have any reason to believe such a thing should exist.
Ha. I typed that sentence before I finished watching the video. There is in fact, a pleasant property of this constant, which they start going into at the 10:00 mark.
cmloegcmluin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:46 am
It would be cool if a particular prime-to-constant compression algorithm resulted in a constant which had other properties of interest, but I don't have any reason to believe such a thing should exist.
Ha. I typed that sentence before I finished watching the video. There is in fact, a pleasant property of this constant, which they start going into at the 10:00 mark.
