Best Ever Albums

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:18:25 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/14/2013 15:18

David Bowie wrote the Space Oddity album after he saw 2001: A Space Odyssey when he was out of his gourd.

Re: unique knowledge

Listmeister — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:53:17 GMT

Author: Listmeister

Posted: 10/14/2013 13:53

Here's a fun fact I just discovered from Wikipedia.

The inventor of the Sandwich, John Montagu, 4th Earl of, was a great proponent of "Ancient music" (defined by him as music more than two decades old). He created a "Catch Club", where professional singers would sing "ancient" and modern catches, glees, and madrigals. He also put on performances of George Frideric Handel's oratorios, masques, and odes at his estate. Sandwich was instrumental in putting together the Concert of Ancient Music, the first public concert to showcase a canonic repertory of old works.

In other words, he also invented Dadrocking, or as they called in my day, Oldies.

Re: unique knowledge

creator — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:59:20 GMT

Author: creator

Posted: 10/11/2013 13:59

revolver94 wrote:

MR SWEDEN ur wrong in a realy fundemental way and i'll explain it later when im not drunk but i ned to ok its like actulaly somtehing ive been thinking about and maybe its not substantial at all but i really think it is and i want ot discuss for fun's sake ya know so i will do it tomorrow evening when a) im not drunk and b) im at my home aagain because its fallbreak woo! where do you go to college sweden and c) whats your real name

While your reasoning is mathematically sound, you're ignoring the assumption of the proof. Let's consider the example you previously posted.

Quote:

For example, 2*3*5*7*11*13=30030+1=30031, which is 59 times 509.

The assumption is that the only prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. When we multiply them together and obtain P = 30030, it's obviously not a prime number because it can be factorized into the product of our primes. By our assumption, P+1=30031 must be a composite number, so we should also be able to express it as some product of our primes. But what happens when we divide 30031 by our primes?

30031/2 = 15015 + 1/2
30031/3 = 10010 + 1/3
30031/5 = 6006 + 1/5
30031/7 = 4290 + 1/7
30031/11 = 2730 + 1/11
30031/13 = 2310 + 1/13

We see that it's not divisible by any of our prime numbers. Thus P+1 cannot be composite. This contradicts our assumption; therefore, there are more primes than we listed. In the general case, this means there are infinite primes.

We know that 30031 can be factorized into 509*59, but by our assumption those are not prime numbers. Testing proofs with familiar numbers is a great way to understand what's going on, but we need to make sure that we stay within the constraints of the assumption. 😁

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:39:33 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/11/2013 13:39

revolver94 wrote:

a) Yes you are 🤣

b) The University of Tulsa.

c) Stephen.

Re: unique knowledge

revolver94 — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:18:59 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 10/11/2013 07:18

MR SWEDEN ur wrong in a realy fundemental way and i'll explain it later when im not drunk but i ned to ok its like actulaly somtehing ive been thinking about and maybe its not substantial at all but i really think it is and i want ot discuss for fun's sake ya know so i will do it tomorrow evening when a) im not drunk and b) im at my home aagain because its fallbreak woo! where do you go to college sweden and c) whats your real name

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:10:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/11/2013 05:10

creator wrote:

I'm probably late to the math party, but the proof checks out. Thanks for sharing. :D

No prob 😎

It could've been much more elegant, though. I'll proofread my proofs more thoroughly in the future 🤣

Re: unique knowledge

creator — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:55:52 GMT

Author: creator

Posted: 10/11/2013 03:55

swedenman wrote:

Haha, don't worry about it too much. I'm pretty sure we both understand the idea behind the proof, which is the important part. What we're debating now is pretty irrelevant, haha.

I'm probably late to the math party, but the proof checks out. Thanks for sharing. 😁

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:38:36 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 22:38

JMan wrote:

There are currently three games in storage at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, games that have earned that right - Pong, Pac-Man, and a game by one of my favorite film directors, Don Bluth, "Dragon's Lair". Anyone in their 30's mor higher may remember this game.

Dragon's Lair is the tits.

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:37:44 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 22:37

There are currently three games in storage at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, games that have earned that right - Pong, Pac-Man, and a game by one of my favorite film directors, Don Bluth, "Dragon's Lair". Anyone in their 30's mor higher may remember this game.

Re: unique knowledge

SquishypuffDave — Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:33:55 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 10/09/2013 04:33

If there's one thing that most people tend not to appreciate about pornographic film shoots, it's the smell.

On a film set there are, on average, about ten people in a room. To minimise background noise, doors and windows usually remain closed. This room will be filled with lights shining directly on the moist undulating bodies of the moaning flesh puppets, baking their juices into a powerful musk. It is not uncommon for the room temperature to exceed 30°c. A single scene can take up to six hours to complete. If anyone wants to work in the industry, just keep this in mind.

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:24:51 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 03:24

revolver94 wrote:

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what you're proving has relevance to our actual number system. I've thought about it a bit more and I'll post my thoughts once I've finished my math homework...

Haha, don't worry about it too much. I'm pretty sure we both understand the idea behind the proof, which is the important part. What we're debating now is pretty irrelevant, haha.

Re: unique knowledge

revolver94 — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:55:38 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 10/09/2013 02:55

swedenman wrote:

tl;dr: It only follows that P+1 is a prime number if p1, p2, p3,..., pn is truly a complete set of all prime numbers. In the example you gave, 2*3*5*7*11*13+1=30031 is indeed not a prime number, but this is only because 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 do not form a complete set of all prime numbers.

Is this making any more sense? I know I'm not always the best at presenting my thoughts in a coherent fashion, haha.

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:20:09 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 02:20

tl;dr: It only follows that P+1 is a prime number if p1, p2, p3,..., pn is truly a complete set of all prime numbers. In the example you gave, 2*3*5*7*11*13+1=30031 is indeed not a prime number, but this is only because 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 do not form a complete set of all prime numbers.

Is this making any more sense? I know I'm not always the best at presenting my thoughts in a coherent fashion, haha.

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:08:47 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 02:08

revolver94 wrote:

OK, I understand how you're trying to show it, but it falls through because it doesn't show that P+1 is a prime number, it shows that there must be some prime number greater than pn that can divide P+1. Your proof doesn't show that there aren't any prime numbers inbetween pn and P+1. I know you "assumed" it and that's where your contradiction comes from, but it demonstrably fails with real numbers. That's really all I can say about it at this point. (I really do understand how you're trying to prove it - really - but it falls through because you can't plug real numbers in and make it work.) Does that make sense?

I don't think it falls through, though. I see what you're getting at, but if the original assumption is false (which it is), then the number P+1 doesn't even exist, so saying that it is or isn't prime is meaningless. It doesn't demonstrably fail with real numbers because there's no way to plug in real numbers in the first place.

For example, the example you gave (with 2*3*5*7*11*13) doesn't constitute plugging in real numbers because we know for a fact that 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 do not form a complete set of all prime numbers. This explicitly contradicts step 1 of my proof, so all subsequent steps are negated.

Now, if we grant that the original assumption is true, then it does directly follow that P+1 is a prime number. If you don't believe me, go back to the 6-step proof I outlined above; each step directly follows from the step that precedes it.

Re: unique knowledge

bongritsu — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:30:48 GMT

Author: bongritsu

Posted: 10/09/2013 01:30

Defago wrote:

If any of you is interested in turning a profit in the mid-term (about 5 years or so) invest in Peru. Mineral prices are really low at the moment, due to economic cycles and blah, and have dragged most of the stock valuation down with them. Being that copper and most minerals are necessary for industrial/technological progress, they are sure to rebound in the next few years, so it's currently a good idea to invest in copper (and other productive minerals), mining corporations based in Peru and cycle-sensitive industries in Peru in general.

I dont agree, copper is a risky investment at the moment IMO.

This past year the Chinese have been building MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE stockpiles of metals with a focus on copper. This poses two problems:

1. I would not be surprised to see them flooding the market with massive amounts of copper (specifically around new years)

2.The price for copper might not follow the demand for copper as tightly. The price of copper is highly influenced on how much china is buying as they are the leaders of industrial/technological/construction progress the price might peak unnaturally low (oh damn look at coppers price! lets just stop buying it and use the shit we already have!) This could spook investors, which is always fun because short selling is certainly my shit.

But like with anything, if you get out at the right time you will make money. I would just not suggest anything copper as a mid term investment.

I will check out Peru mining corporations though. you know of any micro mines? I like dealing with those the best.

Re: unique knowledge

revolver94 — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:28:00 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 10/09/2013 01:28

swedenman wrote:

Alright, let me take a step back. The proof is a proof by contradiction. Therefore, we assume there are a finite number of primes, and then, under this assumption, find some contradiction. Here are my basic steps:

1. p1, p2, p3...pn is a complete list of primes.

2. P=p1*p2*p3*...*pn is divisible by all prime numbers.

3. P+1 is not divisible by any prime numbers less than itself.

4. Therefore, P+1 is a prime number.

5. This is a contradiction, as P+1 was not in the original list.

As I mentioned previously, this proof could be simplified, but the proof outlined here is technically correct. I can further explain any of these steps if you'd like.

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:18:22 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 01:18

James Cameron worked on the Avatar script in 1997 and finished it that year. He could'nt make the movie since the technology was very limited. That pissed him off.

On a side not, I give Avatar a 71.

Re: unique knowledge

Anonymous — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:14:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/09/2013 01:14

revolver94 wrote:

What? you're starting to lose me. In your first post, you said that P+1 itself was a prime number, when, in reality, its the existence of P+1 that warrants the existence of a prime number greater than pn (our supposed greatest prime number).

My proof also works under the assumption that pn is the largest prime number, but it doesn't try to argue that this is false by saying P+1 is a larger prime number, but that because P+1 isn't divisible by any primes less than or equal to pn, that there must be one greater, which isn't necessarily P+1. As I just showed, P+1 is not always prime (and usually isn't).

Alright, let me take a step back. The proof is a proof by contradiction. Therefore, we assume there are a finite number of primes, and then, under this assumption, find some contradiction. Here are my basic steps:

1. p1, p2, p3...pn is a complete list of primes.

2. P=p1*p2*p3*...*pn is divisible by all prime numbers.

3. P+1 is not divisible by any prime number.

4. Therefore, P+1 is not divisible by any prime number less than itself.

5. Therefore, P+1 is a prime number.

6. This is a contradiction, as P+1 was not in the original list.

As I mentioned previously, this proof could be simplified, but the proof outlined here is technically correct. I can further explain any of these steps if you'd like.

Re: unique knowledge

revolver94 — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:07:27 GMT

Author: revolver94

Posted: 10/09/2013 01:07

swedenman wrote:

Well right, but that's where the contradiction comes from. We originally assume that p1, p2, p3...pn is a complete list of prime numbers. We take this to be correct for the remainder of the proof. Therefore, there cannot, by definition, be a prime number between pn and P+1.

For example, in the example you gave, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 are taken to be the only prime numbers. Therefore, 59 is not a prime number under the context of the assumption. We, of course, know that 59 is a prime number, and that would be where the contradiction comes from.

In reality, you're correct, there will pretty much always be a prime number between pn and P+1, but when I make the claim that there is not in my proof, that is still working under the assumption that pn is the largest prime number.

Re: unique knowledge

Defago — Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:06:20 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 10/09/2013 01:06

If any of you is interested in turning a profit in the mid-term (about 5 years or so) invest in Peru. Mineral prices are really low at the moment, due to economic cycles and blah, and have dragged most of the stock valuation down with them. Being that copper and most minerals are necessary for industrial/technological progress, they are sure to rebound in the next few years, so it's currently a good idea to invest in copper (and other productive minerals), mining corporations based in Peru and cycle-sensitive industries in Peru in general.