- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12475
22 Dec 15
Originally posted by SilverstrikerAsk <https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile>. They've featured quite a few of them.
[b]weird topic alert
Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?[/b]
22 Dec 15
Originally posted by SilverstrikerWhat age range are we talking about?
[b]weird topic alert
Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?[/b]
22 Dec 15
Originally posted by moonbusomg!!!
Pythagorean triples less than 100:
(3, 4, 5), (5, 12, 13), (7, 24, 25), (8, 15, 17), (9, 40, 41), (11, 60, 61), (12, 35, 37), (13, 84, 85), (16, 63, 65), (20, 21, 29), (28, 45, 53), (33, 56, 65), (36, 77, 85), (39, 80, 89), (48, 55, 73), (65, 72, 97)
you made me learn something i NEVER knew before!!!
for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE i know
very little... 😞 😞 😞
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/pythagorean-triples.html
23 Dec 15
Originally posted by rookie54Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?
omg!!!
you made me learn something i NEVER knew before!!!
for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE i know
very little... 😞 😞 😞
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/pythagorean-triples.html
One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
23 Dec 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou go wonky if you try to think about different infinities as being bigger or smaller than other ones. Think of infinities as having characteristics, not 'sizes'; denumerability is an example of a characteristic.
One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
For example, the set of natural numbers (1,2,3,4) can be put into 1:1 correspondence with the set of even numbers (2,4,6,8), which means they are equivalently denumerable -- this is counterintuitive, because one thinks the set of even numbers must be smaller, since all the odd numbers are missing.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12475
23 Dec 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIf by "Pathags" you mean Pythagorean triple numbers... those aren't real numbers in the first place. They're integers.
Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?
One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
OK, all integers are also real numbers... but you know what I mean
So the infinity of real numbers is greater than the infinity of members from Pythagorean triples by definition: c is greater than aleph-zero.23 Dec 15
Originally posted by sonhousenormally, sarcasm is my goto post...
Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?
in this case, i really learned a new thing in my life,
and,
while i cannot yet find a use for it (even in my shop) this is a wonderful bit of knowledge for me...
thanks for asking...