doogly wrote:mrcheesypants wrote:No love for 1?
One is the loneliest number.
Two can be as bad as one.
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
doogly wrote:mrcheesypants wrote:No love for 1?
One is the loneliest number.
Flightless_bird wrote:doogly wrote:mrcheesypants wrote:No love for 1?
One is the loneliest number.
Two can be as bad as one.
PM 2Ring wrote:
I prefer 53 note equal temperament; it tends to be more accurate. It'd be a bit unwieldy on traditional instruments, but it's ok on a computer.
tuttamarie wrote:I like 2 because it's the only even prime
gmalivuk wrote:tuttamarie wrote:I like 2 because it's the only even prime
And 3 is the only prime divisible by 3, and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5...
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.
olubunmi wrote:PM 2Ring wrote:olubunmi wrote:31
Because I really like the 31 Equal temperament
I prefer 53 note equal temperament; it tends to be more accurate. It'd be a bit unwieldy on traditional instruments, but it's ok on a computer.
And I prefer 31 because it's doable to build instruments with it. Believe me when I say this sounds great
I think 0 is awfully fun. Any other number can be seen as "big", or "small" as you want since the scale is arbitrary, except zero. It's always just zero no matter how you scale the system...
gmalivuk wrote:tuttamarie wrote:I like 2 because it's the only even prime
And 3 is the only prime divisible by 3, and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5...
eggdudeguy wrote:The people who said 42 are provably correct.
gmalivuk wrote:And 3 is the only prime divisible by 3, and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5...
Indon wrote:gmalivuk wrote:And 3 is the only prime divisible by 3, and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5...
2 is also the most common (non-1) factor found among the natural numbers, for fairly obvious reasons.
I'm a fan of the factorials, myself, due to the divisibility properties. Is there a term for the series of numbers which would be the products of the series of primes? (2, 6, 30, 210, 2310, etc) I think I'd like those a little bit more.
Kurushimi wrote:Why is 1 in that list?
Dason wrote:eggdudeguy wrote:The people who said 42 are provably correct.
Now this is one smart dude. Probably has a phd because he's definitely a practicing awesomematologist.
Ended wrote:Kurushimi wrote:Why is 1 in that list?
The offset of the sequence is 0, meaning that the first term is the "product of first 0 primes". This is an empty product and by convention equals 1 (similar to how an empty sum equals 0).
Not a good plan if you ever want your products to grow.I always took the empty product to be 0.
Also 1. Just think about the index laws.Question, what would be the empty exponentiation?
Syrin wrote:I'm rather fond of 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000, myself.
squareroot1 wrote:Syrin wrote:I'm rather fond of 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000, myself.
Is that 30! ? Or maybe 31!,32!,33! or 34! ?
I don't particularly want to check.
Syrin wrote:I'm rather fond of 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000, myself.
gorcee wrote:64 is my lucky number, for a variety of reasons.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests