5
$\begingroup$

This question has been revised from its original form, and the OP believes it should now be reopened. I don't agree enough that I would be willing to unilaterally reopen it, so I'm letting you guys decide.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Under this title, and this format of text (no paragraphs, etc) it is unlikely that I will vote to reopen, in fact I can hardly manage to read the question when it is like that. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 20 '11 at 7:19
  • $\begingroup$ What does it mean if I upvote/downvote this question? $\endgroup$ – Phira May 20 '11 at 8:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I guess it means that you think this is an issue worth / not worth discussing (whether or not you agree or disagree that the question should be reopened). I've never been that clear on what upvotes / downvotes mean on meta in general. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 20 '11 at 8:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Since there were already three votes to re-open, I cast a fourth one, because there was substantial effort put into the question and I appreciate that even if I'm still a bit doubtful about the question's value. It could be that somebody has something interesting to say that might not fit reasonably well into comment boxes (which also exclude later correction). If that should be the case, why not let them answer seriously? The question now went through 18 revisions (as I'm writing this) and I don't think it should be CW if it should be re-opened. $\endgroup$ – t.b. May 21 '11 at 9:02
6
$\begingroup$

After reading carefylly through the question, I have no idea at all what the poster is even asking or what kind of help he is expecting.

It sounds like the poster is trying to make discoveries whose main and possibly only interest lies in recreational mathematics and in that they brought joy to their discoverer. (edit: I'd like to stress that being recreational mathematics is not what's wrong with the question.)

Now I'm trying not to be offensive, but it seems more like the author is advertising himself than asking a real question. For instance, I don't see what this MRB-constant has to do with it at all. I hope some people will understand what I mean if I say it all sounds a bit crackpotty.

Unfortunately I cannot vote to reopen because now I can't choose not to do so.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't like the very last word you use in the penultimate paragraph. For me, strange would do as well, and wouldn't be that insulting (at least for me, as a non-native speaker). However, I agree with the thrust of the post. For me the whole thing sounds like: "I've got an idea, but I don't really know what to do with it, please do the hard work for me." I don't have strong feelings about this post and I don't care if it gets reopened or not, but I don't see a real question here, honestly. $\endgroup$ – t.b. May 20 '11 at 23:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Theo Buehler: I'm not sure how offensive that word is either to be honest, but I'm sure that just strange is not quite what I mean. I've conducted a tiny bit of google-search on the author of this question and that was decisive in my choice of words. For instance you might be interested in the Mersenne Prime Forecast marvinrayburns.com/mps.html (Don't click if you suffer from epileptic attacks... ) $\endgroup$ – Myself May 21 '11 at 0:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I see what you mean. Thanks for that link and of course, I couldn't resist clicking because of your warning. Here's one for you, do the maths yourself. $\endgroup$ – t.b. May 21 '11 at 0:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Theo: there is also a constant named after him... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRB_constant $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez May 21 '11 at 0:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ...or, as the Wikipedia page puts it, he is the author of a constant. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez May 21 '11 at 0:37
  • $\begingroup$ Marvin's constant is listed by Plouffe's Inverter. bootes.math.uqam.ca/cgi-bin/ipcgi/… $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 21 '11 at 2:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Dan Brumleve: I don't know what you mean by that, but note that the magic numbers from the TV-series Lost are on the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences oeis.org/A104101 . $\endgroup$ – Myself May 21 '11 at 13:21
0
$\begingroup$

The question should be re-opened. I thought the linked article was interesting and some of the complaints are unjustified. For example, perhaps "truly random" means "all but a countable number", or maybe "all but a set of measure 0". Marvin is asking for help clarifying this concept.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I can't imagine someone (even if they are unfamiliar with correct terms such as "cocountable" and "almost everywhere") using "truly random" to refer to either of those things. Furthermore, I complained about this because, in the original version of his question, Marvin said "The reader is expected to recognize the symbols for 'floor' and 'ceiling.' He or she is also expected to be able to find out what a true random number is." which indicates to me that Marvin feels what "truly random" means is an obvious bit of common knowledge. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles May 22 '11 at 4:45
  • $\begingroup$ Another possibility is "Kolmogorov random". It's not clear exactly what Marvin had in mind, but the specification of an appropriate conjecture for the observed behavior is the substance of the question. In any case the question has now been reopened. $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 22 '11 at 23:44
-4
$\begingroup$

@Asaf Karagila, You might like the question a little better now. I changed the title and added a little more context to the question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It makes no to absolutely no sense at all. Constants are convergent by definition. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 20 '11 at 21:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Asaf, I think Marvin is asking about something less obvious than the convergence of constant functions. The linked article is about iterating on the parameters of continued fractions. $\endgroup$ – Dan Brumleve May 21 '11 at 1:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dan: I would believe so. And yet, a title like that is off putting. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 21 '11 at 7:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .