Chuckle: Fortran

[jimdempseyatthecove]

I am bemused by the spellchecker on the Fortran forum with respect to prior posts favor on the use of "Fortran" as opposed to "FORTRAN". When you right-click on "Fortran" the spellchecker suggests FORTRAN  :).

Case closed.

Jim Dempsey

[Steve_Lionel]

The forum doesn't have a spell checker - that's your browser.  Fortran is acceptable to my browser.

[JohnNichols]

The whole world is a spell checker. 

1. Why can no spell checker I find fix Teh for The

2. In looking at the problem of cracking the little CIA code, one has to start with a base of English words. Try to define a base of English words and it gets really interesting  Aa is a word according to the scrabble dictionary or AA. 

3. So as I was playing with the Fortran code in my mind on the 10 hour drive to show my daughter San Antonio -- at the 15 minute mark on a 3 hour trip - are we there yet, no, I pull into the first garage and buy all of the stuff to give her a sugar high and let her crash, she got the high, but no crash. 

So I thought about this little code to encode numbers in a simple fashion,  this is counting from 2 to ten. See below

Try doing it in your head at 70 mph in the rain at the end of a long 10 hour day with a 13 year old talking in the back seat. 

Interesting observation is there are multiple streams of Prime numbers that generate the composites, so for example 15 on one stream should be a prime,  (5,7,11,13,17,19) but it gets chopped by the 3 times 5 set, so you define zero order primes that are just straight prime numbers and second order primes (9,15,25,35,) that are two primes etc..  they make really interesting patterns in the numbers, they are not random but really beautiful, after a while you can start counting in your head without doing the math and work our primeness, 

1	0	0	0
0	1	0	0
2	0	0	0
0	0	1	0
1	1	0	0
0	0	0	1
3	0	0	0
0	2	0	0
1	0	1	0

[JohnNichols]

I was trying to work out if you could represent all integers without resorting to binary, but with just two decimal numbers, 0 and 1. At first I thought you needed 4, - 0,1,2,3, but I think in the limit no. 

Really the numbers are just constructs to represent the numbers created from 0 and 1. 

You cannot do it with less than 2, without using the - operation if you only us + and ^ you need 2. 

[JohnNichols]

yes this is Fortran as I try and develop a method to not solve the impossilbe CIA code, but it is fun to think about the impossible

This theorem is one of the main reasons why 1 is not considered a prime number: if 1 were prime, then factorization into primes would not be unique; for example, 2 = 2 × 1 = 2 × 1 × 1 = ...

Here I disagree, because 1 is 2 to the zeroth power, so it just disappears with a bit of math

2= 2*2^0 

2 = 2^(1+0) 

2 = 2^1

The real problem is 2^0 is 1 is just a big fat interesting issue