Difference between revisions of "Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | : Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : A great deal of interesting maths can be found in and around the various arrangements of digits in numbers systems, surely. AzureArmageddon 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.249|162.158.90.249]] 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) | I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.249|162.158.90.249]] 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.109|162.158.203.109]] 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.109|162.158.203.109]] 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
: The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | : The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:54, 30 September 2023
Number systems aren't real math, at least not serious math. They're an affectation. 99.9% of math is number-system-independent, so nobody should care about them. 172.70.46.108 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. EebstertheGreat (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- A great deal of interesting maths can be found in and around the various arrangements of digits in numbers systems, surely. AzureArmageddon 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! 162.158.90.249 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to add a link to a converter, but the one I found is https://www.dcode.fr/factorial-base which is quite ugly with lots of adds and a bit counter-intuitive.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
This needs simplifying a bit. Came here because I had no idea what was going on, and after a quick scroll through the prose, the main thing I learned was "it's 'cause you're dumb". May be true but I still don't get what Randall's factorial system is....Alcatraz ii (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Factorial base also allows to finitely represent all rational numbers - no constant base is capable of that! 172.68.238.76 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unless you use a division sign. But yes, only radix numerals of a variable base with infinite series of factors of every prime can even theoretically finitely represent arbitrary rationals without invoking existential quantifiers. 172.71.147.26 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I feel like Michael when Oscar is trying to explain what a “surplus” is.162.158.186.241 04:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The warning is complete nonsense, just remove it
bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning 162.158.203.109 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
