Call for Papers II

By -
Remember this one?

0) We'll define this binary sequence in stages, punctuated by periods for clarity. (The periods are cosmetic; they are not part of the sequence.)

1) The first stage: 0.

2) The next stage: 1. So far: 0.1.

3) The next stage: a copy of all previous stages except the last: 0. So far: 0.1.0.

4) The next stage: same as for (3): 01. So far: 0.1.0.01.

5) Etc.: 0.1.0.01.010.01001.01001010.0100101001001. ...

6) Stripped of ".": 0100101001001010010100100101001001 ...

Remember my asking for the millionth digit of the "wine tasting sequence" 0110100110010110...?

OK, well, what is the millionth digit of this sequence? The answer is very cute. I'll include it as a comment to this very post, so no fair peeking unless you give up...

Comments

  1. Wabulon4:02 PM

    OK, the answer--are you sure you want to peek?

    Let F(k) be the k-th Fibonacci number. Then the algorithm for the value d of the N-th digit of our sequence is:

    Given N;
    WHILE N > 2
    N = N - max(k)(F(k) < N);
    d = N - 1;

    Actually, a less efficient but equally correct algorithm consists in repeatedly subtracting any F(k) greater than 2 and less than N.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more