From: goedel@tezcat.com (Dietrich J. Kappe)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 09:36:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Representations of Pi, etc.
Message-ID: <v01510101ad12e25fe289@[206.1.161.4]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote:
>I didn't see this result you mention, but it surprises me. The part about
>how it works in some bases, but not in decimal.
>
>The "hand-waving" (motivational/informal) explanation for why I am
>surprised is that "Nature doesn't care about bipeds with 10 digits vs.
>bipeds, or whatever, with 2 digits or 16 digits." That is, results
>applicable in base 16, hexadecimal, should be easily applicable in base 10.

Since we're talking about digits rather than numbers, I can see why base to
some power of 2 might turn out to be significant. The trivial base 2 or 16
to base 10 conversion isn't useful if you're working with a single digit. A
well, its fruitless to guess without looking at the result. Let me close by
saying that in decimal notation, not a single digit of Klarner's Konstant
is known. Not really relevant, but its as close a chance as I get to
mentioning my research. :-)


Dietrich J. Kappe    | Web Publishing: http://www.redweb.com
Red Planet, L.L.C.   | Chess Space:  http://www.redweb.com/chess
1-800-RED 0 WEB      | MS Access: http://www.redweb.com/cobre
RedPlanet@redweb.com | Comics: http://www.redweb.com/wraithspace