April 2018 - mathfun@mailman.xmission.com

[math-fun] Rolling polyhedra
by James Propp 25 Dec '20

25 Dec '20

I want to think about rolling polyhedra, and the polyhedra I want to think about rolling are polyhedra in which the sum of the angles at each vertex is a submultiple of 360 degrees. For instance, given any triangle T, we can create a tetrahedron whose four faces are all congruent to T, with angle-sum 180 degrees at each vertex (there's a name for such tetrahedra but I forget what it is). Are there other polyhedra in which the angles at each vertex sum to a submultiple of 360 degrees (not necessarily the same one at each vertex)? Jim Propp

4 10

[math-fun] One parameter quintic solution
by Bill Gosper 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

This is probably ho-hum, but while trying to simplify a Chowla-surdberg, I found that 0 = a + 80 x + 20 x^3 + x^5 has solutions {((-a - Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^((2 I \[Pi])/5))/2^( 1/5) + ((-a + Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^((2 I \[Pi])/5))/2^( 1/5), ((-a + Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^(-((2 I \[Pi])/5)))/2^( 1/5) + ((-a - Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^(-((4 I \[Pi])/5)))/2^( 1/5), ((-a - Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^(-((2 I \[Pi])/5)))/2^( 1/5) + ((-a + Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^(-((4 I \[Pi])/5)))/2^( 1/5), (-a + Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5)/2^( 1/5) + ((-a - Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^((4 I \[Pi])/5))/2^( 1/5), (-a - Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5)/2^( 1/5) + ((-a + Sqrt[4096 + a^2])^(1/5) E^((4 I \[Pi])/5))/2^(1/5)} Is it from a two-parameter family? C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintic_function#Other_solvable_quintics --rwg

1 3

[math-fun] How does a dull spoon manage to cut a stringy piece of meat
by Bill Gosper 14 Jul '20

14 Jul '20

while sliding back an forth against the inside of a slippery bowl? --rwg

5 9

[math-fun] Heighway triple points redux
by Bill Gosper 21 Mar '20

21 Mar '20

I thought OEIS A260482, A260747..A260750 completely described the (initial) Dragon triple points, all of which have preimages a(n)/15/2^k. But I just noticed an editor's remark that there is another infinite family of the form a(n)/7/2^k. These are much less "photogenic" than the old set (e.g. gosper.org/dragtrip!.png) <http://gosper.org/dragtrip!.png> because two preimages always(?) differ by 2/7/2^k, and ~75% of them have the 3rd preimage within 4/7/2^k. But they can get "arbitrarily" lopsided: In[508]:= undrag[(69 + 27 I)/160] Out[508]= {1539/3584, 2551/3584, 2553/3584} (Differences presumably limited to 40%.) Also, Julian has privately remarked that there are no irrational triple points. --rwg

1 2

[math-fun] Dean Hickerson
by James Propp 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Anyone have a current email address for Dean Hickerson? "dean at math daht ucdavis daht edu" and "dean at ucdmath daht ucdavis daht edu" aren't working anymore. Thanks, Jim Propp

5 5

[math-fun] ellipsoid from girths: multivariate series reversion
by Bill Gosper 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

Corey notes that ellipsoid girths can't be {large, tiny, tiny} and challenges us to find the "ellipsoid girth inequality" analogous to the triangle inequality. What are the dimensions (semiaxes a,b, and c) of say, the ellipsoidoidal rock by the road near the Foothill College fire station, given the girths gab, gac, gbc; a>b>c? (Assuming you can get the damned thing off your tape measure once you've rolled it on.) In terms of a, b, c, the girths are {gab -> 4 a EllipticE[1 - b^2/a^2], gac -> 4 a EllipticE[1 - c^2/a^2], gbc -> 4 b EllipticE[1 - c^2/b^2]} This is a routine problem for FindRoot, but it would be nice to see how a, b, c depend on the girths in the low eccentricity case, say, by reverting the series expansions of the girths. Julian, Corey, and I were surprised by the absence of multivariate reversion from Macsyma and Mathematica, and set about building our own. After several hours of cruel hoodwinking by Mma's Series facility, we emerged having only solved the ellipsoid case. Surprisingly(?), it has at least eight (2^3) solutions, which may help to explain the shortage of multivariate reverters. To fourth order, {a -> (gab/(2 Pi))(1 - eac + eac^2 + ebc + (eac ebc)/2 - (3 ebc^2)/2 + 1/8 (-8 eac^3 - eac^2 ebc - 9 eac ebc^2 + 18 ebc^3) + 1/16 (16 eac^4 + 2 eac^3 ebc - 3 eac^2 ebc^2 + 42 eac ebc^3 - 57 ebc^4)), a -> (gac/(2 Pi))(1 + ebc + 3/2 (eac ebc - ebc^2) + 3/8 (eac^2 ebc - 7 eac ebc^2 + 6 ebc^3) - 3/16 (7 eac^2 ebc^2 - 26 eac ebc^3 + 19 ebc^4))} {b -> (gab/(2 Pi))(1 + eac - (3 eac^2)/2 - ebc + (eac ebc)/2 + ebc^2 + 1/8 (18 eac^3 - 9 eac^2 ebc - eac ebc^2 - 8 ebc^3) + 1/16 (-57 eac^4 + 42 eac^3 ebc - 3 eac^2 ebc^2 + 2 eac ebc^3 + 16 ebc^4)), b -> (gac/(2 Pi))(1 + 2 eac - eac^2/2 - ebc - (eac ebc)/2 + ebc^2 + 1/8 (6 eac^3 - 5 eac^2 ebc + 7 eac ebc^2 - 8 ebc^3) + 1/16 (-21 eac^4 + 24 eac^3 ebc - 5 eac^2 ebc^2 - 14 eac ebc^3 + 16 ebc^4))} {c -> (gab/(2 Pi))(1 - eac + eac^2 + eac^4 - ebc - (eac ebc)/2 - (eac^3 ebc)/ 8 + ebc^2 - (5 eac^2 ebc^2)/16 - (eac ebc^3)/8 + ebc^4 + 1/8 (-8 eac^3 + eac^2 ebc + eac ebc^2 - 8 ebc^3)), c -> (gac/(2 Pi))(1 - ebc - (3 eac ebc)/2 - (3 eac^2 ebc)/8 + ebc^2 + (9 eac ebc^2)/8 - (3 eac^2 ebc^2)/16 - ebc^3 - ( 9 eac ebc^3)/8 + ebc^4)} where {eac -> gab/gac - 1, ebc -> gab/gbc - 1}, which are small for low eccentricity. E.g., for {a -> 5., b -> 4., c -> 3.}, the girth formulæ give {gab -> 28.3617, gac -> 25.527, gbc -> 22.1035}. Plugging these back into the reversions: {{a -> 4.97828, a -> 4.98561}, {b -> 4.00689, b -> 4.00371}, {c -> 3.0062, c -> 3.00353}}. --rwg

3 5

[math-fun] Neutron stars as atoms
by Warren D Smith 23 Apr '19

23 Apr '19

Whitfield Diffie I recall reading the intreaguing observation that stable neutron structures run up to around atomic wieght 300 and then their is a long gap before you get to the neutron stars with atomic weights around 10^50. Perhaps we should regard the neutron stars as isotopes of very heavy elements. The atomic numbers would be miniscule by comparison with the atomic weights but a mildely positively charged neutron star doesn't seem impossible: would adding a billion protons make a difference? --WDS: A better way to view this is: replace the word "stable" with "stable under pressure." See, I would claim that it is an illusion that there is no stable nucleus with atomic weight 1000. Actually, if you put it under enough pressure, then it would presumably become stable. The only problem is humans have no hope of sustaining pressures that large and the only known way to reach them is inside a neutron star. Anyhow, with suitable pressure ramp up, probably there is no "gap" at all, and practically the full range of atomic weights become reachable with stability. Another thing is: the usual nuclei generally are in the ground state. Excited states that last long, are rare for nuclei. But for a neutron star, it presumably never reaches ground, there are too many excited states it gets trapped in for long periods. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)

7 9

[math-fun] square root approximation?
by Stuart Anderson 06 Nov '18

06 Nov '18

Is this a known method? Not particularly accurate though https://mystudentvoices.com/how-an-old-mans-ravings-awakened-the-mathematic…

4 3

[math-fun] When is base 2 not binary?
by Bill Gosper 01 Aug '18

01 Aug '18

When the digits are 0 and 1 and the other two cuberoots of 1. See gosper.org/gaskettalk.pdf pp 11 and 13. E.g., i/√3 = red.cyangreencyangreencyangreen... = cyan.greenmagentagreenmagentagreen... . Presumably we can expect a lot of these multiple representations when the unit patch has a fractal boundary. PUZZLE: Here of dimension what? We need |base|² digits to cover a positive area in the complex plane. The "France fractal" bounds the unit patch of the base 2+i^(2/3) with digits zero and the 6th roots of 1. |2+i^(2/3)| = √7. Base 2+i^(2/3) with three digits moved outward gosper.org/base2+w.bmp has a unit patch with a boundary of large dimension. (PUZZLE: D=?) --rwg

3 4

Re: [math-fun] Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?
by Henry Baker 01 May '18

01 May '18

It's pretty clear: if there are consistent models with CH and consistent models w/o CH, then that makes CH *independent* -- to choose whichever way you please. Just like the Euclid's parallel postulate: if you like it, you get Euclid's plane geometry, whereas if you don't like it, you get one of the non-flat geometries -- e.g., Einstein. That's mathematics/mathematical logic. Now consider physics. I find CH completely antithetical to quantum theory -- e.g., "ultraviolet catastrophe" and all that. So while CH is really nice for a lot of math, I don't think that it describes post-19th C. physics very well. Curiously, much of the math of QM seems to make liberal use of CH, so something's wrong with the math at the basis of QM. I believe that this was the essence of Fredkin's, Bennett's, Feynman's (?) etc., arguments. BTW, I seriously doubt that TPC is independent, but I don't have any proofs. At 04:29 PM 4/29/2018, Dan Asimov wrote: >The twin prime conjecture (TPC) says there are infinitely many pairs of prime numbers separated only by 2, like 3 and 5, 5 an 7, 11 and 13, etc. > >No one knows if it's true or false. > >But whichever is the case, it might not be possible to *prove* this fact. > >A similar situation is the Continuum Hypothesis (CH), which states that there is no infinity strictly larger than the size of the integers and strictly smaller than the size of the real numbers. > >Kurt Goedel proved about 1940 that CH was consistent with the axioms of set theory (ZF, for Zermelo-Frankel), and Paul Cohen proved in 1963 that the negation of CH was *also* consistent with ZF. > >So in this case there is *no doubt*: There exists neither a proof of CH, nor a proof of its negation ~CH, purely based on the axioms ZF+AC of set theory. > >Question: >--------- > >So, does that mean that CH is neither really true nor really false, but some third option? > >Or what? > >I'm curious what people think about this. > >ÂDan

5 5