tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post2022194043915149418..comments2021-06-18T14:00:35.888-04:00Comments on Recursivity: Some Unimpressive NumerologyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82187604863002949232013-03-08T05:28:55.518-05:002013-03-08T05:28:55.518-05:00Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,0...Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month! <br /> <br />[url=http://www.brokersring.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option <br /> <br />Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.brokersring.com/]make money[/url] securely onlineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42660292804953097082011-02-17T14:52:12.056-05:002011-02-17T14:52:12.056-05:00Some more numerology relating counting of polygona...Some more numerology relating counting of polygonal numbers, fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio? See<br /><br />http://donblazys.com/on_polygonal_numbers.pdfLew Baxternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56838412157956841402010-06-17T10:47:54.276-04:002010-06-17T10:47:54.276-04:00Sorry, I misunderstood.
In my first comment I was...Sorry, I misunderstood.<br /><br />In my first comment I was referring to what you said in the posting when you wrote "approximately .0072973525376"<br /><br />It was meant to be humorous.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20565234566406628152010-06-17T05:46:24.913-04:002010-06-17T05:46:24.913-04:00Larry:
It seems that the current known value of t...Larry:<br /><br />It seems that the current known value of the fine-structure constant is .0072973525376.<br /><br />Gilson's formula gives .00729735253186412.<br /><br />So they differ at the 10'th significant digit.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-92086758050541831152010-06-16T23:47:22.538-04:002010-06-16T23:47:22.538-04:00I told you I'm not a mathematician! I think I ...I told you I'm not a mathematician! I think I see why it has to one less than the total number. I should have said 12 decimal places since the last number is rounded. <br /><br />But I don't get why it's only ten.<br /><br />To me, 0.007 is more accurate than rounding it up to 0.01. Is that not correct? It seems to me that the number 0.007 is accurate to two decimal places (seven one-thousandths) and 0.01 is only accurate to one decimal place (one one-hundredth). It seems to me that the number 0.01 could actually be anything between 0.005 and 0.014 - is this correct?<br /><br />I'd be delighted if you could show me where I'm going wrong about the other two decimal places. I skipped most of first year math in order to play bridge and go skiing.<br /><br />Are you not supposed to count the zeros? Would it be 12 decimal places if it were 0.1172973525376 but only 10 if it's 0.0072973525376?<br /> <br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48878884311511362382010-06-16T19:17:24.626-04:002010-06-16T19:17:24.626-04:00How'd you get 13, Larry? I only see 10, intep...How'd you get 13, Larry? I only see 10, intepreted generously.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-31914343236622837972010-06-16T19:09:38.087-04:002010-06-16T19:09:38.087-04:00Giving a number that's accurate to 13 decimal ...Giving a number that's accurate to 13 decimal places and calling it "approximate" is something that this biochemist finds strange.<br /><br />How many more decimal places are necessary before it becomes "reasonably accurate"? :-)<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28606507467748049522010-06-16T17:12:32.931-04:002010-06-16T17:12:32.931-04:00Nonsense! Although your logic is sound, it just de...Nonsense! Although your logic is sound, it just demonstrates that the behavior of the cosine and the tangent for small arguments are as they are simply because Gilson's formula, which is far too complex to be wrong, must result in the value of the fine-structure constant.JNnoreply@blogger.com