< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 758 OF 758 ·
|Dec-16-14|| ||Shams: Smash I say, smash.|
|Dec-16-14|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: Hey, CG, has my old avatar hit a black hole after my membership lapsed? I used to have one, and after the (unintentional) reactivation, I was expecting it to be restored (just like the forum got restored) -- but nope, it reverted to a generic one...|
|Dec-16-14|| ||Fusilli: <MostlyAverageJoe> Long ago when I was slow in renewing and let my membership expire, the same thing happened to me, if memory serves. Maybe if you go to the avatar "store" (or whatever is called) to pick one, you'll find your old one. Have you looked? I think I did find mine there back then.|
|Dec-16-14|| ||chessgames.com: Hi <MAJ> — so sorry, but yes that's how it works, when your account lapses your avatar goes back into the pool.|
Just for occasions like this there is a secret backdoor programmed into the Avatar Area which shows every single avatar, with its ID number, all in a line. Your old avatar must be in there somewhere--if you can locate it, we can fix you up with it again.
Avatar Area [secret backdoor]
|Dec-16-14|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: Aha -- found it! First via the backdoor, then on the normal Avatar Area, where I looked yesterday for quite a while and failed to locate it (something was really slow at that time).|
Thanks for the advice, <CG>, and <Fusilli>!
|Dec-17-14|| ||Domdaniel: <Shams> -- < Smash I say, smash.>
There's oil, damned oil, and hydraulics.|
|Dec-18-14|| ||chessgames.com: Wow, clue 35 was released (the one about the Cavendish experiment) but if you blinked you missed it. We actually thought it would remain for at least a little while, especially since we went out of our way to get a graphic that was not searchable by TinEye etc.|
Good for Bver!
|Dec-18-14|| ||Stonehenge: Even better for User: 7krzem7 :)|
|Dec-18-14|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: My first thought when looking at the (already solved) klu#35 was "gravity", so that + G (the symbol for the gravitational constant) in the klu title was pretty much a pointer to Cavendish for anyone still remembering high school physics, and the handle <7krzem7> seems to indicate a science background, so I am not surprised that he got it fast.|
|Dec-18-14|| ||MostlyAverageJoe: <another J. Friedel wrote the definitive book on the topic of regular expressions>|
Errata needed. <Friedel> != <Friedl>
Just use Friede?l for the author's name and all is good :-)
|Dec-19-14|| ||gauer: Your main page shows http://www.chessgames.com/perl/clic... and the filter for tournament player search for pgn games is presented here: http://www.chess-results.com/Partie... - not sure if you wanted a link to catch the (match-pairing) games of some of the top group players.|
|Dec-19-14|| ||chessgames.com: <Just use Friede?l for the author's name> I think his birth certificate reads that way.|
|Dec-19-14|| ||OhioChessFan: < (Add to to each letter of TWELVE to get UXFMWF; add one in each letter of THIRTEEN to get UIJSUFFO) >|
Add "one" to each letter of TWELVE
|Dec-20-14|| ||Richard Taylor: <Domdaniel: Congrats on year 13. Some say it's unlucky, but I say it's a prime of form 4n+1.> Just noticed this. Is there a formula so to speak that covers all primes? I know 1 isn't a prime. |
I am meaning is there any 'series' of primes.
I know they are countably infinite.
At least they were shown to be infinite by a relatively simple proof by Galileo I think. Expand.
|Dec-21-14|| ||chessgames.com: <relatively simple proof> I'm pretty sure that was Euclid. In any case, we won't have another prime birthday until 2018.|
It might have been fun to incorporate a triskaidekaphobia theme to this year's Present Hunt but the thought never occurred to us.
|Dec-21-14|| ||kellmano: <Richard taylor> assume there isn't an infinite number of primes then you can list them. Multiply them all together and add one. This new number will be a prime as it will have a remainder of one when divided by any number in the supposedly exhaustive list of primes. IT will also be bigger than any of them in the list, thus there cannot be a finite amount of primes.|
Euclid's argument. It doesn't of course generate the next prime from any list, but does show they are infinite.
|Dec-21-14|| ||Sneaky: <assume there isn't an infinite number of primes> OK, I think that 13 is the biggest prime. <Multiply them all together and add one.> Sure, 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 = 30,030 + 1 = 30,031. <This new number will be a prime> No it's not: 59 x 509 = 30,031. |
|Dec-21-14|| ||john barleycorn: <kellmano: <Richard taylor> assume there isn't an infinite number of primes then you can list them. Multiply them all together and add one. This new number will be a prime as it will have a remainder of one when divided by any number in the supposedly exhaustive list of primes...>|
As <Sneaky> pointed out an example the construction does not give you automatically a prime..
In fact, the conclusion at the end of the construction by Euklid is that it is either a prime or has a prime divisor not in that "exhaustive" list.
|Dec-21-14|| ||kellmano: Quite right. I ought to have labelled the biggest prime in the supposedly exhaustive list Pn, we could then conclude that the new number is either prime or has a prime factor bigger than Pn, using unique prime factorisation, which underpins the whole thing anyway.|
|Dec-21-14|| ||john barleycorn: <kellmano> another interesting fact is that Euklid doesn't state "there is an infinity of primes" as "infinity" was not a greek concept (at that time. Today's state budget deficit may have changed their thought :-).) He states "there is no biggest prime number".|
|Dec-21-14|| ||Domdaniel: <Richard Taylor> No, there's no simple formula for prime numbers. But all primes are either of the form 4n+1 (ie, one more than a multiple of 4) or 4n-1 (one less than a multiple of 4).|
The 4n+1 primes (5, 13, 17, 29, 37...) are all equal to the sum of two squares. None of the 4n-1 primes are.
|Dec-21-14|| ||Domdaniel: <CG> -- Sean Bradley - Sean (John) Bradley died recently. We played together on a college team in the 1970s.|
|Dec-22-14|| ||OhioChessFan: While it violates no rules, maybe it treads the line of duplicate posts, probably not, anyway, I see something not quite right about posting the same message on all 50 game pages of a historical tournament. I mean, isn't enough enough? Can we expect 600,000 similar posts, one for each game in the database?|
|Dec-22-14|| ||chessgames.com: <OhioChessFan> It took me a minute to figure out which posts you were referring to. I'm sure he is trying to make a positive contribution, but I share in the opinion that this effort is misguided.|
It wouldn't be bad—in fact it would be laudable—if the posts were supplying information that we otherwise have no access to. However in this case the posts are simply restating facts already a click away (if not clearly visible on the page).
|Dec-22-14|| ||chessgames.com: <DomDaniel> I'm sorry to hear that. I inserted 2014 as the year he passed away. If you want to supply more information just tell the Biographer Bistro what you want and I'm sure they'll help out.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 758 OF 758 ·