Simbospam! Ancient maths
Sorry for double post but this is very interesting.
Or is it? Fuck off, it is!
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 0:46, Share, Reply)
Sorry for double post but this is very interesting.
Or is it? Fuck off, it is!
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 0:46, Share, Reply)
Interesting
But none of those methods work if the numbers you start with are fractions.
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 2:09, Share, Reply)
But none of those methods work if the numbers you start with are fractions.
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 2:09, Share, Reply)
love numberphile
and that's fuckin' witchcraft
Edit: And also, that's Johnny fuckin' Ball!!
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 12:20, Share, Reply)
and that's fuckin' witchcraft
Edit: And also, that's Johnny fuckin' Ball!!
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 12:20, Share, Reply)
I once met Johnny Ball
at Glastonbury festival.
He was just like Johnny Ball. Which was great.
When I met Oliver Postgate, he too was just like Oliver Postgate, which was also great.
Unfortunately, when I met Keith Chegwin, he was just like Keith Chegwin, which was not good at all.
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 13:43, Share, Reply)
at Glastonbury festival.
He was just like Johnny Ball. Which was great.
When I met Oliver Postgate, he too was just like Oliver Postgate, which was also great.
Unfortunately, when I met Keith Chegwin, he was just like Keith Chegwin, which was not good at all.
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 13:43, Share, Reply)
Christ on a bike
Am I happy to see Johnny Ball's still going
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 16:32, Share, Reply)
Am I happy to see Johnny Ball's still going
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 16:32, Share, Reply)
All of this!
The maths teacher you always wished you had...and actually did have!
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 21:14, Share, Reply)
The maths teacher you always wished you had...and actually did have!
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 21:14, Share, Reply)
It's a paper version of doing it in binary on a computer.
Wherever the divide-by-two results in a bit being lost, you add on the steadily doubling number on the other side.
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 16:58, Share, Reply)
Wherever the divide-by-two results in a bit being lost, you add on the steadily doubling number on the other side.
( , Wed 5 Feb 2020, 16:58, Share, Reply)
it's more to do with nature of binary itself, which goes up by two with each full column
so 7 (binary: 111) x 5 is the same as multiplying by (2,2,2,1)(adding 2x5 + 2x5 + 2x5 and itself together). The column format and rounding down give you a nice way of rationalising this. So 2,2,2,1 becomes 4,2,1. 6 Binary (110) becomes 4,2,0. 10 (binary 1010) 8,0,2,0 instead of 2,2,2,2,2
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 12:13, Share, Reply)
so 7 (binary: 111) x 5 is the same as multiplying by (2,2,2,1)(adding 2x5 + 2x5 + 2x5 and itself together). The column format and rounding down give you a nice way of rationalising this. So 2,2,2,1 becomes 4,2,1. 6 Binary (110) becomes 4,2,0. 10 (binary 1010) 8,0,2,0 instead of 2,2,2,2,2
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 12:13, Share, Reply)
7 is 111 in binary. Not 1111. That's 15.
6 is 110 and 10 is 1010.
So. Err.
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 18:12, Share, Reply)
6 is 110 and 10 is 1010.
So. Err.
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 18:12, Share, Reply)
fucksocks. i realised I'd made an error but pasted over the wrong bit
still, the proof is solid. multiplying something by a binary value means adding double the value with every column, as the binary column represents 2. So his method is breaking one of the factors up into twos (converting to binary), with a handy method of rationalising this.
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 23:05, Share, Reply)
still, the proof is solid. multiplying something by a binary value means adding double the value with every column, as the binary column represents 2. So his method is breaking one of the factors up into twos (converting to binary), with a handy method of rationalising this.
( , Thu 6 Feb 2020, 23:05, Share, Reply)