Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20090620 12:35:51
Mentalism?. . . . . A Mind Reading Trick #2 20090623 00:13:59
Re: Mentalism?Hi soroban; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #4 20090624 04:53:52
Re: Mentalism?Hi soroban; Last edited by bobbym (20090624 04:55:01) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #5 20090624 08:18:44
Re: Mentalism?The trick doesn't quite work for any two starting numbers. Let and choose and as the starting numbers. Since the sequence we get is so the ratio of two consecutive terms is always #6 20090624 09:35:54
Re: Mentalism?The convergence seems to work best if the two positive integers are the same, and worst if the second is zero "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #7 20090624 10:18:29
Re: Mentalism?
What do you mean by "work best"? #8 20090624 10:59:38
Re: Mentalism?I used "seems" as I just played with it in Open Office Calc. My measure of choice was the 9th and 14th terms ... comparing them to a more accurate version of Phi. "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #9 20090624 12:57:31
Re: Mentalism?I will admit that my choice of 610, 987 was rather extreme. I certainly wouldn't expect this pair to be found by randomly trying pairs of integers, but even 1, 2 is a better starting pair than 1, 1. #10 20090624 20:46:32
Re: Mentalism?Hi; Last edited by bobbym (20090624 20:48:18) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 