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

You are not logged in. #26 20121017 13:24:52
Re: Pascal's squareHi; 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. #27 20121018 01:44:11
Re: Pascal's squareMeh. I have discovered a truly marvellous signature, which this margin is too narrow to contain. Fermat Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. Archimedes Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.  Neumann #28 20121018 02:00:55
Re: Pascal's squareHmmmm. There is that word again. 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. #29 20121018 02:13:05
Re: Pascal's squareMeh. By the way, sorry for hijacking this thread. I have discovered a truly marvellous signature, which this margin is too narrow to contain. Fermat Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. Archimedes Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.  Neumann #30 20121031 01:23:44
Re: Pascal's squareHi everyone; Last edited by Mpmath (20121031 01:24:39) Winter is coming. #31 20121031 02:55:00
Re: Pascal's squareHi Mpmath; 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. #33 20121031 03:18:16
Re: Pascal's squareHi; 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. #34 20121031 03:53:06
Re: Pascal's squareI tried. This is the result: Winter is coming. #35 20121031 04:01:11
Re: Pascal's squareHi; 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. #36 20121031 04:24:03
Re: Pascal's squareThe sum of the numbers of each row doesn't give a right result, but all numbers are the product of the prime and all exponents of 2. Winter is coming. #37 20121031 04:39:38
Re: Pascal's squareOkay, just wanted to see what happens. 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. #38 20121031 04:54:32
Re: Pascal's squareI think that the square with prime numbers is not a Pascal's square, but it's still an intersting disposition of numbers. Winter is coming. #39 20121031 06:36:43
Re: Pascal's squareBy what principle do you exactly get each number of the square? The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #40 20121031 06:42:29
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Winter is coming. #41 20121031 07:42:38
Re: Pascal's squareIt might be interesting to have different rules. For example: add the numbers above, left and diagonalaboveleft. "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #42 20121031 08:53:50
Re: Pascal's squareOf course. There are so many rules that we can use. For example we can only add the numbers in each row, or in each column, using different kinds of successions. These mustn't be just Pascal's square with one rule. Winter is coming. #43 20121031 09:04:47
Re: Pascal's square
This seems more in the spirit of Pascal's triangle. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #44 20121031 09:27:23
Re: Pascal's squareWell, this Last edited by Mpmath (20121031 09:28:03) Winter is coming. #45 20121031 15:11:26
Re: Pascal's squareThat one has the rule the one to the left plus the two on top. 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. #46 20121031 18:24:12
Re: Pascal's squareA Pascal's square has more rules And possibilities than a Pascal's triangle. Winter is coming. #47 20121031 21:27:38
Re: Pascal's squareI also find another square, similiar to that of MathIsFun. The only different is that numbers on the first column and on the first row are exponents of 2. This is the square: Winter is coming. #48 20121031 21:35:29
Re: Pascal's squareHi; 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. #49 20121031 22:09:18
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Winter is coming. #50 20121031 22:29:49
Re: Pascal's squareHi; 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. 