> --- Roahn Wynar <rwynar@...> wrote:

Very nice. I wrote a script to draw some of these

> You can have a look at the idea on a small site I built

> just for this purpose: https://home.comcast.net/~rwynar/.

> I will add an applet to generate these images soon, ...

> > Of course all comments are welcome.

and see why you chose to work with the largest factor

first (though I used a green square instead of a circle

in a square for the third terminating image). I made

some animations, but none very interesting...

There are obviously easier ways of converting

numbers to images, but that one is fun and is much

nice looking!

Chris

A couple quick notes on the longer article (you should

probably ignore these, I'm not as artistic as you...):

You left out 2, and 3 in abstract. Def 2.3 does not need infinity

if it is as stated the index of prime (only), maybe reword the

sentence before the def to apply to all n. Typo n for

p in same def. In (5.2) write 37 not 39. ... In def

(2.4) make don't call 5 a large prime; add ref to 2 as flat,

3 as sharp rather than just imply it defs 2.1, 2.2.

In the intro 10472 is not prime. You refer to the

wrong figure there. Much of the verbiage of the first

few paragraphs should be removed as distracting from

what you achieved (especially the notion of "equal size,"

self deprecation like first sentence of third paragraph...)

Simplify. It is too nice of idea to bury in words.

Overall your artistic nature may have gotten too strong

of hold on you. If I was a referee I'd suggest you simplify

the notation to what you have in figure 2; that is use [n]

as in the image instead of #FKA(n). The sharp, flat and

natural operators may be more readable as function notation

(and perhaps subscripts to indication iteration), but

could be left to save effort.- For those who are interested, you can now experiment with the Whole Number Hash Applet at https://home.comcast.net/~rwynar/. You can input some pretty big numbers since the Applet uses BigInteger arithmetic, but be careful, for now the factorization method is pretty lame and if you put in primes over about 7 digits things can take a while. That is pretty embarrassing, considering this list's distinctiveness regarding factoring. I promise to fix this in V1.1 :).

Phil - I have added a Java Applet at https://home.comcast.net/~rwynar/ , which is probably even better than control-click. If you have a truly exotic number you would like converted I would happily give it a go.

Chris - I would enjoy seeing how your script outputs looked. Is there anyway to send a sample on to me? In my algorithm the borders of the atoms get demagnified with the atoms which gives a slightly uneven appearance (that is...the borders at each recursive level are not all consistent.) However this effect is useful for tracking the recursion depth by eye, so I have not bothered to work that issue out. I am wondering if your script naturally handles this.

What sort of animation did you attempt, that sounds interesting. Thanks for your comments on the paper, they are all excellent. I was certainly aware of the verbosity problem, which is why I wrote the short version, which is STILL verbose. I am no fan of pretentious notation, so I will be taking much of your advice.

Roahn

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - --- Roahn Wynar <rwynar@...> wrote:
> For those who are interested, you can now experiment with the Whole Number

Oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the "write once, run anywhere"

> Hash Applet at https://home.comcast.net/~rwynar/.

bu^Wmarketting message that Sun was so proud of. Alas, it don't work here, and

yes, before you ask, my VM came from Sun. (It's alive, it *_VERY_ANNOYINGLY_*

pulls the window to the top of the window-manager's z-stack when my mouse even

glides past the applet, it just doesn't do anything.)

> You can input some pretty

P-1 and Rho are really simple. I recommend just throwing in a quick

> big numbers since the Applet uses BigInteger arithmetic, but be careful, for

> now the factorization method is pretty lame and if you put in primes over

> about 7 digits things can take a while. That is pretty embarrassing,

> considering this list's distinctiveness regarding factoring. I promise to

> fix this in V1.1 :).

implementation of one or the other. If there's a built-in modular expmod for

bignums, then probably P-1 will be most efficient. Otherwise, you really can't

get simpler than a Rho, implementation-wise. (And do the Brent version, as it

has handy stopping points for factor checking.)

Phil

() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign

/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed

[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com > Chris - I would enjoy seeing how your script outputs looked.

I'd wondered if you did that on purpose. Go to

> Is there anyway to send a sample on to me? In my algorithm

> the borders of the atoms get demagnified with the atoms which

> gives a slightly uneven appearance (that is...the borders at

> each recursive level are not all consistent.) However this

> effect is useful for tracking the recursion depth by eye, so

> I have not bothered to work that issue out. I am wondering

> if your script naturally handles this.

http://www.utm.edu/staff/caldwell/preprints/temp/

1to30 is just that, 1, 2, 3, ...

Then the flat primes p, pq, pqr, ... to 307

Then the same for the sharp.

Made by quick and sloppy Maple, exported, made smaller

with fireworks...

Hope I did these right, didn't check very carefully...

CC