Cracking the Code: Decoding the Pattern of 3D Mirror Inverted Numbers

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on decoding the pattern of 3D mirror inverted numbers using a method that compresses numbers to single digits to reveal a ratio pattern. It establishes a sequence of numbers—1, 2, 4, 8, 7, 5—that cycles back to 1, highlighting that powers of 2 cannot be congruent to multiples of 3 when considered modulo 9. The conversation also explores different concepts of number representation, where one method involves duplicating numbers and another involves adding the initial number to create multiples. The final image's pattern on the surface of a torus remains unclear to participants. Overall, the thread emphasizes mathematical relationships and visual representations of number patterns.
Rhuben
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Rules: Compress to single digits to reveal ratio pattern.
The line is to be followed - 1,2,4,8,7,5 and back to 1. Each number being added to itself.The other line is the invisible nines.

Control Dial:
l_c3f47ea9e1d1a916eaaed031c830e96e.gif
l_65e6efff0c4bcfa40322126945a4191f.gif


2-D Skin (ignore the +&-)
l_fb72e4b350e88ac18f23ff89d888f7df.jpg


3-D Torus
l_7d07cefb1640ff2450cac8e0dc3f5fbb.jpg


Have fun! :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's see. In the first image, the solid lines join powers of 2 (since the number is duplicated on each step). So the image illustrates that a power of 2 cannot be congruent to a multiple of 3 (mod 9), which is something that can be proved by observing that, if 2^n is congruent to r (mod 9), then 9 divides 2^n - r; and since 3 divides 9, then 3 must divide 2^x - r. If 3 divided r it would have to divide 2^x as well, which is false, so 3 cannot divide r.

In the second image you used a different concept; this time not duplicating each number, but adding always the initial number; thus each row represents the multiples of the initial number (mod 9), if you care to replace 9 by 0.

As for the pattern in the third image, or how it ended on the surface of a torus, I'm lost.
 
l_64b2d589aee0062e7d0561bd6c338ba4.gif
l_3e9ff2dc779235f290707c8cc2c1bc55.png
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K