Most Likes Page: @mfb Approaching 5000 Likes on Physics Forums

[diogenesNY]

Just for fun: type 'interesting numbers' into your favorite search engine.

Plenty of options for losing a whole bunch of time :)

--diogenesNY

 

[fresh_42]

Just for fun: type 'interesting numbers' into your favorite search engine.

Plenty of options for losing a whole bunch of time :)

--diogenesNY

List of notable numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers

but the German version is better for browsing:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_besonderer_Zahlen

 

[BillTre]

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers:

Even the smallest "uninteresting" number is paradoxically interesting for that very property. This is known as the interesting number paradox.

 

[fresh_42]

It seems that everybody who ever dealt with number theory has their own number:
Catalan, Fermat, Mersenne, Wilson, Smith, Waring, Euler, Khinchin, Frans´en, Robinson, Feigenbaum, Fibonacci, Golay, Goldbach, Kaprekar, Carmichael, Giuga, Wieferich, Münchhausen, Wolstenholme, Sierpinski, Cataldi, Ramanujan, Lucas, Riesel, Beaver, Hurwitz, Selfridge, Gillies, Cullen, and so on, and even this strange mathematician called Mirp has numbers.

I want my number, too!

 

[BillTre]

I've got your number.

 

[Klystron]

Hey, it's not my fault that 758354^{5425224273734}+7523733544212⁶²⁶²³ is so large.

PS: This is likely the first time anyone ever considered this specific number. I made it far more interesting than before.

I think I understand the interest in the first term in the addition but fail to grasp the second. I almost get it but the second exponent does not pattern for me. Assistance? @WWGD?

 

[Klystron]

It seems that everybody who ever dealt with number theory has their own number:
Catalan, Fermat, Mersenne, Wilson, Smith, Waring, Euler, Khinchin, Frans´en, Robinson, Feigenbaum, Fibonacci, Golay, Goldbach, Kaprekar, Carmichael, Giuga, Wieferich, Münchhausen, Wolstenholme, Sierpinski, Cataldi, Ramanujan, Lucas, Riesel, Beaver, Hurwitz, Selfridge, Gillies, Cullen, and so on, and even this strange mathematician called Mirp has numbers.

I want my number, too!

From contemporary correspondence and reports, despite frère Marin's prodigious accomplishments and standing in the science community, le Père Mersenne remained a humble person.

One can imagine his mirthful reaction to learn a sequence of prime numbers of the form M_n = (2ⁿ − 1) carries his name.

 

[WWGD]

This is one for high posters : 4294967217. I remember it because I did a small presentation for a number theory seminar in undergrad.

$4294967297 = 2^{32} +1 = 2^{2^5}+1 =(641)(6700417)$

I think it is the smallest counter that $2^{2^n} +1$ is always prime. From Euler, IIRC; a real

"Tour de France" ( Tour de Force)".

So, what do you say, @mfb , @berkeman and other high posters? ;).

 

[jedishrfu]

Sadly we can only list some of the countable numbers before our time is up but there are innumerable others that we can’t.

 

[mfb]

I think I understand the interest in the first term in the addition but fail to grasp the second. I almost get it but the second exponent does not pattern for me. Assistance? @WWGD?

That's surprising given that all four numbers are the result of number-mashing on the keyboard.

@vanhees71 reached 8000 likes!

 

[Klystron]

That's surprising given that all four numbers are the result of number-mashing on the keyboard.

@vanhees71 reached 8000 likes!

Ha, I mean LOL. Sarcasm, never a strong point, escapes me more and more with age.

@vanhees71 writes excellent physics with concise math. I particularly enjoy the instructive exchanges with our resident Bohmians. Hopefully, I contributed many likes.

 

[mfb]

@PeterDonis took the lead in "likes"!
~12100, a bit ahead of @fresh_42.

 

[WWGD]

This is one for high posters : 4294967217. I remember it because I did a small presentation for a number theory seminar in undergrad.

$4294967297 = 2^{32} +1 = 2^{2^5}+1 =(641)(6700417)$

I think it is the smallest counter that $2^{2^n} +1$ is always prime. From Euler, IIRC; a real

"Tour de France" ( Tour de Force)".

So, what do you say, @mfb , @berkeman and other high posters? ;).

Sorry about this; it is bizarre. I have no clue what point I was trying to make here.

 

[phinds]

Sorry about this; it is bizarre. I have no clue what point I was trying to make here.

Uh huh. I've TOLD you about late night drinking and posting !

 

[dextercioby]

Here's a nice 3 here.

 

[Orodruin]

Here's a nice 3 here.
View attachment 283693

 

[phinds]

Here's a nice 3 here.
View attachment 283693

Hm ... if you think those two numbers add up to 3, you need to work on your basic math skills

 

[mfb]

@Ibix broke the 3:1 ratio shown above. Do I need to make 6 posts quickly now?

@Dale reached 8000 likes!
And phinds will join, soon.

 

[WWGD]

@Ibix broke the 3:1 ratio shown above. Do I need to make 6 posts quickly now?

@Dale reached 8000 likes!
And phinds will join, soon.

I gave you an extra one so that you can do 9 more without upvotes and still preserve the ratio.

 

[Charles Link]

I see I just gave @hutchphd "like" 2500. Congratulations. :)

 

[mfb]

And @PeterDonis reached 13000. @fresh_42 is 6 away from it.

 

[Tom.G]

How about a bar graph distribution plot of Likes vs Posts and/or Likes per user? Probably a semi-log or log-log scale needed.

 

[mfb]

Would probably need database access (@Greg Bernhardt ?), but the awards give some data points. First 10 taken from the most likes page.

Still no trophy beyond 8000.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Still no trophy beyond 8000.

 

[mfb]

Greg added one for 12,000. Currently three users, V50 will likely be the fourth.

We learned that 1400 trophy points is still a PF singularity.