tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote:
I didn't see this result you mention, but it surprises me. The part about how it works in some bases, but not in decimal.
The "hand-waving" (motivational/informal) explanation for why I am surprised is that "Nature doesn't care about bipeds with 10 digits vs. bipeds, or whatever, with 2 digits or 16 digits." That is, results applicable in base 16, hexadecimal, should be easily applicable in base 10.
Since we're talking about digits rather than numbers, I can see why base to some power of 2 might turn out to be significant. The trivial base 2 or 16 to base 10 conversion isn't useful if you're working with a single digit. A well, its fruitless to guess without looking at the result. Let me close by saying that in decimal notation, not a single digit of Klarner's Konstant is known. Not really relevant, but its as close a chance as I get to mentioning my research. :-) Dietrich J. Kappe | Web Publishing: http://www.redweb.com Red Planet, L.L.C. | Chess Space: http://www.redweb.com/chess 1-800-RED 0 WEB | MS Access: http://www.redweb.com/cobre RedPlanet@redweb.com | Comics: http://www.redweb.com/wraithspace