My son, Tobias, pointed out to that me my 88th birthday has the following numerical peculiarity: Aside from the age of two, this is the only birthday I will have that is equal to a prime cubed times the next prime in the numerical sequence (2 cubed, or 8, times 11). The next one is 3 cubed, or 27, times 29, which is 783, and since these are not Old Testament times, it is extremely unlikely that I will live to see that birthday.
Well, I recently had a rare birthday: second member of a prime pair. There's an outside chance I'll see another.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of the proof that there are no uninteresting numbers:
ReplyDeleteIf there were a set of uninteresting numbers, there would be a lowest number in the set, which would be, of course, interesting.
Happy Birthday!
Barney
btw, 1 is not considered prime
ReplyDeleteAnd here is the well-known Ramanujan anecdote: G.H. Hardy arrived at Ramanujan’s house in a cab numbered 1729, a number he claimed to be totally uninteresting. Ramanujan is said to have stated on the spot that, on the contrary, it was actually a very interesting number mathematically, being the smallest number representable in two different ways as a sum of two cubes. Such numbers are now sometimes referred to as “taxicab numbers“.
ReplyDelete"...since these are not Old Testament times, it is extremely unlikely that I will live to see that birthday."
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, you first get Raptured Upwards...
In which case 783 years would be less than a blink of the eye, because I would live forever -- the only thought more terrifying than death.
ReplyDeleteBut I believe living forever with no health problems would be sweet. Of course, just as long as the government was a well run one.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of some Utopia like Plato's Republic. Or maybe even like the USA but with way more advanced technology. --And with more progress like with the women solely in charge.
ReplyDeleteApparently the number 88 signals good luck and fortune in Chinese culture, though it is also widely used by neo-nazis.
ReplyDelete"And with more progress like with the women solely in charge."
ReplyDeleteLOL
"Charles [Mills] had a quite successful career, of course, but I have never thought that his work received in the philosophical community quite the recognition that it deserved."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you would devote a posting or two to why you think his work deserves more attention than it received?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhy is that so funny? I can tell Anonymous is no feminist, and that he has complete apathy for women leaders in politics.
Unknown (12/30/21, 1:53AM) wrote:
ReplyDelete"Charles [Mills] had a quite successful career, of course, but I have never thought that his work received in the philosophical community quite the recognition that it deserved."
Perhaps you would devote a posting or two to why you think his work deserves more attention than it received?
Follow the links here.
You will likely come away with an answer to your question even if you don't come away with much understanding of Mills himself.