News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by bugzz on Thursday April 01, 2021 @03:55PM (#26665257)
It's a property referencing the digits - thus "digital". The results hold for all bases, not just base 10.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by lupire on Thursday April 01, 2021 @06:42PM (#26667172)
Every base is base 10.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by gkop on Friday April 02, 2021 @01:48AM (#26669283)
Saving other non-math people like me a web search explaining this: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/the-funn...
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by HoverSausage on Friday April 02, 2021 @06:28AM (#26670327)
I actually ran into this once not as a joke. I was using some software which had an option that would change the default base it used for all numbers. After typing <command> 16 and fiddling about in hexadecimal I tried switching back to decimal using <command> 10, yet I was still in hex mode. It took me a few more seconds than it should for me to realise what had happened.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by rfurmani on Sunday April 04, 2021 @03:32AM (#26687584)
It must be the command-line calculator bc
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by HoverSausage on Sunday April 04, 2021 @09:31AM (#26689252)
That's possible, it was a long time ago and I can't remember for sure
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by bckr on Thursday April 01, 2021 @08:13PM (#26667848)
But every base is not described in the base most commonly written for human reading as "base 10"
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by kazinator on Sunday April 04, 2021 @11:52AM (#26690444)
Every base is base "one zero"; not every base is base "ten".
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by ScottBurson on Saturday April 03, 2021 @08:51PM (#26686056)
Except in Common Lisp, where every base is base 10, but only one base is base 10. .
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by RHSeeger on Thursday April 01, 2021 @08:13PM (#26667846)
I laughed at that a lot more than I should have. After a long day, thank you for that.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by wahern on Thursday April 01, 2021 @09:06PM (#26668171)
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by p1mrx on Friday April 02, 2021 @06:13AM (#26670278)
The origin was probably thousands of years ago; it's a basic property of positional number systems.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by rizpanjwani on Friday April 02, 2021 @07:12AM (#26670501)
nice detail on the alien having 4 digits.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by mostlylurks on Friday April 02, 2021 @03:16AM (#26669588)
Except for base 1.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by vletal on Friday April 02, 2021 @06:32AM (#26670334)
Nice corner case. It's pretty much useless, it would contain just a single value. Is it even valid base?
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by taneliv on Friday April 02, 2021 @07:21AM (#26670539)
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by mostlylurks on Friday April 02, 2021 @09:11AM (#26671130)
It can actually represent all integers just fine. It works like any other base, except whereas for example in base 10, positions are multiplied by 10^0 = 1, 10^1 = 10, 10^2 = 100 and so on, in base 1 they are multiplied by 1^0 = 1, 1^1 = 1, 1^2 = 1, and so on. The result is that each digit adds 1 to the number, like tally marks. So we have, for example

111 = 3

11 = 2

1 = 1

= 0

-1 = -1

-11 = -2

-111 = -3

Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by vletal on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:29PM (#26701893)
That is wierd. Base k includes numbers 0,...,k-1. For example 101 is a valid number in base 2 which is 2^2 + 2^1.

Using that logic, base 1 would only contain 0, hence it should not be able to expresss more values that 0.

Is your example actually a valid base 1?

Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by sunstone on Friday April 02, 2021 @01:25PM (#26673587)
All your base are belong to us.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by divbzero on Thursday April 01, 2021 @07:58PM (#26667764)
Yes, the word for base 10 is “decimal” [1] and digits do not have to be decimal digits. There are also binary digits “bits” [2], ternary digits “trits” [3], and so on.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_system

Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by patrec on Thursday April 01, 2021 @04:23PM (#26665561)
Digit = finger. Most people have 10. It was a pun.
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by Blikkentrekker on Thursday April 01, 2021 @09:18PM (#26668230)
Toes are also digits.

Whether the thumb and big toes are fingers is something that depends on definitions, but in the strictest sense they are excluded from fingers and toes, and thus humans generally have 20 digits, eight fingers, and eight toes by this definition.

Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by drvdevd on Thursday April 01, 2021 @10:54PM (#26668639)
I thought the joke was that digital = binary = 10 :)
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by gibolt on Thursday April 01, 2021 @05:43PM (#26666491)
I have a 2 handed phone number
Re:Mathematicians find a new class of digitally delicate primes by cobbzilla on Friday April 02, 2021 @07:24AM (#26670550)
How does it hold in base 2? Wouldn’t changing the least significant digit always make any prime an even number?