Richard Guy's Strong Law of Small Numbers.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse]Richard Guy's Strong Law of Small Numbers.
[/QUOTE]

He bases everything on the law of small numbers. I might as well begin calling him "The law of small numbers guy."

[QUOTE=3.14159;225237]He bases everything on the law of small numbers. I might as well begin calling him "The law of small numbers guy."[/QUOTE]

I base every thing I post on things I know they just happen to run into it more often than [U]not[/U] lol.

underlined = haven't found one yet.

We all look for patterns in what we see and try to explain them. There's a certain art form in figuring out what patterns are likely to work out and which are probably just coincidence.

Now I see that sm88 has highlighted a second antidiagonal in yellow. It's probably worth pointing out that changes do propagate in that direction, since each cell is just the cell above and to its right times the appropriate number from the top row, mod 9 of course.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;225241]Now I see that sm88 has highlighted a second antidiagonal in yellow. It's probably worth pointing out that changes do propagate in that direction, since each cell is just the cell above and to its right times the appropriate number from the top row, mod 9 of course.[/QUOTE]

I even find the longer versions of these down lower but I doubt it helps.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse]We all look for patterns in what we see and try to explain them. There's a certain art form in figuring out what patterns are likely to work out and which are probably just coincidence.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it should not be used to claim that there are patterns where there are not. In maths, most of the time, it turns out to be the law of small numbers, combined with magical thinking. The end.

[QUOTE=3.14159;225245]Yes, but it should not be used to claim that there are patterns where there are not. In maths, most of the time, it turns out to be the law of small numbers, combined with magical thinking. The end.[/QUOTE]

You'd hate Ramsey Theory, methinks. :smile:

A good half of sm88's patterns have had basis in fact -- either they've been entirely correct or a small correction makes them right. (Most of the time the hard part is just getting the idea formalized at all: for example, what prediction is being made in the case of the antidiagonals?)

But what I'd really like to see is sm88 learning enough to prove or disprove his own conjectures.

here's a pattern i know isn't false lol my mother's bad luck (hopefully it's not hereditary). lets see a originally mis-diagnosed rare and terminal breast cancer, now people backed out of our house selling agreement as he's having heart and knee trouble. of course it landed on Friday the 13th of all lucky days of the year lol. what's next for her lol. hopefully not foreclosure.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;225249]You'd hate Ramsey Theory, methinks. :smile:

A good half of sm88's patterns have had basis in fact -- either they've been entirely correct or a small correction makes them right. (Most of the time the hard part is just getting the idea formalized at all: for example, what prediction is being made in the case of the antidiagonals?)

But what I'd really like to see is sm88 learning enough to prove or disprove his own conjectures.[/QUOTE]

well if a pattern could be deduced it would figure out what exponents in a range are possible as Mersenne primes exponents when taken along with they must be prime.

anyone want to help me with [TEX] commands ? I've been playing around but I don't know a list to help me save my butt lol.