Re: Re: Re: algebraic numbers

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg106212] Re: [mg106180] Re: [mg106161] Re: algebraic numbers*From*: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>*Date*: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:45:38 -0500 (EST)*References*: <hhc7a1$2o2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200912300912.EAA17052@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: drmajorbob at yahoo.com

I didn't call it a formula. It's an algorithm, a very SIMPLE algorithm, and it always works. StringLength was never mentioned in the SATs, to my knowledge. Nor was any OTHER measure of simplicity. Nor was SIMPLICITY itself, for that matter. (I think.) Weren't questions posed as if there could only be one answer? Bobby On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:59:25 -0600, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > I am not sure I you can call that a "forumla". Besides > > StringLength["fill in the first bubble"] > > 24 > > So, if we also include them in the simplicity test, this one is probably > not going to pass. > > On 4 Jan 2010, at 07:38, DrMajorBob wrote: > >> The simplest algorithm for determining "what's the next term" is > simply "fill in the first bubble". >> >> Bobby >> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:42:21 -0600, Andrzej Kozlowski > <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2 Jan 2010, at 19:05, DrMajorBob wrote: >>> >>>> If one had the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences handy, those SAT >>>> questions could be interesting. But they'd still be nonsense. >>> >>> I think only their wording should be changed to something like: "find >>> the simplest formula generating the sequence ... where simplest > means >>> requiring the least number of standard mathematical symbols to write >>> down". These kind of questions, of course, should probably allow the >>> possibility that the person answering the question finds an answer > that >>> is simpler than the expected one. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> DrMajorBob at yahoo.com > > -- DrMajorBob at yahoo.com