Pair on a D-String

What’s special about the binary number 10011 and the ternary number 1001120221? To answer the question, you have to see double. 10011 contains all possible pairs of numbers created from 0 and 1, just as 1001120221 contains all possible pairs created from 0, 1 and 2. And each pair appears exactly once. Now try the quaternary number 10011202130322331. That contains exactly one example of all possible pairs created from 0, 1, 2 and 3.

But there’s something more: in each case, the number is the smallest possible number with that property. As the bases get higher, that gets less obvious. In quinary, or base 5, the smallest number containing all possible pairs is 10011202130314042232433441. The digits look increasingly random. And what about base 10? There are 100 possible pairs of numbers created from the digits 0 to 9, starting with 00, 01, 02… and ending with …97, 98, 99. To accommodate 100 pairs, the all-pair number in base 10 has to be 101 digits long. It’s a string of digits, so let’s call it a d-string:

1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 1, 3, 0, 3, 1, 4, 0, 4, 1, 5, 0, 5, 1, 6, 0, 6, 1, 7, 0, 7, 1, 8, 0, 8, 1, 9, 0, 9, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 2, 7, 2, 8, 2, 9, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 6, 3, 7, 3, 8, 3, 9, 4, 4, 5, 4, 6, 4, 7, 4, 8, 4, 9, 5, 5, 6, 5, 7, 5, 8, 5, 9, 6, 6, 7, 6, 8, 6, 9, 7, 7, 8, 7, 9, 8, 8, 9, 9, 1

Again, the digits look increasingly random. They aren’t: they’re strictly determined. The d-string is in harmony. As the digits are generated from the left, they impose restrictions on the digits that appear later. It might appear that you could shift larger digits to the right and make the number smaller, but if you do that you no longer meet the conditions and the d-string collapses into dischord.

Now examine d-strings containing all possible triplets created from the digits of base 2, 3 and 4:

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 in base 2 = 558 in base 10

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0 in base 3 = 23203495920756 in base 10

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 0, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 0, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 0, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 0 in base 4 = 1366872334420014346556556812432766057460 in base 10

Note that there are 8 possible triplets in base 2, so the all-triplet number has to be 10 digits long. In base 10, there are 1000 possible triplets, so the all-triplet number has to be 1002 digits long. Here it is:

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0, 4, 0, 0, 4, 1, 0, 5, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 6, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 7, 0, 0, 7, 1, 0, 8, 0, 0, 8, 1, 0, 9, 0, 0, 9, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 0, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 0, 1, 4, 1, 1, 5, 0, 1, 5, 1, 1, 6, 0, 1, 6, 1, 1, 7, 0, 1, 7, 1, 1, 8, 0, 1, 8, 1, 1, 9, 0, 1, 9, 1, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 0, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 0, 2, 4, 1, 2, 5, 0, 2, 5, 1, 2, 6, 0, 2, 6, 1, 2, 7, 0, 2, 7, 1, 2, 8, 0, 2, 8, 1, 2, 9, 0, 2, 9, 1, 3, 2, 0, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 0, 3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 0, 3, 4, 1, 3, 5, 0, 3, 5, 1, 3, 6, 0, 3, 6, 1, 3, 7, 0, 3, 7, 1, 3, 8, 0, 3, 8, 1, 3, 9, 0, 3, 9, 1, 4, 2, 0, 4, 2, 1, 4, 3, 0, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4, 1, 4, 5, 0, 4, 5, 1, 4, 6, 0, 4, 6, 1, 4, 7, 0, 4, 7, 1, 4, 8, 0, 4, 8, 1, 4, 9, 0, 4, 9, 1, 5, 2, 0, 5, 2, 1, 5, 3, 0, 5, 3, 1, 5, 4, 0, 5, 4, 1, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 0, 5, 6, 1, 5, 7, 0, 5, 7, 1, 5, 8, 0, 5, 8, 1, 5, 9, 0, 5, 9, 1, 6, 2, 0, 6, 2, 1, 6, 3, 0, 6, 3, 1, 6, 4, 0, 6, 4, 1, 6, 5, 0, 6, 5, 1, 6, 6, 0, 6, 6, 1, 6, 7, 0, 6, 7, 1, 6, 8, 0, 6, 8, 1, 6, 9, 0, 6, 9, 1, 7, 2, 0, 7, 2, 1, 7, 3, 0, 7, 3, 1, 7, 4, 0, 7, 4, 1, 7, 5, 0, 7, 5, 1, 7, 6, 0, 7, 6, 1, 7, 7, 0, 7, 7, 1, 7, 8, 0, 7, 8, 1, 7, 9, 0, 7, 9, 1, 8, 2, 0, 8, 2, 1, 8, 3, 0, 8, 3, 1, 8, 4, 0, 8, 4, 1, 8, 5, 0, 8, 5, 1, 8, 6, 0, 8, 6, 1, 8, 7, 0, 8, 7, 1, 8, 8, 0, 8, 8, 1, 8, 9, 0, 8, 9, 1, 9, 2, 0, 9, 2, 1, 9, 3, 0, 9, 3, 1, 9, 4, 0, 9, 4, 1, 9, 5, 0, 9, 5, 1, 9, 6, 0, 9, 6, 1, 9, 7, 0, 9, 7, 1, 9, 8, 0, 9, 8, 1, 9, 9, 0, 9, 9, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 8, 2, 2, 9, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 5, 2, 3, 6, 2, 3, 7, 2, 3, 8, 2, 3, 9, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, 7, 2, 4, 8, 2, 4, 9, 2, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 5, 2, 5, 6, 2, 5, 7, 2, 5, 8, 2, 5, 9, 2, 6, 3, 2, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 6, 7, 2, 6, 8, 2, 6, 9, 2, 7, 3, 2, 7, 4, 2, 7, 5, 2, 7, 6, 2, 7, 7, 2, 7, 8, 2, 7, 9, 2, 8, 3, 2, 8, 4, 2, 8, 5, 2, 8, 6, 2, 8, 7, 2, 8, 8, 2, 8, 9, 2, 9, 3, 2, 9, 4, 2, 9, 5, 2, 9, 6, 2, 9, 7, 2, 9, 8, 2, 9, 9, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 6, 3, 3, 7, 3, 3, 8, 3, 3, 9, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 7, 3, 4, 8, 3, 4, 9, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 7, 3, 5, 8, 3, 5, 9, 3, 6, 4, 3, 6, 5, 3, 6, 6, 3, 6, 7, 3, 6, 8, 3, 6, 9, 3, 7, 4, 3, 7, 5, 3, 7, 6, 3, 7, 7, 3, 7, 8, 3, 7, 9, 3, 8, 4, 3, 8, 5, 3, 8, 6, 3, 8, 7, 3, 8, 8, 3, 8, 9, 3, 9, 4, 3, 9, 5, 3, 9, 6, 3, 9, 7, 3, 9, 8, 3, 9, 9, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 7, 4, 4, 8, 4, 4, 9, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 7, 4, 5, 8, 4, 5, 9, 4, 6, 5, 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 7, 4, 6, 8, 4, 6, 9, 4, 7, 5, 4, 7, 6, 4, 7, 7, 4, 7, 8, 4, 7, 9, 4, 8, 5, 4, 8, 6, 4, 8, 7, 4, 8, 8, 4, 8, 9, 4, 9, 5, 4, 9, 6, 4, 9, 7, 4, 9, 8, 4, 9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 7, 5, 5, 8, 5, 5, 9, 5, 6, 6, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5, 7, 6, 5, 7, 7, 5, 7, 8, 5, 7, 9, 5, 8, 6, 5, 8, 7, 5, 8, 8, 5, 8, 9, 5, 9, 6, 5, 9, 7, 5, 9, 8, 5, 9, 9, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 9, 6, 7, 7, 6, 7, 8, 6, 7, 9, 6, 8, 7, 6, 8, 8, 6, 8, 9, 6, 9, 7, 6, 9, 8, 6, 9, 9, 7, 7, 7, 8, 7, 7, 9, 7, 8, 8, 7, 8, 9, 7, 9, 8, 7, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8, 9, 9, 9, 1, 0

Consider the quadruplet number in base 10. There are 10000 possible quadruplets, so the all-quadruplet number is 10003 digits long. And so on. In general, the “all n-tuplet” number in base b contains b^n n-tuplets and is (b^n + n-1) digits long. If b = 10 and n = 4, the d-string starts like this:

1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 4, 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 6, 1, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 7, 1, 0, 0, 8, 0, 0, 0, 8, 1, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, 0, 9, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 3, 0, 0, 1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 4, 0, 0, 1, 4, 1, 0, 1, 5, 0, 0, 1, 5, 1, 0, 1, 6, 0, 0, 1, 6, 1, 0, 1, 7, 0, 0, 1, 7, 1, 0, 1, 8, 0, 0, 1, 8, 1, 0, 1, 9, 0, 0, 1, 9, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 1, 0, 2, 2, 0, 0, 2, 2, 1, 0, 2, 3, 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 0, 2, 4, 0, 0, 2, 4, 1, 0, 2, 5, 0, 0, 2, 5, 1, 0, 2, 6…

What about when n = 100? Now the d-string is ungraspably huge – too big to fit in the known universe. But it starts with 1 followed by a hundred 0s and every digit after that is entirely determined. Perhaps there’s a simple way to calculate any given digit, given its position in the d-string. Either way, what is the ontological status of the d-string for n=100? Does it exist in some Platonic realm of number, independent of physical reality?

Some would say that it does, just like √2 or π or e. I disagree. I don’t believe in a Platonic realm. If the universe or multiverse ceased to exist, numbers and mathematics in general would also cease to exist. But this isn’t to say that mathematics depends on physical reality. It doesn’t. Nor does physical reality depend on mathematics. Rather, physical reality necessarily embodies mathematics, which might be defined as “entity in interrelation”. Humans have invented small-m mathematics, a symbolic way of expressing the physical embodiment of big-m mathematics.

But small-m mathematics is actually more powerful and far-ranging, because it increases the number, range and power of entities and their interaction. Where are √2 and π in physical reality? Nowhere. You could say that early mathematicians saw their shadows, cast from a Platonic realm, and deduced their existence in that realm, but that’s a metaphor. Do all events, like avalanches or thunderstorms, exist in some Platonic realm before they are realized? No, they arise as physical entities interact according to laws of physics. In a more abstract way, √2 and π arise as entities of another kind interact according to laws of logic: the concepts of a square and its diagonal, of a circle and its diameter.

The d-strings discussed above arise from the interaction of simpler concepts: the finite set of digits in a base and the ways in which they can be combined. Platonism is unnecessary: the arc and spray of a fountain are explained by the pressure of the water, the design of the pipes, the arrangement of the nozzles, not by reference to an eternal archetype of water and spray. In small-m mathematics, there are an infinite number of fountains, because small-m mathematics opens a door to a big-U universe, infinitely larger and richer than the small-u universe of physical reality.

Amble On

“The Rolling English Road” (1913), G.K. Chesterton

Before the Roman came to Rye or out to Severn strode,
The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road.
A reeling road, a rolling road, that rambles round the shire,
And after him the parson ran, the sexton and the squire;
A merry road, a mazy road, and such as we did tread
The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head.

I knew no harm of Bonaparte and plenty of the Squire,
And for to fight the Frenchman I did not much desire;
But I did bash their baggonets because they came arrayed
To straighten out the crooked road an English drunkard made,
Where you and I went down the lane with ale-mugs in our hands,
The night we went to Glastonbury by way of Goodwin Sands.

His sins they were forgiven him; or why do flowers run
Behind him; and the hedges all strengthening in the sun?
The wild thing went from left to right and knew not which was which,
But the wild rose was above him when they found him in the ditch.
God pardon us, nor harden us; we did not see so clear
The night we went to Bannockburn by way of Brighton Pier.

My friends, we will not go again or ape an ancient rage,
Or stretch the folly of our youth to be the shame of age,
But walk with clearer eyes and ears this path that wandereth,
And see undrugged in evening light the decent inn of death;
For there is good news yet to hear and fine things to be seen,
Before we go to Paradise by way of Kensal Green.


“The Rolling English Road” at Wikipedia

The Mill to Power

Reading about Searle’s Chinese Room Argument at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I came across “Leibniz’s Mill” for the first time. At least, I think it was the first time:

It must be confessed, however, that perception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception. It is accordingly in the simple substance, and not in the compound nor in a machine that the perception is to be sought. Furthermore, there is nothing besides perceptions and their changes to be found in the simple substance. And it is in these alone that all the internal activities of the simple substance can consist. (Monadology, 1714, section #17)

Andererseits muß man gestehen, daß die Vorstellungen, und Alles, was von ihnen abhängt, aus mechanischen Gründen, dergleichen körperliche Gestalten und Bewegungen sind, unmöglich erklärt werden können. Man stelle sich eine Maschine vor, deren Structur so eingerichtet sei, daß sie zu denken, zu fühlen und überhaupt vorzustellen vermöge und lasse sie unter Beibehaltung derselben Verhältnisse so anwachsen, daß man hinein, wie in das Gebäude einer Mühle eintreten kann. Dies vorausgesetzt, wird man bei Besichtigung des Innern nichts Anderes finden, als etliche Triebwerke, deren eins das andere bewegt, aber gar nichts, was hinreichen würde, den Grund irgend einer Vorstellung abzugeben. Die letztere gehört ausschließlich der einfachen Substanz an, nicht der zusammengesetzten, und dort, nicht hier, muß man sie suchen. Auch sind Vorstellungen und ihre Veränderungen zugleich das Einzige, was man in der einfachen Substanz antrifft. (Monadologie, 1714)

We can see that Leibniz’s argument applies to mechanism in general, not simply to the machines he could conceive in his own day. He’s claiming that consciousness isn’t corporeal. It can’t generated by interacting parts or particles. And intuitively, he seems to be right. How could a machine or mechanism, however complicated, be conscious? Intuition would say that it couldn’t. But is intuition correct? If we examine the brain, we see that consciousness begins with mechanism. Vision and the other senses are certainly electro-chemical processes in the beginning. Perhaps in the end too.

Some puzzles arise if we assume otherwise. If consciousness isn’t mechanistic, how does it interact with mechanism? If it’s immaterial, how does it interact with matter? But those questions go back much further, to Greek atomists like Democritus (c. 460-370 BC):

Δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτῶι τάδε· ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους καὶ κενόν, τὰ δ’ἀλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι.

He taught that the first principles of the universe are atoms and void; everything else is merely thought to exist.

Νόμωι (γάρ φησι) γλυκὺ καὶ νόμωι πικρόν, νόμωι θερμόν, νόμωι ψυχρόν, νόμωι χροιή, ἐτεῆι δὲ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν.

By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void. (Democritus at Wikiquote)

Patterns of unconscious matter and energy influence consciousness and are perhaps entirely responsible for it. The patterns are tasteless, soundless, colourless, scentless, neither hot nor cold – in effect, units of information pouring through the circuits of reality. But are qualia computational? I think they are. I don’t think it’s possible to escape matter or mechanism and I certainly don’t think it’s possible to escape mathematics. But someone who thinks it’s possible to escape at least the first two is the Catholic philosopher Edward Feser. I wish I had come across his work a long time ago, because he raises some very interesting questions in a lucid way and confirms the doubts I’ve had for a long time about Richard Dawkins and other new atheists. His essay “Schrödinger, Democritus, and the paradox of materialism” (2009) is a good place to start.


Elsewhere other-posted:

Double Bubble
This Mortal Doyle
The Brain in Pain
The Brain in Train

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #30

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:

Ai Luv YewThe Bonsai Bible: The Definitive Guide to Choosing and Growing Bonsai, Peter Chan (Hamlyn 2014)

Starway to HeavenGuide to the Pyramids of Egypt, Alberto Siliotti, preface by Zahi Hawass (White Star Publishers 2000)

Escape and EssenceThe Wooden Horse, Eric Williams (Pen & Sword 2013)

Aspects of the AnnihilatorSub-Machine Gun: The development of sub-machine guns and their ammunition from World War I to the present day, Maxim Popenker and Anthony G. Williams (Crowood Press 2011)

Northanger AbyssReine in Blood: Castration, Clitoridolatry and Communal Cannibalism in the Novels of Jane Austen, Dr Miriam B. Stimbers (University of Nebraska Press 2014)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Summus

I’m interested in digit-sums and in palindromic numbers. Looking at one, I found the other. It started like this: 9^2 = 81 and 9 = 8 + 1, so digitsum(9^1) = digitsum(9^2). I wondered how long such a sequence of powers could be (excluding powers of 10). I quickly found that the digit-sum of 468 is equal to the digit-sum of its square and cube:

digsum(468) = digsum(219024) = digsum(102503232)

But I couldn’t find any longer sequence, although plenty of other numbers are similar to 468:

digsum(585) = digsum(342225) = digsum(200201625)
digsum(4680) = digsum(21902400) = digsum(102503232000)
digsum(5850) = digsum(34222500) = digsum(200201625000)
digsum(5851) = digsum(34234201) = digsum(200304310051)
digsum(5868) = digsum(34433424) = digsum(202055332032)
digsum(28845) = digsum(832034025) = digsum(24000021451125) [...]
digsum(589680) = digsum(347722502400) = digsum(205045005215232000)

What about other bases? First came this sequence:

digsum(2) = digsum(11) (base = 3) (highest power = 2)

Then these:

digsum(4) = digsum(22) = digsum(121) (b=7) (highest power = 3)
digsum(8) = digsum(44) = digsum(242) = digsum(1331) (b=15) (hp=4)
digsum([16]) = digsum(88) = digsum(484) = digsum(2662) = digsum(14641) (b=31) (hp=5)

The pattern continues (a number between square brackets represents a single digit in the base):

digsum([32]) = digsum([16][16]) = digsum(8[16]8) = digsum(4[12][12]4) = digsum(28[12]82) = digsum(15[10][10]51) (b=63) (hp=6)
digsum([64]) = digsum([32][32]) = digsum([16][32][16]) = digsum(8[24][24]8) = digsum(4[16][24][16]4) = digsum(2[10][20][20][10]2) = digsum(16[15][20][15]61) (b=127) (hp=7)
digsum([128]) = digsum([64][64]) = digsum([32][64][32]) = digsum([16][48][48][16]) = digsum(8[32][48][32]8) = digsum(4[20][40][40][20]4) = digsum(2[12][30][40][30][12]2) = digsum(17[21][35][35][21]71) (b=255) (hp=8)
digsum([256]) = digsum([128][128]) = digsum([64][128][64]) = digsum([32][96][96][32]) = digsum([16][64][96][64][16]) = digsum(8[40][80][80][40]8) = digsum(4[24][60][80][60][24]4) = digsum(2[14][42][70][70][42][14]2) = digsum(18[28][56][70][56][28]81) (b=511) (hp=9)

After this, I looked at sequences in which n(i) = n(i-1) + digitsum(n(i-1)). How long could digitsum(n(i)) be greater than or equal to digitsum(n(i-1))? In base 10, I found these sequences:

1 (digitsum=1) → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (sum=7) (count=4) (base=10)
9 → 18 (sum=9) → 27 (s=9) → 36 (s=9) → 45 (s=9) → 54 (s=9) → 63 (s=9) → 72 (s=9) → 81 (s=9) → 90 (s=9) → 99 (s=18) → 117 (s=9) (c=11) (b=10)
801 (s=9) → 810 (s=9) → 819 (s=18) → 837 (s=18) → 855 (s=18) → 873 (s=18) → 891 (s=18) → 909 (s=18) → 927 (s=18) → 945 (s=18) → 963 (s=18) → 981 (s=18) → 999 (s=27) → 1026 (s=9) (c=13)

Base 2 does better:

1 → 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 101 (s=2) → 111 (s=3) → 1010 (s=2) (c=5) (b=2)
16 = 10000 (s=1) → 10001 (s=2) → 10011 (s=3) → 10110 (s=3) → 11001 (s=3) → 11100 (s=3) → 11111 (s=5) → 100100 (s=2) (c=7) (b=2)
962 = 1111000010 (s=5) → 1111000111 (s=7) → 1111001110 (s=7) → 1111010101 (s=7) → 1111011100 (s=7) → 1111100011 (s=7) → 1111101010 (s=7) → 1111110001 (s=7) → 1111111000 (s=7) → 1111111111 (s=10) → 10000001001 (s=3) (c=10) (b=2)
524047 = 1111111111100001111 (s=15) → 1111111111100011110 (s=15) → 1111111111100101101 (s=15) → 1111111111100111100 (s=15) → 1111111111101001011 (s=15) → 1111111111101011010 (s=15) → 1111111111101101001(s=15) → 1111111111101111000 (s=15) → 1111111111110000111 (s=15) → 1111111111110010110 (s=15) → 1111111111110100101 (s=15) → 1111111111110110100 (s=15) → 1111111111111000011 (s=15) → 1111111111111010010 (s=15) → 1111111111111100001 (s=15) → 1111111111111110000 (s=15) → 1111111111111111111 (s=19) → 10000000000000010010 (s=3) (c=17) (b=2)

The best sequence I found in base 3 is shorter than in base 10, but there are more sequences:

1 → 2 → 11 (s=2) → 20 (s=2) → 22 (s=4) → 110 (s=2) (c=5) (b=3)
31 = 1011 (s=3) → 1021 (s=4) → 1102 (s=4) → 1120 (s=4) → 1201 (s=4) → 1212 (s=6) → 2002 (s=4) (c=6) (b=3)
54 = 2000 (s=2) → 2002 (s=4) → 2020 (s=4) → 2101 (s=4) → 2112 (s=6) → 2202 (s=6) → 2222 (s=8) → 10021(s=4) (c=7) (b=3)
432 = 121000 (s=4) → 121011 (s=6) → 121101 (s=6) → 121121 (s=8) → 121220 (s=8) → 122012 (s=8) → 122111 (s=8) → 122210 (s=8) → 200002 (s=4) (c=8) (b=3)
648 = 220000 (s=4) → 220011 (s=6) → 220101 (s=6) → 220121 (s=8) → 220220 (s=8) → 221012 (s=8) → 221111 (s=8) → 221210 (s=8) → 222002 (s=8) → 222101 (s=8) → 222200 (s=8) → 222222 (s=12) → 1000102 (s=4) (c=12) (b=3)

And what about sequences in which digitsum(n(i)) is always greater than digitsum(n(i-1))? Base 10 is disappointing:

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (sum=7) (count=4) (base=10)
50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 65 (s=11) → 76 (s=13) → 89 (s=17) → 106 (s=7) (c=5) (b=10)

Some other bases do better:

2 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 101 (s=2) (c=2) (b=2)
4 = 100 (s=1) → 101 (s=2) → 111 (s=3) → 1010 (s=2) (c=3) (b=2)
240 = 11110000 (s=4) → 11110100 (s=5) → 11111001 (s=6) → 11111111 (s=8) → 100000111 (s=4) (c=4) (b=2)

1 → 2 → 11 (s=2) (c=2) (b=3)
19 = 201 (s=3) → 211 (s=4) → 222 (s=6) → 1012 (s=4) (c=3) (b=3)
58999 = 2222221011 (s=15) → 2222221201 (s=16) → 2222222022 (s=18) → 2222222222 (s=20) → 10000000201 (s=4) (c=4) (b=3)

1 → 2 → 10 (s=1) (c=2) (b=4)
4 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 23 (s=5) → 100 (s=1) (c=4) (b=4)
977 = 33101 (s=8) → 33121 (s=10) → 33203 (s=11) → 33232 (s=13) → 33323 (s=14) → 100021 (s=4) (c=5) (b=4)

1 → 2 → 4 → 13 (s=4) (c=3) (b=5)
105 = 410 (s=5) → 420 (s=6) → 431 (s=8) → 444 (s=12) → 1021 (s=4) (c=4) (b=5)

1 → 2 → 4 → 12 (s=3) (c=3) (b=6)
13 = 21 (s=3) → 24 (s=6) → 34 (s=7) → 45 (s=9) → 102 (s=3) (c=4) (b=6)
396 = 1500 (s=6) → 1510 (s=7) → 1521 (s=9) → 1534 (s=13) → 1555 (s=16) → 2023 (s=7) (c=5) (b=6)

1 → 2 → 4 → 11 (s=2) (c=3) (b=7)
121 = 232 (s=7) → 242 (s=8) → 253 (s=10) → 266 (s=14) → 316 (s=10) (c=4) (b=7)
205 = 412 (s=7) → 422 (s=8) → 433 (s=10) → 446 (s=14) → 466 (s=16) → 521 (s=8) (c=5) (b=7)

1 → 2 → 4 → 10 (s=1) (c=3) (b=8)
8 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 17 (s=8) → 27 (s=9) → 40 (s=4) (c=5) (b=8)
323 = 503 (s=8) → 513 (s=9) → 524 (s=11) → 537 (s=15) → 556 (s=16) → 576 (s=18) → 620 (s=8) (c=6) (b=8)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 17 (s=8) (c=4) (b=9)
6481 = 8801 (s=17) → 8820 (s=18) → 8840 (s=20) → 8862 (s=24) → 8888 (s=32) → 10034 (s=8) (c=5) (b=9)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 (s=7) (c=4) (b=10)
50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 65 (s=11) → 76 (s=13) → 89 (s=17) → 106 (s=7) (c=5) (b=10)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 15 (s=6) (c=4) (b=11)
1013 = 841 (s=13) → 853 (s=16) → 868 (s=22) → 888 (s=24) → 8[10][10] (s=28) → 925 (s=16) (c=5) (b=11)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 14 (s=5) (c=4) (b=12)
25 = 21 (s=3) → 24 (s=6) → 2[10] (s=12) → 3[10] (s=13) → 4[11] (s=15) → 62 (s=8) (c=5) (b=12)
1191 = 833 (s=14) → 845 (s=17) → 85[10] (s=23) → 879 (s=24) → 899 (s=26) → 8[11][11] (s=30) → 925 (s=16) (c=6) (b=12)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 13 (s=4) (c=4) (b=13)
781 = 481 (s=13) → 491 (s=14) → 4[10]2 (s=16) → 4[11]5 (s=20) → 4[12][12] (s=28) → 521 (s=8) (c=5) (b=13)
19621 = 8[12]14 (s=25) → 8[12]33 (s=26) → 8[12]53 (s=28) → 8[12]75 (s=32) → 8[12]9[11] (s=40) → 8[12][12][12] (s=44) → 9034 (s=16) (c=6) (b=13)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 12 (s=3) (c=4) (b=14)
72 = 52 (s=7) → 59 (s=14) → 69 (s=15) → 7[10] (s=17) → 8[13] (s=21) → [10]6 (s=16) (c=5) (b=14)
1275 = 671 (s=14) → 681 (s=15) → 692 (s=17) → 6[10]5 (s=21) → 6[11][12] (s=29) → 6[13][13] (s=32) → 723 (s=12) (c=6) (b=14)
19026 = 6[13]10 (s=20) → 6[13]26 (s=27) → 6[13]45 (s=28) → 6[13]65 (s=30) → 6[13]87 (s=34) → 6[13][10][13] (s=42) → 6[13][13][13] (s=45) → 7032 (s=12) (c=7) (b=14)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 11 (s=2) (c=4) (b=15)
603 = 2[10]3 (s=15) → 2[11]3 (s=16) → 2[12]4 (s=18) → 2[13]7 (s=22) → 2[14][14] (s=30) → 31[14] (s=18) (c=5) (b=15)
1023 = 483 (s=15) → 493 (s=16) → 4[10]4 (s=18) → 4[11]7 (s=22) → 4[12][14] (s=30) → 4[14][14] (s=32) → 521 (s=8) (c=6) (b=15)
1891 = 861 (s=15) → 871 (s=16) → 882 (s=18) → 895 (s=22) → 8[10][12] (s=30) → 8[12][12] (s=32) → 8[14][14] (s=36) → 925 (s=16) (c=7) (b=15)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → 10 (s=1) (c=4) (b=16)
16 = 10 (s=1) → 11 (s=2) → 13 (s=4) → 17 (s=8) → 1[15] (s=16) → 2[15] (s=17) → 40 (s=4) (c=6) (b=16)
1396 = 574 (s=16) → 584 (s=17) → 595 (s=19) → 5[10]8 (s=23) → 5[11][15] (s=31) → 5[13][14] (s=32) → 5[15][14] (s=34) → 620 (s=8) (c=7) (b=16)
2131 = 853 (s=16) → 863 (s=17) → 874 (s=19) → 887 (s=23) → 89[14] (s=31) → 8[11][13] (s=32) → 8[13][13] (s=34) → 8[15][15] (s=38) → 925 (s=16) (c=8) (b=16)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[15] (s=16) (c=5) (b=17)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[14] (s=15) (c=5) (b=18)
5330 = [16]82 (s=26) → [16]9[10] (s=35) → [16][11]9 (s=36) → [16][13]9 (s=38) → [16][15][11] (s=42) → [16][17][17] (s=50) → [17]2[13] (s=32) (c=6) (b=18)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[13] (s=14) (c=5) (b=19)
116339 = [16][18]52 (s=41) → [16][18]75 (s=46) → [16][18]9[13] (s=56) → [16][18][12][12] (s=58) → [16][18][15][13] (s=62) → [16][18][18][18] (s=70) → [17]03[12] (s=32) (c=6) (b=19)

1 → 2 → 4 → 8 → [16] (s=16) → 1[12] (s=13) (c=5) (b=20)
100 = 50 (s=5) → 55 (s=10) → 5[15] (s=20) → 6[15] (s=21) → 7[16] (s=23) → 8[19] (s=27) → [10]6 (s=16) (c=6) (b=20)
135665 = [16][19]35 (s=43) → [16][19]58 (s=48) → [16][19]7[16] (s=58) → [16][19][10][14] (s=59) → [16][19][13][13] (s=61) → [16][19][16][14] (s=65) → [16][19][19][19] (s=73) → [17]03[12] (s=32) (c=7) (b=20)

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #29

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:

Sky StoryThe Cloud Book: How to Understand the Skies, Richard Hamblyn (David & Charles 2008)

Wine WordsThe Oxford Companion to Wine, ed. Janice Robinson (Oxford University Press 2006)

Nu WorldsNumericon, Marianne Freiberger and Rachel Thomas (Quercus Editions 2014)

ThalassobiblionOcean: The Definitive Visual Guide, introduction by Fabien Cousteau (Dorling Kindersley 2014) (posted @ Overlord of the Über-Feral)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Thalassobiblion

Ocean The Definitive Visual GuideOcean: The Definitive Visual Guide, introduction by Fabien Cousteau (Dorling Kindersley 2014)

A big book for a big subject: the sea. But “guide” isn’t the mot juste. “Encyclopaedia” is better, because the book covers all aspects of oceanography and marine life, drawing on physics, chemistry and biology to describe everything inorganic from waves and icebergs to whirlpools and underwater volcanoes, everything organic from a beautiful flower like beach morning-glory, Ipomoea imperati, to a grotesque fish like the Pacific blackdragon, Idiacanthus antrostomus. The flower is on the shore, the fish is in the abyss, but both of them descend from a single ancestor.

And that ancestor may have evolved in the sea. It certainly moved there before it gave rise to flowers and fish. This big subject is also a very important one: the sea is central to the evolution and continued existence of life on earth. Only the sun matters as much, but some marine life could potentially survive the disappearance of the sun:

Hydrothermal vents are similar to hot springs on land. Located near ocean ridges and rifts, at an average depth of 2,100m (7,000ft), they spew out mineral-rich, superheated seawater. Some have tall chimneys, formed from dissolved minerals that precipitate when the hot vent water meets cold, deep-ocean water. The mix of heat and chemicals supports animal communities around the vents – the first life known to exist entirely without the energy of sunlight. (pg. 188, “The Open Ocean and Ocean Floor”)

The deep ocean is a fascinating and little-known place: much nearer than the other side of the earth, but much harder to get to. Like climbing mountains, plumbing the abyss is difficult and dangerous. It’s interesting that both endeavours have been dominated by a particular group of human being: both the highest and lowest points on the planet were first reached by white males. Fabien Cousteau, who introduces this book, continues the tradition. He’s the grandson of Jacques Cousteau (1910-97), who popularized diving and marine biology for millions of people. Jacques saw huge advances in marine technology and science and his son and grandson have seen more. But the discoveries are still coming: as Fabien points out, it’s estimated that “over 90 per cent of the world’s biodiversity resides in its oceans”.

Discomedesae by Ernst Haeckel

Discomedusae by Ernst Haeckel

Some of that biodiversity left the water for the land and evolved new forms. Some of those new forms went back to the water, like the ceteceans and sea-snakes. Like human beings, they’re descended from fish, the most varied of all vertebrate groups. But some marine life never left its cradle. Where else can you find the beauty and strangeness of groups like the jellyfish? Radial symmetry is a marine speciality and when H.P. Lovecraft was inventing his aliens, he looked to under-space as much as outer:

But to give it a name at this stage was mere folly. It looked like a radiate, but was clearly something more. It was partly vegetable, but had three-fourths of the essentials of animal structure. That it was marine in origin, its symmetrical contour and certain other attributes clearly indicated; yet one could not be exact as to the limit of its later adaptations. The wings, after all, held a persistent suggestion of the aerial. How it could have undergone its tremendously complex evolution on a new-born earth in time to leave prints in Archaean rocks was so far beyond conception as to make Lake whimsically recall the primal myths about Great Old Ones who filtered down from the stars and concocted earth life as a joke or mistake; and the wild tales of cosmic hill things from outside told by a folklorist colleague in Miskatonic’s English department. (At the Mountains of Madness, 1931)

Lovecraft would have enjoyed Ocean as much as Jacques Cousteau. It closes with a detailed “Atlas of the Oceans”, with maps of the ocean floor all around the world. Before that, you can learn how the Corryvreckan whirlpool nearly killed George Orwell in 1947, where to find manganese nodules, why so many deep-sea creatures are red and what the narwhale’s horn really is. You can also feast your eyes on photography that records everything from microscopic plankton to swirling hurricanes hundreds of kilometres across. Big subject, big book. Beautiful subject and beautiful book too.

Spijit

The only two digits found in all standard bases are 1 and 0. But they behave quite differently. Suppose you take the integers 1 to 100 and compare the number of 1s and 0s in the representation of each integer, n, in bases 2 to n-1. For example, 10 would look like this:

1010 in base 2
101 in base 3
22 in base 4
20 in base 5
14 in base 6
13 in base 7
12 in base 8
11 in base 9

So there are nine 1s and four 0s. If you check 1 to 100 using this all-base function, the count of 1s goes like this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 8, 5, 9, 9, 11, 10, 15, 12, 14, 13, 15, 12, 17, 14, 20, 19, 20, 15, 23, 19, 22, 22, 25, 24, 31, 21, 25, 24, 24, 27, 33, 27, 31, 29, 34, 29, 36, 30, 34, 35, 34, 30, 40, 33, 36, 35, 38, 34, 42, 37, 43, 40, 41, 37, 48, 39, 42, 42, 44, 43, 48, 43, 47, 46, 51, 42, 53, 44, 48, 50, 51, 50, 55, 48, 59, 55, 55, 54, 64, 57, 57, 55, 60, 57, 68, 60, 64, 63, 64, 59, 68, 58, 61, 63.

And the count of 0s goes like this:

0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 2, 0, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 1, 2, 2, 7, 4, 8, 4, 7, 4, 3, 1, 8, 4, 4, 6, 8, 4, 7, 1, 10, 8, 7, 7, 12, 5, 6, 5, 10, 4, 8, 2, 6, 7, 4, 2, 12, 6, 9, 7, 8, 4, 11, 6, 10, 5, 4, 2, 12, 2, 3, 5, 14, 11, 13, 7, 10, 8, 11, 5, 17, 7, 8, 10, 10, 8, 10, 4, 13, 12, 10, 8, 16, 8, 7, 7, 12, 6, 14, 6, 8, 5, 4, 4, 16, 6, 10, 11, 15.

The bigger the numbers get, the bigger the discrepancies get. Sometimes the discrepancy is dramatic. For example, suppose you represented the prime 1014719 in bases 2 to 1014718. How 0s would there be? And how many 1s? There are exactly nine zeroes:

1014719 = 11110111101110111111 in base 2 = 1220112221012 in base 3 = 40B27B in base 12 = 1509CE in base 15 = 10[670] in base 1007.

But there are 507723 ones. The same procedure applied to the next integer, 1014720, yields 126 zeroes and 507713 ones. However, there is a way to see that 1s and 0s in the all-base representation are behaving in a similar way. To do this, imagine listing the individual digits of n in bases 2 to n-1 (or just base 2, if n <= 3). When the digits aren’t individual they look like this:

1 = 1 in base 2
2 = 10 in base 2
3 = 11 in base 2
4 = 100 in base 2; 11 in base 3
5 = 101 in base 2; 12 in base 3; 11 in base 4
6 = 110 in base 2; 20 in base 3; 12 in base 4; 11 in base 5
7 = 111 in base 2; 21 in base 3; 13 in base 4; 12 in base 5; 11 in base 6
8 = 1000 in base 2; 22 in base 3; 20 in base 4; 13 in base 5; 12 in base 6; 11 in base 7
9 = 1001 in base 2; 100 in base 3; 21 in base 4; 14 in base 5; 13 in base 6; 12 in base 7; 11 in base 8
10 = 1010 in base 2; 101 in base 3; 22 in base 4; 20 in base 5; 14 in base 6; 13 in base 7; 12 in base 8; 11 in base 9

So the list would look like this:

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1

Suppose that these digits are compared against the squares of a counter-clockwise spiral on a rectangular grid. If the spiral digit is equal to 1, the square is filled in; if the spijit is not equal to 1, the square is left blank. The 1-spiral looks like this:
1spiral
Now try zero. If the spijit is equal to 0, the square is filled in; if not, the square is left blank. The 0-spiral looks like this:
0spiral
And here’s an animated gif of the n-spiral for n = 0..9:
animspiral

She-Shell

Perseus Releases Andromeda by Joachim Wtewael (mirrored)

Joachim Wtewael (sic), Perseus Rescuing Andromeda (1611) (mirrored)

When I first came across this painting in a recent edition of Arthur Cotterell’s Classic Mythology,* it had mutated in two ways: it was mirror-reversed (as above) and Wtewael’s name (pronounced something like “EET-a-vaal”) was printed “WIEWAEL”. At least, I assume the painting was mirror-reversed, because almost all versions on the web have Andromeda on the left, which means that Perseus is holding his sword in his right hand, as you would expect.

I think I prefer the mirrored version, though I don’t know whether that’s because it was the first one I saw. In either version, it is a rich and dramatic painting, full of meaning, seething with symbolism. It’s displayed in the Louvre and if French etymology had been a little different, I could have called it La Conque d’Andromède. Here is the commoner version:
Perseus Releases Andromeda by Joachim Wtewael


*Mythology of Greece and Rome (Southwater 2003).