Polymorphous Perverticity

As I’ve explained before on Overlord of the Über-Feral, the world’s premier purveyor of polygonic performativity (probably (possibly (perspectivistically))), it works with triangles and pentagons, but not with squares. And what is “it”? A simple procedure in which you create a polygon, choose a point inside it, then repeatedly move half-way towards a vertex chosen at random, marking each new position as you go.

pol3_4_5

When the polygon has three vertices, you get a Sierpiński triangle. When it has five, you get what might be called a  Sierpiński pentagon. When it has four, you get nothing. Or rather: you get everything, because the whole interior of the square gradually fills with points. But, as I’ve also explained before, there’s a simple way to change this. You can adapt the procedure so that a vertex can’t be chosen twice in a row, and so on.

When the rule is “No vertex twice in a row”, you get this fractal (colours change as a pixel is selected again):

pol4_0

But you can also use what might be a vertex increment, or vi, whereby you disallow vertices that are next to the previously chosen vertex, or two positions away, and so on. When the rule is “No vertex twice in a row”, the disallowed vertex is (v + 0), that is, vi = 0. If vi = 2 and the rule is disallow(v + 2), this fractal appears (when vi = 1, there’s no fractal):

pol4_2

v = 4, vi = 2

pol4_2_anim


You can extend these rules to apply not just to the previously chosen vertex, but also to the vertex chosen before that. Here are some fractals produced by the rule disallow(v[1] + vi[1], v[2] + vi[2]), where v[1] is the vertex previously chosen and v[2] is the vertex chosen before that:

pol4_1_2

v = 4, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 2

pol4_1_2_anim


pol4_2_0

v = 4, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 0

pol4_2_0_anim

pol4_2_0_white


pol4_2_1

v = 4, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 1

pol4_2_1_anim


pol4_2_2

v = 4, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 2

pol4_2_2_anim


And here are some fractals produced by the rule disallow(v[1] + vi[1], v[2] + vi[2], v[3] + vi[3]):

pol4_1_1_0

v = 4, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1, vi[3] = 0

pol4_1_1_0_anim


pol4_1_1_2

v = 4, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1, vi[3] = 2

pol4_1_1_2_anim


Applying these rules to pentagons rather than squares doesn’t produce such a dramatic difference, because the original procedure – choose any vertex at random, taking no account of previous choices – produces a fractal when v = 5, as noted above, but not when v = 4. Nevertheless, here are some fractals for v > 4:

pol5_0

v = 5, vi = 0


pol5_1

v = 5, vi = 1

pol5_1_anim


pol5_2

v = 5, vi = 2


pol5_0_0

v = 5, vi[1] = 0, vi[2] = 0


pol5_1_0

v = 5, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 0


pol5_2_0

v = 5, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 0

pol5_2_0_anim


pol5_1_1

v = 5, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1

pol5_1_1_anim


pol5_1_1_1

v = 5, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1, vi[3] = 1


pol5_va2

v = 5, vi = various


pol6_1

v = 6, vi = 1

pol6_1_anim

He Say, He Sigh, He Sow #35

• Las torres de la iglesia de hoy no han sido señalizadas por el clero progresivo con una cruz sino con una señal meteorológica. — Nicolás Gómez Dávila (1913-94)

    • The progressive clergy crowns the towers of the church of today not with a cross but with a weathervane.

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #47

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:

The Sting’s the Thing – A Sting in the Tale, Dave Goulson (Jonathan Cape 2013)

Two Heads, Two TonguesExcuse my French! Fluent Français without the Faux Pas, Rachel Best and Jean-Christophe Van Waes (Kyle Books 2013)

Marred MoonVoid Moon, Michael Connelly (2000)

’Vile VibesIn Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile, Dan Davies (Quercus 2014)

One-Stop Chop-ShopToxic Trannies from Kastration Kamp 23: A Sinister Symposium of Academic Assholes Shamelessly Shmoog the Filthiest Films in Cess-Cinema, Dr Miriam B. Stimbers, Dr Samuel P. Salatta, et al (TransToxic Texts 2016)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Fingering the Frigit

Fingers are fractal. Where a tree has a trunk, branches and twigs, a human being has a torso, arms and fingers. And human beings move in fractal ways. We use our legs to move large distances, then reach out with our arms over smaller distances, then move our fingers over smaller distances still. We’re fractal beings, inside and out, brains and blood-vessels, fingers and toes.

But fingers are fractal are in another way. A digit – digitus in Latin – is literally a finger, because we once counted on our fingers. And digits behave like fractals. If you look at numbers, you’ll see that they contain patterns that echo each other and, in a sense, recur on smaller and smaller scales. The simplest pattern in base 10 is (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). It occurs again and again at almost very point of a number, like a ten-hour clock that starts at zero-hour:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9…
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19…
200… 210… 220… 230… 240… 250… 260… 270… 280… 290…

These fractal patterns become visible if you turn numbers into images. Suppose you set up a square with four fixed points on its corners and a fixed point at its centre. Let the five points correspond to the digits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of numbers in base 6 (not using 0, to simplify matters):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65… 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2441, 2442, 2443, 2444, 2445, 2451, 2452…

Move between the five points of the square by stepping through the individual digits of the numbers in the sequence. For example, if the number is 2451, the first set of successive digits is (2, 4), so you move to a point half-way between point 2 and point 4. Next come the successive digits (4, 5), so you move to a point half-way between point 4 and point 5. Then come (5, 1), so you move to a point half-way between point 5 and point 1.

When you’ve exhausted the digits (or frigits) of a number, mark the final point you moved to (changing the colour of the pixel if the point has been occupied before). If you follow this procedure using a five-point square, you will create a fractal something like this:
fractal4_1single

fractal4_1
A pentagon without a central point using numbers in a zero-less base 7 looks like this:
fractal5_0single

fractal5_0
A pentagon with a central point looks like this:
fractal5_1single

fractal5_1
Hexagons using a zero-less base 8 look like this:
fractal6_1single

fractal6_1


fractal6_0single

fractal6_0
But the images above are just the beginning. If you use a fixed base while varying the polygon and so on, you can create images like these (here is the program I used):
fractal4


fractal5


fractal6789

Amateur ’Grammatics

There is much more to mathematics than mathematics. Like a tree, it has deep roots. Like a tree, it’s affected by its environment. Philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the roots. Psychology of mathematics is concerned with the environment.

On Planet Earth, the environment is human beings. What attracts men and women to the subject? What makes them good or bad at it?And so on. One interesting answer to the first question was supplied by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam (1909-84), who wrote this in his autobiography:

“In many cases, mathematics is an escape from reality. The mathematician finds his own monastic niche and happiness in pursuits that are disconnected from external affairs. Some practice it as if using a drug.” – Adventures of a Mathematician (1983)

That’s certainly part of maths’ appeal to me: as an escape from reality, or an escape from one reality into another (and deeper). Real life is messy. Maths isn’t, unless you want it to be. But you can find parallels between maths and real life too. In real life, people collect things that they find attractive or interesting: stamps, sea-shells, gems, cigarette-cards, beer-cans and so on. You can collect things in maths too: interesting numbers and number patterns. Recreational maths can feel like looking on a beach for attractive shells and pebbles.

Here’s a good example: digital anagrams, or numbers in different bases whose digits are the same but re-arranged. For example, 13 in base 10 equals 31 in base 4, because 13 = 3 * 4 + 1. To people with the right kind of mind, that’s an interesting and attractive pattern. There are lots more anagrams like that:

1045 = 4501 in base 6
1135 = 5131 in base 6

23 = 32 in base 7
46 = 64 in base 7

1273 = 2371 in base 8
1653 = 3165 in base 8

158 = 185 in base 9
227 = 272 in base 9

196 = 169 in base 11
283 = 238 in base 11

2193 = 1329 in base 12
6053 = 3605 in base 12

43 = 34 in base 13
86 = 68 in base 13

But triple anagrams, involving three bases, seem even more attractive:

913 = 391 in base 16 = 193 in base 26
103462 = 610432 in base 7 = 312046 in base 8
245183 = 413285 in base 9 = 158234 in base 11

And that’s just looking in base 10. If you include all bases, the first double anagram is in fact 21 in base 3 = 12 in base 5 (equals 7 in base 10). The first triple anagram is this:

2C1 in base 13 = 1C2 in base 17 = 12C in base 21 (equals 495 in base 10)

But are there quadruple anagrams, quintuple anagrams and higher? I don’t know. I haven’t found any and it gets harder and harder to search for them, because the bigger n gets, the more bases there are to check. However, I can say one thing for certain: in any given base, anagrams eventually disappear.

To understand why, consider the obvious fact that anagrams have to have the same number of digits in different bases. But the number of digits is a function of the powers of the base. That is, the triple anagram 103462 (see above) has six digits in bases 7, 8 and 10 because 7^5 < 103462 < 7^6, 8^5 < 103462 < 8^6 and 10^5 < 103462 < 10^6. Similarly, the triple anagram 245183 (ditto) has six digits in bases 9, 10 and 11 because 9^5 < 245183 < 9^6, 10^5 < 245183 < 10^6 and 11^5 < 245183 < 11^6:

7^5 < 103462 < 7^6
16807 < 103462 < 117649
8^5 < 103462 < 8^6
32768 < 103462 < 262144
10^5 < 103462 < 10^6
100000 < 103462 < 1000000
9^5 < 245183 < 9^6
59049 < 245183 < 531441
10^5 < 245183 < 10^6
100000 < 245183 < 1000000
11^5 < 245183 < 11^6
161051 < 245183 < 1771561

In other words, for some n the number-lengths of bases 7 and 8 overlap the number-lengths of base 10, which overlap the number-lengths of bases 9 and 11. But eventually, as n gets larger, the number-lengths of base 10 will fall permanently below the number-lengths of bases 7, 8 and 9, just as the number-lengths of base 11 will fall permanently below the number-lengths of base 10.

To see this in action, consider the simplest example: number-lengths in bases 2 and 3. There is no anagram involving these two bases, because only two numbers have the same number of digits in both: 1 and 3 = 11 in base 2 = 10 in base 3. After that, n in base 2 always has more digits than n in base 3:

2^0 = 1 in base 2 (number-length=1) = 1 in base 3 (l=1)
2^1 = 2 = 10 in base 2 (number-length=2) = 2 in base 3 (l=1)
2^2 = 4 = 100 in base 2 (l=3) = 11 in base 3 (l=2)
2^3 = 8 = 1000 in base 2 = 22 in base 3 (l=2)
2^4 = 16 = 10000 in base 2 = 121 in base 3 (l=3)
2^5 = 32 = 1012 in base 3 (l=4)
2^6 = 64 = 2101 in base 3 (l=4)
2^7 = 128 = 11202 in base 3 (l=5)
2^8 = 256 = 100111 in base 3 (l=6)
2^9 = 512 = 200222 in base 3 (l=6)
2^10 = 1024 = 1101221 in base 3 (l=7)

Now consider bases 3 and 4. Here is an anagram using these bases: 211 in base 3 = 112 in base 4 = 22. There are no more anagrams and eventually there’s no more chance for them to occur, because this happens as n gets larger:

3^0 = 1 in base 3 (number-length=1) = 1 in base 4 (l=1)
3^1 = 3 = 10 in base 3 (number-length=2) = 3 in base 4 (l=1)
3^2 = 9 = 100 in base 3 (l=3) = 21 in base 4 (l=2)
3^3 = 27 = 1000 in base 3 (l=4) = 123 in base 4 (l=3)
3^4 = 81 = 10000 in base 3 (l=5) = 1101 in base 4 (l=4)
3^5 = 243 = 100000 in base 3 (l=6) = 3303 in base 4 (l=4)
3^6 = 729 = 23121 in base 4 (l=5)
3^7 = 2187 = 202023 in base 4 (l=6)
3^8 = 6561 = 1212201 in base 4 (l=7)
3^9 = 19683 = 10303203 in base 4 (l=8)
3^10 = 59049 = 32122221 in base 4 (l=8)
3^11 = 177147 = 223033323 in base 4 (l=9)
3^12 = 531441 = 2001233301 in base 4 (l=10)
3^13 = 1594323 = 12011033103 in base 4 (l=11)
3^14 = 4782969 = 102033231321 in base 4 (l=12)
3^15 = 14348907 = 312233021223 in base 4 (l=12)
3^16 = 43046721 = 2210031131001 in base 4 (l=13)
3^17 = 129140163 = 13230220113003 in base 4 (l=14)
3^18 = 387420489 = 113011321011021 in base 4 (l=15)
3^19 = 1162261467 = 1011101223033123 in base 4 (l=16)
3^20 = 3486784401 = 3033311001232101 in base 4 (l=16)

When n is sufficiently large, it always has fewer digits in base 4 than in base 3. And the gap gets steadily bigger. When n doesn’t have the same number of digits in two bases, it can’t be an anagram. A similar number-length gap eventually appears in bases 4 and 5, but the anagrams don’t run out as quickly there:

103 in base 5 = 130 in base 4 = 28
1022 in base 5 = 2021 in base 4 = 137
1320 in base 5 = 3102 in base 4 = 210
10232 in base 5 = 22310 in base 4 = 692
10332 in base 5 = 23031 in base 4 = 717
12213 in base 5 = 32211 in base 4 = 933
100023 in base 5 = 301002 in base 4 = 3138
100323 in base 5 = 302031 in base 4 = 3213
102131 in base 5 = 311120 in base 4 = 3416
102332 in base 5 = 312023 in base 4 = 3467
103123 in base 5 = 313102 in base 4 = 3538
1003233 in base 5 = 3323010 in base 4 = 16068

Base 10 isn’t exempt. Eventually it must outshrink base 9 and be outshrunk by base 11, so what is the highest 9:10 anagram and highest 10:11 anagram? I don’t know: my maths isn’t good enough for me to find out quickly. But using machine code, I’ve found these large anagrams:

205888888872731 = 888883178875022 in base 9
1853020028888858 = 8888888525001032 in base 9
16677181388880888 = 88888888170173166 in base 9

999962734025 = 356099992472 in base 11
9999820360965 = 3205999998606 in base 11
99999993520348 = 29954839390999 in base 11

Note how the digits of n in the lower base are increasing as the digits of n in the higher base are decreasing. Eventually, n in the lower base will always have more digits than n in the higher base. When that happens, there will be no more anagrams.

Some triple anagrams

2C1 in base 13 = 1C2 in base 17 = 12C in base 21 (n=495 = 3^2*5*11)
912 in base 10 = 219 in base 21 = 192 in base 26 (2^4*3*19)
913 in base 10 = 391 in base 16 = 193 in base 26 (11*83)
4B2 in base 15 = 42B in base 16 = 24B in base 22 (n=1067 = 11*97)
5C1 in base 17 = 51C in base 18 = 1C5 in base 35 (n=1650 = 2*3*5^2*11)
3L2 in base 26 = 2L3 in base 31 = 23L in base 35 (n=2576 = 2^4*7*23)
3E1 in base 31 = 1E3 in base 51 = 13E in base 56 (n=3318 = 2*3*7*79)
531 in base 29 = 351 in base 37 = 135 in base 64 (n=4293 = 3^4*53)
D53 in base 18 = 53D in base 29 = 35D in base 37 (n=4305 = 3*5*7*41)
53I in base 29 = 3I5 in base 35 = 35I in base 37 (n=4310 = 2*5*431)
825 in base 25 = 582 in base 31 = 258 in base 49 (n=5055 = 3*5*337)
6S2 in base 31 = 2S6 in base 51 = 26S in base 56 (n=6636 = 2^2*3*7*79)
D35 in base 23 = 5D3 in base 36 = 3D5 in base 46 (n=6951 = 3*7*331)
3K1 in base 49 = 31K in base 52 = 1K3 in base 81 (n=8184 = 2^3*3*11*31)
A62 in base 29 = 6A2 in base 37 = 26A in base 64 (n=8586 = 2*3^4*53)
9L2 in base 30 = 92L in base 31 = 2L9 in base 61 (n=8732 = 2^2*37*59)
3W1 in base 49 = 1W3 in base 79 = 13W in base 92 (n=8772 = 2^2*3*17*43)
G4A in base 25 = AG4 in base 31 = 4AG in base 49 (n=10110 = 2*3*5*337)
J10 in base 25 = 1J0 in base 100 = 10J in base 109 (n=11900 = 2^2*5^2*7*17)
5[41]1 in base 46 = 1[41]5 in base 93 = 15[41] in base 109 (n=12467 = 7*13*137)
F91 in base 29 = 9F1 in base 37 = 19F in base 109 (n=12877 = 79*163)
F93 in base 29 = 9F3 in base 37 = 39F in base 64 (n=12879 = 3^5*53)
AP4 in base 35 = A4P in base 36 = 4AP in base 56 (n=13129 = 19*691)
BP2 in base 36 = B2P in base 37 = 2PB in base 81 (n=15158 = 2*11*13*53)
O6F in base 25 = FO6 in base 31 = 6FO in base 49 (n=15165 = 3^2*5*337)
FQ1 in base 31 = 1QF in base 111 = 1FQ in base 116 (n=15222 = 2*3*43*59)
B74 in base 37 = 7B4 in base 46 = 47B in base 61 (n=15322 = 2*47*163)

He Say, He Sigh, He Sow #34

• Mathematik ist die Wissenschaft von dem, was an sich klar. — Carl Jacobi (1804-51).
  • “Mathematics is the science of that which is clear by itself.” — Carl Jacobi.

Can You Dij It?

The most powerful drug in the world is water. The second most powerful is language. But everyone’s on them, so nobody realizes how powerful they are. Well, you could stop drinking water. Then you’d soon realize its hold on the body and the brain.

But you can’t stop using language. Try it. No, the best way to realize the power of language is to learn a new one. Each is a feast with different flavours. New alphabets are good too. The Devanagari alphabet is one of the strongest, but if you want it in refined form, try the phonetic alphabet. It will transform the way you see the world. That’s because it will make you conscious of what you’re already subconsciously aware of.

But “language” is a bigger category that it used to be. Nowadays we have computer languages too. Learning one is another way of transforming the way you see the world. And like natural languages – French, Georgian, Tagalog – they come in different flavours. Pascal is not like Basic is not like C is not like Prolog. But all of them seem to put you in touch with some deeper aspect of reality. Computer languages are like mathemagick: a way to give commands to something immaterial and alter the world by the application of will.

That feeling is at its strongest when you program with machine code, the raw instructions used by the electronics of a computer. At its most fundamental, machine code is simply a series of binary numbers controlling how a computer processes other binary numbers. You can memorize and use those code-numbers, but it’s easier to use something like assembly language, which makes machine-code friendlier for human beings. But it still looks very odd to the uninitiated:

setupnum:
xor ax,ax
xor bp,bp
mov cx,20
clearloop:
mov [di+bp],ax
add bp,2
loop clearloop
ret

That’s almost at the binary bedrock. And machine code is fast. If a fast higher-level language like C feels like flying a Messerschmitt 262, which was a jet-plane, machine-code feels like flying a Messerschmitt 163, which was a rocket-plane. A very fast and very dangerous rocket-plane.

I’m not good at programming languages, least of all machine code, but they are fun to use, quite apart from the way they make you feel as though you’re in touch with a deeper aspect of reality. They do that because the world is mathematics at its most fundamental level, I think, and computer languages are a form of mathematics.

Their mathematical nature is disguised in a lot of what they’re used for, but I like to use them for recreational mathematics. Machine-code is useful when you need a lot of power and speed. For example, look at these digits:

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

They’re what the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) calls “the almost natural numbers” (sequence A007376) and you generate them by writing the standard integers – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13… – and then separating each digit with a comma: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3… The commas give them some interesting twists. In a list of the standard integers, the 1st entry is 1, the 10th entry is 10, the 213rd entry is 213, the 987,009,381th entry is 987,009,381, and so on.

But that doesn’t work with the almost natural numbers. The 10th entry is 1, not 10, and the 11th entry is 0, not 11. But the 10th entry does begin the sequence (1, 0). I wondered whether that happened again. It does. The 63rd entry in the almost natural numbers begins the sequence (6, 3) – see the asterisks in the sequence above.

This happens again at the 3105th entry, which begins the sequence (3, 1, 0, 5). After that the gaps get bigger, which is where machine code comes in. An ordinary computer-language takes a long time to reach the 89,012,345,679th entry in the almost natural numbers. Machine code is much quicker, which is why I know that the 89,012,345,679th entry begins the sequence (8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 63, 3105, 43108, 77781, 367573, 13859021, 77911127, 911360799, 35924813703, 74075186297, 89012345679…

And an ordinary computer-language might give you the impression that base 9 doesn’t have numbers like these (apart from the trivial 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10…). But it does. 63 in base 10 is a low-hanging fruit: you could find it working by hand. In base 9, the fruit are much higher-hanging. But machine code plucks them with almost ridiculous ease:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 570086565, 655267526, 2615038272, 4581347024, 5307541865, 7273850617, 7801234568…