Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (557)	12/8/2000 10:24:08 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Hi ahhaha; Re: "The question was how did Clark arrive at the denominator of the fraction 1/263." This statement of yours is in error. What Clarke actually wrote was: I don't know when or how it originated, but believe me it's pure coincidence, even though the odds against it are 263 to 1. mitpress.mit.edu There is no fraction 1/263. Instead, there is a mention of odds of 263 to 1. Why do you continue to talk about the fraction? Clarke never mentioned such a beast. -- Carl

To: ahhaha who wrote (557)	12/9/2000 12:11:11 PM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Now I understand. A prime number is only divisible by itself and 1. So you are saying that 263 cannot be achieved by simple combinatorial calculations. I finally understood something you said. I am getting better. But what is diaphantine? With regards to what Arthur Clarke really meant...we have to rely on self-report. Self-report is unreliable because because it can never be falsified. "Prove that I wasn't thinking of green bananas". Doc Stone