Oh look, it's a table.
Apr. 8th, 2011 06:22 pmTable for 22. Now let's never, ever, ever, do that again. Perhaps sometime I will figure out how to turn the method into an actual algorithm[0] and a computer can do it. But if anyone suggests I go to 23 by hand I'll, uh, I'll... I'll make them do it... and *then* I'll rip off their head and devour their innards.
And yes, as a side effect of having done this we now know that ||2^a 3^b||=2a+3b for a≤31 (a,b not both zero). If anyone cared.
Next up, the table of rewrites... I don't *think* that should take longer than a week, at the very longest... and then to actually rewriting the draft to be more readable...
[0]Actually, a tiny bit of thought has yielded some progress on this, namely, that most of the parts I thought would be hard to turn into an algorithm, aren't really needed. There's therefore just 2 sticky points and I can't claim to have yet seriously thought about either of them, or asked anyone, so, this may be doable. But first to check the whole "73(3^n+1)+6" thing and to rewrite the draft of what we already have.
And yes, as a side effect of having done this we now know that ||2^a 3^b||=2a+3b for a≤31 (a,b not both zero). If anyone cared.
Next up, the table of rewrites... I don't *think* that should take longer than a week, at the very longest... and then to actually rewriting the draft to be more readable...
[0]Actually, a tiny bit of thought has yielded some progress on this, namely, that most of the parts I thought would be hard to turn into an algorithm, aren't really needed. There's therefore just 2 sticky points and I can't claim to have yet seriously thought about either of them, or asked anyone, so, this may be doable. But first to check the whole "73(3^n+1)+6" thing and to rewrite the draft of what we already have.
