Initial writeup complete!

[sniffnoy]

OK. My initial writeup of this is *finally* done. I hope it's clear enough. Well, I'll show it to Josh before anything else. Interesting thing: When compiling it, TeX gave me several "Underfull \vbox" messages - but not all the badnesses were 10000! Take a look:

Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [6]
Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [7]
Underfull \vbox (badness 2213) has occurred while \output is active [8]
Underfull \vbox (badness 5316) has occurred while \output is active [9]
Underfull \vbox (badness 1546) has occurred while \output is active [10]
Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [11]

Is 10000 just what it caps badness at, or something?

(Oh, and that modification to the code I made? Made absolutely no difference in the output at all.)

-Harry

Comments

[joshuazelinsky.livejournal.com]

Interesting, I seem to get overfull errors but almost never get an underfull error. Does this say something about our styles of writing TeX or more about our preferred notions of what fully formatted math should look like?

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

I don't know; I don't even know what's causing them - take a look at the error messages, they don't say a thing about where they're occurring. Also this is not really "fully formatted", it will want some reformatting later, say to make it clear just where the theorems and the proofs are, right now much of it is rather stream-of-text... perhaps do some things in displays that aren't...

BTW checking the references from Guy's book, Sloane, Mathworld, and a bit of Googling, and assuming that A. if Guy knew about this, he would have mentioned it in his article or book; B. anything that looks totally irrelevant (i.e. not even related to integer complexity at all) is; C. some old article from 1971 is something Guy would probably have known about, and going by the title is probably not too relevant anyway; and D. it ain't gonna be in what appears to be a French book of recreational mathematics (which, for the hell of it, I requested on ILL anyway :) ), then yeah, I can't find anything like this anywhere else. And as I said, the sequence of what I called "canopy numbers" isn't in Sloane. So yay.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

Also, n satisfying f(n)≤3log_3(n)+1 doesn't seem to be in Sloane either. Obviously I'll have to submit that as well. :)