Well while I have you, the message I feel I failed to adhere to in my comment was my interest in letting you, or others who follow their passion in math and programming, know that what you are doing is in fact “real” math!
Keep it up!
Your post made me click through a bunch of links in it. Thank you, but give me back that hour! ;P
Better yet, I’ll trade you a different rabbit hole.
I like the content, but wish the undercutting humor was given a bit more thought before publishing.
Why the need for a competitive division of mathematics and programming?
What the op did was math, and I’m unsure why the need to think of it as something else?
> I suspect a more maths-oriented person would go through this very differently. Maybe they’d try to find an elegant analytical proof, without the aid of a dumb number-crunching machine brute-forcing its way through. Or they’d try to generalize the problem to different number of digits, or different number bases.
Why drag “brute forcing” like this? Why drag yourself like this
Well while I have you, the message I feel I failed to adhere to in my comment was my interest in letting you, or others who follow their passion in math and programming, know that what you are doing is in fact “real” math!
Keep it up!
Your post made me click through a bunch of links in it. Thank you, but give me back that hour! ;P
Better yet, I’ll trade you a different rabbit hole.
Based on your post I think you’d really enjoy this “strange determinant” series from Timothy Gowers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=byjhpzEoXFs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers