= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm not seeing why atheism is included in the post title.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
I answered my own question on Math Stack Exchange, and thus avoided a pocket veto, wherein a question gets deleted if it has a negative vote total and no answer after 30 days.
The phrenology guy isn't showing up on the homepage for me. Did LW take him off?
I completed the survey & had to look up the normative ethics choices (again). Also cisgender. I cooperated with the prisoner's dilemma puzzle & estimated that a majority of respondents would also do so, given the modest prize amount.
Also, based on my estimate of a year in Newton's life in last year's survey, I widened my confidence intervals.
Too many OEIS submission mention xkcd to take it seriously :)
I've worked it out, and now I'm not sure that this function is OEIS-worthy (although it's at least as worthy as Jenny's constant). I will definitely post a question on Math StackExchange, and not answer it (if even necessary) for a month or two, in honor of my namesake.
Here is a link to the question.
Here is a link to a related question that is more fun.
I am calculating the first several terms of a combinatorial function that is useful in the counting of certain elements of a polytope I'm studying. The combinatorial function has three integer parameters, so it forms a tetrahedral array. It's not in OEIS.
I have a recursive means of calculating the function. Next, I'm going to figure out the function as a rational expression in integers i, j, k. Then, I'll post it on Math Stackexchange. Then, I'll submit it to OEIS.
See also: Warnock's Dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma
The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:
- The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what he said."
- The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
- No one read the post, for whatever reason.
- No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
- No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.
—Bryan C. Warnock
Another possible interpretation:
Disagree with the post; can't personally refute it, but believe that someone who shares my views (and is more knowledgeable) could.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The problem is confusing.
Are you saying that each pair of quadrilaterals intersect at a mutual vertex and nowhere else, and that each vertex is common to exactly two quadrilaterals?
Yes, exactly.