Does anyone know if any number which is prime to one base is also prime to any other base?

A reference on this topic would be very much appreciated

I think it is part of what the character Sheldon is based upon, in “The Big Bang Theory.” Dr. Feynman playing Bongos being yet another part.

Also, sarcasm is harder to detect in written text. But I have a friend who used to raise his left hand when he was being sarcastic so that I would get it.

>Language alert<
Wherein Morison references Zwicky's favorite insult.

Dr. Feynman playing Bongo’s:
https://youtu.be/qWabhnt91Uc

Strategy OVER Morality today, and Morality OVER Strategy tomorrow.

I listened to some interesting interviews today that gave me some more in depth political insight that I am digesting in order to collate them with my general view of the world we live in. I will be sharing it in the future.

[incorrectly attributed as a sign Albert Einstein had hanging in his office at Princeton, but
rightly attributed to William Bruce Cameron’s 1963 Text: “Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking”]

I always thought that was some kind of an urban legend.

Well, actually, I identify as a major deity*. This allows me to accept reality as I see it, with little further need for investigation. Life is much simpler, now that I know all that can be known**, am the smartest person on the planet***, and go through life feeling satisfied with what I know to be right and true****.

I just cannot get too excited that there is a greater meaning to life, the universe, and everything***** than meets the cerebral cortex, or whether reality is really real. Every time someone comes up with some sort of answer, someone else comes along with another answer. Which is the right answer, and why shouldn’t forty-two be the right answer?

It is like coffee: first it is bad for us, then it is good for us, then it is bad for us, then … I cannot keep track of whether it is good or bad for us today (last I heard, it is good for us again, but that was last week). There is always a different answer coming along. Who knows, the guy with the sign that the end of the world is coming could be right, but I can’t figure out whether I want to be there when it ends — it could be fun or it could be zombies (I can’t quite make up my deity-mind as to which or when or how).

After all, the world literally began when I came into existence, and will literally end when I cease to exist. Unless I turn out to be Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Since I cannot actually “know” the answer, it is not worth an extreme effort to pursue it. And any answer that I create myself — or read from someone else — is no worse than any other.

* Really, it’s true. Even in high school I started answering the phone “You have reached the residence of God.” My mother wanted me to stop doing this, which happened shortly after one woman’s voice on the line said “Oh,” and she hung up. Apparently, meeting an actual major deity can be very intimidating — and your mother can get sicced on you — so I don’t make a big deal out of it in person, anymore.

However, now that society is starting to learn to deal with peoples’ actual identities, instead of what looks like an obvious reality, I am feeling much more free to express my inner deity identity. My seemingly over-inflated ego is actually justified.

Worship and tithes are always welcome.

** Except that I keep learning new things. Go figure.

*** Except that I keep meeting people who are smarter. Go figure.

**** This one is correct. I *am* satisfied, despite having learned long ago that everything that I know is wrong. Which could be yet another reason not to get too wrapped up in knowing the true natures of “being” and “reality.”

***** Douglas Adams may have taught me to not take it too seriously.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
George Orwell

“You, Edward, seem to make the distinction and room for, which is my point, between the two “realities”, but Wayne does not, which is fine. He seems to see himself only moored to the physical world reality where physics is the one and only measure and perspective.

Although this quote below show’s that he may be thinking about it a bit further.

“Now my own suspicion is, that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” J. B. S. Haldane

I would be interested in a direct Wayne quote manifested purely from the Wayne brain, based solely on the Wayne life experience distillate conclusion. What is this all about?

[“…..but to resolve to not look further because its not as safe, comfortable and reassuring as it is in the mathematics and physics is concerning to me.”]
———————————————–
My response to that would be:
>>>>>>”I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is, that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
–J. B. S. Haldane–
———————————————–
[“You seem to get what my general point is here but Wayne does not, which is fine.]

My response to that would be:
>>>>>>The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. — If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the Universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. –If it is found to be contradicted by Observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
—But if your Theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

I do indeed, get your general point Cotour,

>>>> “I can give you no hope, there is nothing for it, but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

I will make an analogy here to the politics of the day. Believe only the agenda that is sold by the political class and you only see and understand the sheerest top layer of what they are selling, and they like it that way. Endeavor to look deeper, where they ban you from looking because its uncomfortable for all involved and then you begin to understand what is actually going on.

Understanding the mathematics and the physics is certainly important and it is truly the only place where there is black and white truth, but to resolve to not look further because its not as safe, comfortable and reassuring as it is in the mathematics and physics is concerning to me.

You seem to get what my general point is here but Wayne does not, which is fine. The conversation will go on.

“The Lathe of Heaven” by Ursula LeGuin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lathe_of_Heaven

PBS did an utterly fantastic version in the ’80’s & another one was remade in the 2000’s.

“To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it, will be destroyed, on the lathe of heaven.– Chuang Tzu ”
—————-
In brief– the main character, George, discovers his dreams actually alter physical reality. A Psychiatrist gets ahold of him & starts having George do all this “active/effective-dreaming” ‘thang, in an attempt to make the world “perfect.”
>>Things start going rapidly downhill after that–every change the psychiatrist makes up, creates unintended consequences for the whole world.

Spoiler Alert: LeGuin gives it away on the first page, but it’s very subtle, just a few sentences– George was actually killed in a nuclear exchange, and the last thing he dreamed, before he died, was that the nuclear war did not happen & he was still alive.

I think it can be summed up as metaphysics — the study of the nature of reality or being. I think that I try to avoid getting that deep into it, as I fear I may learn that we are all just a mass dream of an even higher being, and we will all disappear in a puff of non-smoke when he wakes up.

On the other hand, if we are just the stuff that dreams are made of, then maybe I can stop paying the mortgage.

Truth lies in mathematics and physics, not in the words of men.

I think that this personal conclusion and axiom is a solid foundation from which to launch all other conversations about any subject. And we move on.

No problemo with me.

Science doesn’t explain everything, that’s not my position. It does explain a large portion of what we do know, and illustrates to us, everything else, which we do not know.

I’m semi retired & “telecommute” — practically everything I do these days as to work, is on-line, except ironically, pick up my check & staff-meeting’s.
.. so while it might appear I’m glued to this site at times, I only have it running in the background, most of the time.

Again– appreciate your efforts, (it’s hard to bang out complex thoughts, I get that) we just don’t agree on some major things.
(as long as we agree on “enough” you’re still my 80-99% ally!)
Best wishes to you as well!

My basic position is while science goes a long, long way to explain it all, it does not, it can not at this moment in time explain it all. Thank you for appreciating my effort (although it apparently mostly failed) it took most of the day to bang out.

Me? Missing? Believe it or not I actually have to get some other work related things accomplished during the day other then posting my thoughts (and my (formerly) occasional insulting, sideways sarcastic digs) here.

“shut me down”?

I have said before, I take none of this personally and I am very comfortable and confident sharing my positions, opinions and analysis, and I endeavor to back them up as best as I can. And I expect to be forcefully challenged, as anyone should expect to be forcefully challenged by me when there is disagreement.

All the best.

“Are we ready for a new Revolution in Physics”
Dr. Penrose, Public Lecture: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
https://youtu.be/_R0j2BX6t_c

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF1A950040024A1ED

Highly recommend!

” In his IST Lecture on May 21, 2015, Sir Roger Penrose was talking about “Before the Beginning and Beyond Eternity”, stating his recent cosmological theory that our current perception of the history of our universe is merely one phase (an “aeon”) of an infinite succession of similar aeons.”

1) Newtonian Physics is far from random. Quantum Mechanics has elements of being “random,” at the individual particle level, hence we have Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle, which only applies to certain aspects of quantum-mechanics & not as whole.
Physical Constants– such as Planck-length, the Fine Structure Constant, The Speed of Light, the spin of an electron, Mass (or lack thereof) of Particles, etc. Are known to a high degree of certainty.

2) UFO’s are by definition “unidentified flying objects.” In other words, “they could be anything,” which does not imply they are “something in particular.”

3) Reincarnation– a religious belief. Not appropriate for Scientific investigation. It implies a Soul, which is a Religious Belief.

4) Quantum entanglement: I would refer you to Dr. Leonard Susskind’s Physics Lectures, specifically; his “Quantum Entanglement” lectures 1 through 10. Fascinating stuff but heavy on the Math. Just plug in “Dr. Leonard Susskind Quantum Entanglement,” at YouTube. (I’ve watched them twice & am still struggling with the Math. (Concepts are well developed, if you’re asking “why,” we do not know, but we do know how it manifests. Many people & Corporations are actively developing “Quantum Computing,” which will be a great tool in furthering our knowledge on a wide variety of topics.

5) “Dark Matter,” We are not sure, what exactly, it is composed of, but its influence- via gravity-is evident. Good candidates include Particle(s) we are not yet able to produce on Earth. (Large Hadron Collider is not powerful enough.)
I would refer you to “The Standard Model” of physics, in it’s entirety.

6) Before the Big Bang:
— I’m a Dr. Roger Penrose guy, his “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology” theories postulate we exist in a perpetual cycle, each of which, he calls “eons.” (an extremely LONG time!)
–You might find this very appealing. It’s very elegant & the Geometry & Physics address the problem of Entropy. (Which some theories of Cosmology gloss over. seriously– watch this! Fascinating & he is very good at explaining it.)
“Conformal Cyclic Cosmology”
https://youtu.be/FBfuAVBdcW0
–Others, postulate String-Theory, The Multiverse, etc., all however, use as their basis, aspects of our Fundamental knowledge of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.

7) Consciousness: Is defined as: “the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings.” –A Noun that refers to “internal mental-states.”
(Dr. Penrose believes “consciousness” is an intersection of sorts, of quantum-states & biological structures. seriously– at YouTube, search “Consciousness & the Foundations of Physics, Penrose. Fascinating!)

You & I are, just not in the same City, as it concerns 99% of your postulates. And most may be in direct contradiction with known facts. (More in the realm of Philosophy.)

>No problem at my end with what you believe or propose. We will however, just have to agree to disagree on most of them.
— I do appreciate, you spent some considerable time, explaining from where you come, as it concerns these questions. Some things are objective “facts,” while others are purely Philosophical and/or Religious in nature.

Strongly recommend you check out the Penrose link above & highly recommend Dr. Susskind’s Lectures which will give you a firm grasp of the fundamental’s of Physics & Cosmology, no matter which “side” you are on.

–one last thing: I do not believe I said you “were mystical,” I said you were “.. entering into the Realm of Mysticism,” as it concerned whatever point on which we were disagreeing. at the time.

Always interesting! We just do not agree, and that’s ok.!
(I actually “missed you” the past 1-2 days! Your absence was noted–I’m not trying to shut you down or make you think what I think.)
Take care!
:)

“Cotour–
Respectfully counter differ with your bifurcation of “reality.” (That which exists in space & time.)
Objective “reality” exists whether humans or cats perceive it or not.
discuss….”

My contention is that there are in fact two realities, lets call the tactile reality that we exist in and walk through and experience capitol “R” *Reality. And lets call the sensory and processing result of our physical brain taking in and interpreting that capitol “R” *Reality, internal lower case “r” reality. In addition to our physical brain and its machinations interpreting capitol “R” *Reality there is “Mind” and along with “Mind” comes “Intellect”. That’s why I say humans live in two worlds, our biological / DNA *Reality and our internal “intellectualized” reality.

Lets call Mind and Intellect in this context one in the same in as far as they are linked and their linkage and development varies in degrees for our purposes from 0….to….100. 0.1…being the lowest numerical classification of forms of life (Ameba, Bacteria etc.) that do what they do in surviving within the *Reality that they find themselves immersed. There is no appreciable or measurable mind or intellect, they are immersed in their biological / DNA and they are alive. And at the 100 (plus ?) mark you have the perfect synthesis of biological / DNA, mind and intellect which is able to perfectly and completely perceive and manipulate *Reality.

(Given the apparent age of the universe @ 13.7 Billion years and given that the age of our solar system / earth is a mere 4 Billion or so years I must IMO reasonably assume that human beings are potentially not the highest representation of the synthesis of biology / DNA, mind and intellect.)

In the cat example lets say that the cat, like the human, are both immersed in their primary biological / DNA *Reality (upper case), and the cat operates at a certain level of mind and intellect (lower case) reality which creates the parameters of its ability to perceive and manipulate that *Reality in which it finds itself immersed. Lets call the normal level of operation for a cat at the number 25. On our scale the numbers 26 marks the point at which higher thinking animals, monkeys, apes, cetaceans etc. leave behind lower thinking animals in the complexity of their relationships and ability to perceive and manipulate their *Reality, but they are still primarily immersed in their biological / DNA, they are stuck there, they are what they are and can never be more. Lets say that this higher mode of operation for these classifications of animals goes to the number 40 for the most sophisticated of these lower animals.

Then you have the human being, which although is also immersed in their biology / DNA, just like all other life forms, but they leave behind all other life forms beginning at level 41 and essentially step off into this fully realized lower case intellectualized reality where the level of complexity of their cultures and relationships and their ability to understand and manipulate *Reality through high technology creates a lower case reality within (mind and intellect) that feels like there is only a lower case reality that they walk through that is totally disconnected from their biological / DNA roots.

And lets say that this intellectualized level of operation goes from 41 to the number 90 in sophistication, with another 10 increments allocated for what may be those older and more developed life forms that may, or may not exist in this universe. These 10 unallocated increments on the upper end of our scale however may in fact need to be many orders of magnitude higher related to the existence of those potentially much older life forms.
(?, unknown and may be unknowable by us)

This generally fleshes out my making a distinction related to biology / DNA, perception and the two realities. Your reading this right now and you are intellectually under the operational impression that you are separate and apart from your biology / DNA, you are not, you are intellectualizing your existence and your reality.

Edward made a very helpful distinction in the conversation that characterized science as being “hard” and “soft”. Hard being disciplines like mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology etc., push here and get these results, and Soft being psychology (sorry Wayne, that’s as lofty of a classification as your going to get), psychiatry, economics, sociology, medicine etc., push here and get varying results and possibly unknown results.

My “unnecessary gotcha trap” question about the potential to influence random events through thought, and coincidence was characterized as “mystical” thinking (I am not a mystical thinker, I try to objectively observe and ask questions related to my observations and may propose possible answers or may ask further questions), while it is a controversial subject that is not formally recognized by the “hard” or “soft” sciences there appears to be some indication that at some level some kind of effect can be measured to the point that it may be worth while to continue investigations to better understand whether it does or does not in fact exist. http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/670

In summary because this is getting crazy long, we live in a complex universe and to exclude as being possible explanations that lie outside of the norm when it is reasonable to state that we do not know how everything in it works or why it works demonstrates an inflexibility or sorts. And I understand why there are tight and well established parameters that define “science”.

When “science” can explain:

1. Examples of highly unlikely coincidence, some events IMO can not be so easily explained away purely by randomness or statistics. Is the universe only the result of a “hard” equation?
2. What are UFO’s? These have been observed and described for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years. Are they all the collective delusions of the ignorant?
3. Reincarnation? There are very interesting documented examples of young children that speak of things and events that they can have no reasonable knowledge of.
4. Quantum entanglement?
5. The location of the 90 plus percent of the rest of the universe?
6. What was before the Big Bang? (and I do not mean the TV show).
7. What exactly is consciousness?

When science can describe what these listed things, and the many more that are not listed are and how and why they exist and operate and why then we can all stop asking questions, until then the edges seem where the more interesting questions and answers lie. JGL

HAR–“Queeg…” “old yellow stain” (??)

Slightly, ever so, differ on Psychology as a “soft-science.” While I would absolutely agree it’s placed within the “Social Science’s” umbrella, and is far from “exact,” (oh boy is it not!) it depends on which Branch you look at.
I’m in the “Behaviorism” limb of the whole Enterprise; our greatest Goal is to be respected as a hard science, along with Physiology, Physics, and Biology.
(tangent- the school I attended, was one of THE nationwide center’s for Behavioral Study & Analysis. The Department shared a building with the Biology, Physiology, and Math’s Departments. Where as, what “we” called the “soft sciences,” –they were safely tucked away in another building to do whatever it was they did. (He said with a confident smile!)
-Economics suffers from their desire to be “just like” Physics, where-as I always thought it was a natural ally of Behavioral Psychology & indeed “Behavioral Economics” has developed into a branch of Economics in general, which is “more like Physic’s” and less like “sociology.”

(Using complex formula’s, algorithm’s, and graph’s, lends a degree of “scientism” to any study, but does not necessarily make it so. Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Bastiat, & other’s, would all be welcome & feel right at home in a Behavioral Psychology setting. We don’t discount “internal events,” or “motivation,” but we have few tools by which to study them using the scientific-method of theory & repeatable experiments, so we don’t appeal to internal-events as the Prime cause of “stuff.” “By your fruits, shall ye be known.” hence we study what people actually do, rather than what we “think” they do.)

Minor point, but very near & dear to my heart! (“We,” Behaviorism- get a bad wrap in general, because Left wing Social Planners have done a great job of co-opting our methods to their own devious ends & maybe 1/2 the Faculty, Academics, & what-not who have infiltrated “us” are raging Collectivist Oligarchical Statists at heart, much to my chagrin.

Good job with your Cat! I always had a rule about treating my Daughter or the Cat, like a test-subject & actively manipulating them, even for their own good. (akin to a surgeon not operating on their own family members– just “too close” to be objective.) My wife however (a Geologist) could just give that LOOK to our Daughter or the Cat, and they both “knew” what she meant. (very mentalistic description but everyone “gets that” in ordinary conversation.) (I’m not one of those pretentious s-o-b’s, I live in the World just like everyone else and have grown to be more eclectic in my methods & interactions, rather than the arrogant person nobody wants to invite to Party’s!)
My Cat is getting old so I indulge him– He has me so trained, it’s scary! (smile)
That being said– they are very trainable when young. My Guy is leash trained & that was good-enough for me. And… He can’t open the cat-food or get into the Pantry, by himself!!
–Like I said– “If they had opposable-thumbs, we’d be working for them!”

Random number tables & generators– very interesting stuff!
Rocketry– yes, very “engineering” and Newtonian-physics dependent. I for one appreciate the “slide-rule” Guys (and Girls) who can figure this stuff out & make it all work!

Yo– you have any good Engineer Jokes? My wife always told a good one about “The Physicist, the Engineer, and the Geologist were on a plane…”

–While I did not attend Gresham College in the UK., [I shill for them at every opportunity)
I very pleased to share with anyone– they redesigned their website recently & it’s now completely user-friendly & they focus on their (“1,900+”) Lectures, in a very intuitive, searchable, manner.
Skip their YouTube stuff & go directly to them! Material as recent as a week ago is now easily obtained without struggle!

http://www.gresham.ac.uk

I know what you mean. I thought myself pretty clever for “trainning” my cat, only to realize that I felt that I needed to respond to his trained actions in order for the training to stick; therefore I was still his slave.

Cotour wrote at: March 16, 2016 at 6:50 pm:
“Q: Can statistics be influenced by intent? For example, could I sit in front of some kind of random number generator or random event generator and through thought or intent influence the result? And if that is possible might that indicate that coincidence is not always actually explained by statistics?”

At the risk of falling into the unnecessary “gotcha” trap:
First, you need to read WMBriggs.com. He is a statistician who likes to explain that statistics does *not* find cause (among other misunderstandings about statistics). Statistics does not “explain” but describes.

Second, Randomness is also misunderstood. Random just means that a cause cannot be determined. If you throw a pair of dice, they will come up with a seemingly random number, but if you repeat all the conditions exactly (orientation, location, velocity, and spin of the dice at release; gravity; the surfaces they bounce on; etc.), they will come up with the same number. So when someone asks, “What are the chances of *that* happening?” the answer literally is 100%.

Even — and especially — computer random number generators are based upon a pattern, and some possible numbers (from 0 to 1, in increments determined by the precision of the computer or language) may never come up, while others may come up more than once before the pattern repeats. A friend of mine, while writing a computer game, wondered how to get the random number generator to create different games, since the pattern is the same for any seed, and I recommended he use the clock, for the seed. The seed seemed random, and the different seeds generated different patterns that set up the map, and cetera, differently each time, but they were still not random.

Although this *did* influence the result — by intention — it was still not predictable and seemed random. Or I should say: was random by the definition of the word.

In the late 1970s, I played a computer game called “Star Trek.” It asked for a seed, and if I used the same seed number, it would generate the same initial conditions time after time. Once again, this influenced the result — by intention.

Third, science is not so black and white. Physics may be, as it is mostly describable by mathematics, but there is more than the physical sciences. (Subatomic physics and quantum mechanics start getting into unpredictability and start to seem random. Reaction and decay rates for large quantities are predictable, but for individual molecules and atoms it seems random. Etc.)

In physics, if you poke some billiard balls the same way, the resulting behavior will be the same for each one, just as it was for the dice. The answer is predictable each time, and the answer can be determined using math. This is why it is called a hard science.

In psychology, if you poke some people the same way, the resulting behavior will be different for each one. The answer is far less predictable, and the answer cannot be determined using math. It is called a soft science.

Medicine is similar. We perform experiments in order to discover drugs, treatments, and surgeries that work — but they only work often enough to make them worthwhile trying on a specific patient. This is the science of medicine.

Specific patients react differently to the same drugs, treatments, and surgeries. Penicillin may stop an infection, but some patients have allergic reactions. Heart transplants may give new energy to patients, but some patients’ bodies react by rejecting the new organ. Unlike the billiard ball, we cannot know in advance the exact reaction of individual patients. It is not black or white for all patients, it can also be shades of gray. Doctors try what they believe to be the most likely treatment, and move on to the next, if the previous did not work well. This is the art of medicine.

There is a non-random cause for all of these reactions, but we cannot find them, so the reactions seem unpredictable and random.

Like design engineering*, psychology and medicine are both an art and a science.

Fortunately, rocketry works on predictable scientific principles, and when problems arise (seemingly at random), causes and solutions can be found that will work every time. It is geometric logic, as Captain Queeg once said.

* The art of design is that giving the same requirements to three different engineers will get you three very different designs. However, giving a design for analysis to three different engineers, you should get similar answers from all three (assumptions, therefore result, may vary — the assumptions being based upon experience, therefore they may also seem random).

Cotour–
I generally appreciate your comments, & as well, have a belief we are mostly “in the same book” if not on the same page, at times. (other times, we aren’t even in the same building.)
— We do however, obviously differ on some fundamental-stuff.
-I’m persuadable on a huge number of topics, others– not so much, & fewer still, just not at all. (as I suspect you are as well.)

Mentioned elsewhere in other threads, “60% of all communication” is non-verbal & in this forum in particular, we are all the “mercy of our keyboards.”
I’ll endeavor to “keep a grip” on mine.
– Can’t, nor wish to, “change you,” all I can do is try to control how I respond, to you.
(it can be tedious at times & I’m apparently not the only one to sense that, on occasion.)

On an infinitely lighter note:
You (Cotour, indeed–anyone) may find some great thoughts on “coincidence,” & a dozen other extraordinarily interesting related Math’s problems, as they apply to real-life.

“Bedfords Very Strange Law”

( Dr. John D. Barrow; Professor of Geometry & other Mathematical Science’s, Gresham College.)

https://youtu.be/4iz4EHriYz0

The Professor is an extremely good lecturer, I find his delivery superb, & he is able to impart his expert knowledge on truly complex topics, in a highly understandable manner, without “dumbing them down.” (which I personally, greatly appreciate in this type of subject matter.)
–I’m at a loss to detect any “agenda” or bent he may personally have– just darn good information…