This Means RaWaR

The Overlord of the Über-Feral says: Welcome to my bijou bloguette. You can scroll down to sample more or simply:

• Read a Writerization at Random: RaWaR


• O.o.t.Ü.-F.: More Maverick than a Monkey-Munching* Mingrelian Myrmecologist Marinated in Mescaline…

• ¿And What Doth It Mean To Be Flesh?

მათემატიკა მსოფლიოს მეფე


*Der Muntsch ist Etwas, das überwunden werden soll.

Sic Sick Sicko!

As the toxic stench of Trump begins – at last! – to fade in our traumatized nostrils, how better to begin the new year over at Papyrocentric Performativity than an interview with the proud Black-African Diasporan, anti-racism activist, and literary scholar Dr Nigel M. Goldbaum?

Sic Semper Trumpo

Digital Dissection

As I never tire of pointing out, the three most powerful drugs in the universe are water, maths and language. And I never tire of snorting the fact that numbers can come in many different guises. You can take a trivial, everyday number like a hundred and see it transform like this:


100 = 1100100 in base 2; 10201 in base 3; 1210 in base 4; 400 in base 5; 244 in base 6; 202 in base 7; 144 in base 8; 121 in base 9; 100 in b10; 91 in b11; 84 in b12; 79 in b13; 72 in b14; 6A in b15; 64 in b16; 5F in b17; 5A in b18; 55 in b19; 50 in b20; 4G in b21; 4C in b22; 48 in b23; 44 in b24; 40 in b25; 3M in b26; 3J in b27; 3G in b28; 3D in b29; 3A in b30; 37 in b31; 34 in b32; 31 in b33; 2W in b34; 2U in b35; 2S in b36; 2Q in b37; 2O in b38; 2M in b39; 2K in b40; 2I in b41; 2G in b42; 2E in b43; 2C in b44; 2A in b45; 28 in b46; 26 in b47; 24 in b48; 22 in b49; 20 in b50; 1[49] in b51; 1[48] in b52; 1[47] in b53; 1[46] in b54; 1[45] in b55; 1[44] in b56; 1[43] in b57; 1[42] in b58; 1[41] in b59; 1[40] in b60; 1[39] in b61; 1[38] in b62; 1[37] in b63; 1[36] in b64; 1Z in b65; 1Y in b66; 1X in b67; 1W in b68; 1V in b69; 1U in b70; 1T in b71; 1S in b72; 1R in b73; 1Q in b74; 1P in b75; 1O in b76; 1N in b77; 1M in b78; 1L in b79; 1K in b80; 1J in b81; 1I in b82; 1H in b83; 1G in b84; 1F in b85; 1E in b86; 1D in b87; 1C in b88; 1B in b89; 1A in b90; 19 in b91; 18 in b92; 17 in b93; 16 in b94; 15 in b95; 14 in b96; 13 in b97; 12 in b98; 11 in b99

I like the shifts from 1100100 to 10201 to 1210 to 400 to 244 to 202 to 144 to 121. How can 1100100 and 244 be the same number? Well, they are — or they’re not, as you please. In base 2, 1100100 = 244 in base 6 = 100 in base 10. But if all those numbers are in the same base, they’re completely different and 1100100 dwarfs the other two.

But some things you can’t please yourself about. Suppose you take the different representations of 6561 in bases 2..6560 and add up the 1s, the 2s, the 3s and so on, like this:


n=6561

digsum(1,6561,b=2..6560) = 3343 (50.95% of 6561)
digsum(2,6561,b=2..6560) = 2246 (34.23% of 6561)
digsum(3,6561,b=2..6560) = 1680 (25.61% of 6561)
digsum(4,6561,b=2..6560) = 1368 (20.85% of 6561)
digsum(5,6561,b=2..6560) = 1185 (18.06% of 6561)
digsum(6,6561,b=2..6560) = 1074 (16.37% of 6561)
digsum(7,6561,b=2..6560) = 875 (13.34% of 6561)
digsum(8,6561,b=2..6560) = 768 (11.71% of 6561)
digsum(9,6561,b=2..6560) = 1080 (16.46% of 6561)
[...]
digcount(0,6561,b=2..6560) = 31

Is there a pattern in the percentages? Let’s apply the same process to some bigger numbers (and note that 0 does not behave like the other digits):


n=59049

digsum(1,59049) = 29648 (50.21%)
digsum(2,59049) = 19790 (33.51%)
digsum(3,59049) = 14901 (25.23%)
digsum(4,59049) = 11956 (20.25%)
digsum(5,59049) = 9970 (16.88%)
digsum(6,59049) = 8550 (14.48%)
digsum(7,59049) = 7539 (12.77%)
digsum(8,59049) = 6672 (11.30%)
digsum(9,59049) = 6579 (11.14%)
digcount(0,59049) = 41


n=531441

digsum(1,531441) = 266065 (50.06%)
digsum(2,531441) = 177394 (33.38%)
digsum(3,531441) = 133128 (25.05%)
digsum(4,531441) = 106532 (20.05%)
digsum(5,531441) = 88815 (16.71%)
digsum(6,531441) = 76224 (14.34%)
digsum(7,531441) = 66661 (12.54%)
digsum(8,531441) = 59320 (11.16%)
digsum(9,531441) = 53928 (10.15%)
digcount(0,531441) = 62


n=4782969

digsum(1,4782969) = 2392219 (50.02%)
digsum(2,4782969) = 1595000 (33.35%)
digsum(3,4782969) = 1196370 (25.01%)
digsum(4,4782969) = 957300 (20.01%)
digsum(5,4782969) = 797700 (16.68%)
digsum(6,4782969) = 683850 (14.30%)
digsum(7,4782969) = 598444 (12.51%)
digsum(8,4782969) = 531944 (11.12%)
digsum(9,4782969) = 480870 (10.05%)
digcount(0,4782969) = 66

Yes, the pattern’s getting stronger. Let’s try even bigger numbers:


n=43046721

digsum(1,43046721) = 21525521 (50.01%)
digsum(2,43046721) = 14350754 (33.34%)
digsum(3,43046721) = 10763496 (25.00%)
digsum(4,43046721) = 8610980 (20.00%)
digsum(5,43046721) = 7175955 (16.67%)
digsum(6,43046721) = 6150924 (14.29%)
digsum(7,43046721) = 5382167 (12.50%)
digsum(8,43046721) = 4784232 (11.11%)
digsum(9,43046721) = 4306257 (10.00%)
digcount(0,43046721) = 86


n=387420489

digsum(1,387420489) = 193716365 (50.00%)
digsum(2,387420489) = 129145522 (33.33%)
digsum(3,387420489) = 96859980 (25.00%)
digsum(4,387420489) = 77488588 (20.00%)
digsum(5,387420489) = 64574220 (16.67%)
digsum(6,387420489) = 55349742 (14.29%)
digsum(7,387420489) = 48431250 (12.50%)
digsum(8,387420489) = 43050264 (11.11%)
digsum(9,387420489) = 38748357 (10.00%)
digcount(0,387420489) = 95

To the given precision, the sum of 1s is 1/2 of n; the sum of 2s is 1/3; the sum of 3 is 1/4; and the sum of 4s is 1/5. It looks as though the sum of a given digit d → 1/(d+1) of n as n → ∞. But why? My mathematical intuition is bad, so it took me a while to see what some people will see in a flash. To see what’s going on, let’s go back to the all-base representations of 100:


100 = 1100100 in base 2; 10201 in base 3; 1210 in base 4; 400 in base 5; 244 in base 6; 202 in base 7; 144 in base 8; 121 in base 9; 100 in b10; 91 in b11; 84 in b12; 79 in b13; 72 in b14; 6A in b15; 64 in b16; 5F in b17; 5A in b18; 55 in b19; 50 in b20; 4G in b21; 4C in b22; 48 in b23; 44 in b24; 40 in b25; 3M in b26; 3J in b27; 3G in b28; 3D in b29; 3A in b30; 37 in b31; 34 in b32; 31 in b33; 2W in b34; 2U in b35; 2S in b36; 2Q in b37; 2O in b38; 2M in b39; 2K in b40; 2I in b41;
2G in b42; 2E in b43; 2C in b44; 2A in b45; 28 in b46; 26 in b47; 24 in b48; 22 in b49; 20 in b50; 1[49] in b51; 1[48] in b52; 1[47] in b53; 1[46] in b54; 1[45] in b55; 1[44] in b56; 1[43] in b57; 1[42] in b58; 1[41] in b59; 1[40] in b60; 1[39] in b61; 1[38] in b62; 1[37] in b63; 1[36] in b64; 1Z in b65; 1Y in b66; 1X in b67; 1W in b68; 1V in b69; 1U in b70; 1T in b71; 1S in b72; 1R in b73; 1Q in b74; 1P in b75; 1O in b76; 1N in b77; 1M in b78; 1L in b79; 1K in b80; 1J in b81
; 1I in b82; 1H in b83; 1G in b84; 1F in b85; 1E in b86; 1D in b87; 1C in b88; 1B in b89; 1A in b90; 19 in b91; 18 in b92; 17 in b93; 16 in b94; 15 in b95; 14 in b96; 13 in b97; 12 in b98; 11 in b99

When the base b is higher than half of 100, the representations of 100 consist of a digit 1 followed by another digit. Half of a hundred = 50, therefore 100 in base 10 = 1[49] in b51, 1[48] in b52, 1[47] in b53, 1[46] in b54, 1[45] in b55, 1[44] in b56, 1[43] in b57, 1[42] in b58, 1[41] in b59… If you take binary and so on into account, 1 is the first digit of slightly over half the representations of 100. And 1 also occurs in other positions. Therefore digsum(1,100,b=2..99) > 50. As the number n gets larger and larger, the contribution of leading 1s in bases b > n/2 begins to swamp the contributions of 1s in other positions, therefore digsum(1,n) → 1/2 of n as n → ∞.

And what about 2s and 3s? Similar reasoning applies. One hundred has a leading digit of 2 in bases b where b > 1/3 of 100 and b <= 1/2 of 100. So 100 = 2W in b34, 2U in b35, 2S in b36, 2Q in b37, 2O in b38… In other words, roughly 1/2 – 1/3 of the representations of 100 have a leading 2. Now, 1/2 – 1/3 = 3/6 – 2/6 = 1/6 and 1/6 * 2 = 1/3 (i.e., 1/6 of the representations contribute a leading 2 to the sum of 2s). Therefore the all-base digsum(2,n) → 1/3 of n as n → ∞. Next, one hundred has a leading digit of 3 in bases b where b > 1/4 of 100 and b <= 1/3. So 100 = 3M in b26, 3J in b27, 3G in b28, 3D in b29, 3A in b30… Now, 1/3 – 1/4 = 4/12 – 3/12 = 1/12 and 1/12 * 3 = 1/4. Therefore the all-base digsum(3,n) → 1/4 of n as n → ∞.

And so on.

Luciferizing


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

The toxic title of this incendiary intervention is supposed to be understood such that the verb “Lucíferizing” (acting like Lucifer, turning into Lucifer, etc) has an echo of “Lúcifer Rising”. Lucifer, or “Light-Bearer”, is also a name for the planet Venus, which is rising in the image of the foredawn sky.

Hour Re-Re-Re-Re-Powered

In “Dissing the Diamond” I looked at some of the fractals I found by selecting lines from a dissected diamond. Here’s another of those fractals:

Fractal from dissected diamond


It’s a distorted and incomplete version of the hourglass fractal:

Hourglass fractal


Here’s how to create the distorted form of the hourglass fractal:

Distorted hourglass from dissected diamond (stage 1)


Distorted hourglass #2


Distorted hourglass #3


Distorted hourglass #4


Distorted hourglass #5


Distorted hourglass #6


Distorted hourglass #7


Distorted hourglass #8


Distorted hourglass #9


Distorted hourglass #10


Distorted hourglass (animated)


When I de-distorted and doubled the dissected-diamond method, I got this:

Hourglass fractal #1


Hourglass fractal #2


Hourglass fractal #3


Hourglass fractal #4


Hourglass fractal #5


Hourglass fractal #6


Hourglass fractal #7


Hourglass fractal #8


Hourglass fractal #9


Hourglass fractal #10


Hourglass fractal (animated)


Elsewhere other-engageable:

 

Hour Power
Hour Re-Powered
Hour Re-Re-Powered
Hour Re-Re-Re-Powered

Carved Cascade

Woodcut of a waterfall by Reynolds Stone (1909-79)


It’s the wrong kind of waterfall to go with this passage from Nietzsche, but that can’t be helped dot dot dot colon

Am Wasserfall. — Beim Anblick eines Wasserfalles meinen wir in den zahllosen Biegungen, Schlängelungen, Brechungen der Wellen Freiheit des Willens und Belieben zu sehen; aber Alles ist nothwendig, jede Bewegung mathematisch auszurechnen. So ist es auch bei den menschlichen Handlungen; man müsste jede einzelne Handlung vorher ausrechnen können, wenn man allwissend wäre, ebenso jeden Fortschritt der Erkenntniss, jeden Irrthum, jede Bosheit. Der Handelnde selbst steckt freilich in der Illusion der Willkür; wenn in einem Augenblick das Rad der Welt still stände und ein allwissender, rechnender Verstand da wäre, um diese Pausen zu benützen, so könnte er bis in die fernsten Zeiten die Zukunft jedes Wesens weitererzählen und jede Spur bezeichnen, auf der jenes Rad noch rollen wird. Die Täuschung des Handelnden über sich, die Annahme des freien Willens, gehört mit hinein in diesen auszurechnenden Mechanismus. — Friedrich Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches: Ein Buch für freie Geister (1878)


AT THE WATERFALL.—In looking at a waterfall we imagine that there is freedom of will and fancy in the countless turnings, twistings, and breakings of the waves ; but everything is compulsory, every movement can be mathematically calculated. So it is also with human actions ; one would have to be able to calculate every single action beforehand if one were all-knowing ; equally so all progress of knowledge, every error, all malice. The one who acts certainly labours under the illusion of voluntariness ; if the world’s wheel were to stand still for a moment and an all-knowing, calculating reason were there to make use of this pause, it could foretell the future of every creature to the remotest times, and mark out every track upon which that wheel would continue to roll. The delusion of the acting agent about himself, the supposition of a free will, belongs to this mechanism which still remains to be calculated. — Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All-Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (1908)

Dissing the Diamond

In “Fractangular Frolics” I looked at how you could create fractals by choosing lines from a dissected equilateral or isosceles right triangle. Now I want to look at fractals created from the lines of a dissected diamond, as here:

Lines in a dissected diamond


Let’s start by creating one of the most famous fractals of all, the Sierpiński triangle:

Sierpiński triangle stage 1


Sierpiński triangle #2


Sierpiński triangle #3


Sierpiński triangle #4


Sierpiński triangle #5


Sierpiński triangle #6


Sierpiński triangle #7


Sierpiński triangle #8


Sierpiński triangle #9


Sierpiński triangle #10


Sierpiński triangle (animated)


However, you can get an infinite number of Sierpiński triangles with three lines from the diamond:

Sierpińfinity #1


Sierpińfinity #2


Sierpińfinity #3


Sierpińfinity #4


Sierpińfinity #5


Sierpińfinity #6


Sierpińfinity #7


Sierpińfinity #8


Sierpińfinity #9


Sierpińfinity #10


Sierpińfinity (animated)


Here are some more fractals created from three lines of the dissected diamond (sometimes the fractals are rotated to looked better):



















And in these fractals one or more of the lines are flipped to create the next stage of the fractal:




Previously pre-posted:

Fractangular Frolics — fractals created in a similar way

Dissecting the Diamond — fractals from another kind of diamond

Brine Shine

Study of waves, wave-crests and foam by the Armenian artist Ivan Aivazovsky (1817-1900)

Aivazovsky was a citizen of Imperial Russia whose name is Հովհաննես Այվազյան in Armenian and Иван Айвазовский in Russian.