God Give Me Benf’

In “Wake the Snake”, I looked at the digits of powers of 2 and mentioned a fascinating mathematical phenomenon known as Benford’s law, which governs — in a not-yet-fully-explained way — the leading digits of a wide variety of natural and human statistics, from the lengths of rivers to the votes cast in elections. Benford’s law also governs a lot of mathematical data. It states, for example, that the first digit, d, of a power of 2 in base b (except b = 2, 4, 8, 16…) will occur with the frequency logb(1 + 1/d). In base 10, therefore, Benford’s law states that the digits 1..9 will occur with the following frequencies at the beginning of 2^p:

1: 30.102999%
2: 17.609125%
3: 12.493873%
4: 09.691001%
5: 07.918124%
6: 06.694678%
7: 05.799194%
8: 05.115252%
9: 04.575749%

Here’s a graph of the actual relative frequencies of 1..9 as the leading digit of 2^p (open images in a new window if they appear distorted):


And here’s a graph for the predicted frequencies of 1..9 as the leading digit of 2^p, as calculated by the log(1+1/d) of Benford’s law:


The two graphs agree very well. But Benford’s law applies to more than one leading digit. Here are actual and predicted graphs for the first two leading digits of 2^p, 10..99:



And actual and predicted graphs for the first three leading digits of 2^p, 100..999:



But you can represent the leading digit of 2^p in another way: using an adaptation of the famous Ulam spiral. Suppose powers of 2 are represented as a spiral of squares that begins like this, with 2^0 in the center, 2^1 to the right of center, 2^2 above 2^1, and so on:

←←←⮲
432↑
501↑
6789

If the digits of 2^p start with 1, fill the square in question; if the digits of 2^p don’t start with 1, leave the square empty. When you do this, you get this interesting pattern (the purple square at the very center represents 2^0):

Ulam-like power-spiral for 2^p where 1 is the leading digit


Here’s a higher-resolution power-spiral for 1 as the leading digit:

Power-spiral for 2^p, leading-digit = 1 (higher resolution)


And here, at higher resolution still, are power-spirals for all the possible leading digits of 2^p, 1..9 (some spirals look very similar, so you have to compare those ones carefully):

Power-spiral for 2^p, leading-digit = 1 (very high resolution)


Power-spiral for 2^p, leading-digit = 2


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 3


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 4


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 5


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 6


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 7


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 8


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 9


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 1..9 (animated)


Now try the power-spiral of 2^p, ld = 1, in some other bases:

Power-spiral for 2^p, leading-digit = 1, base = 9


Power-spiral for 2^p, ld = 1, b = 15


You can also try power-spirals for other n^p. Here’s 3^p:

Power-spiral for 3^p, ld = 1, b = 10


Power-spiral for 3^p, ld = 2, b = 10


Power-spiral for 3^p, ld = 1, b = 4


Power-spiral for 3^p, ld = 1, b = 7


Power-spiral for 3^p, ld = 1, b = 18


Elsewhere Other-Accessible…

Wake the Snake — an earlier look at the digits of 2^p

Wake the Snake

In my story “Kopfwurmkundalini”, I imagined the square root of 2 as an infinitely long worm or snake whose endlessly varying digit-segments contained all stories ever (and never) written:

• √2 = 1·414213562373095048801688724209698078569671875376948073…

But there’s another way to get all stories ever written from the number 2. You don’t look at the root(s) of 2, but at the powers of 2:

• 2 = 2^1 = 2
• 4 = 2^2 = 2*2
• 8 = 2^3 = 2*2*2
• 16 = 2^4 = 2*2*2*2
• 32 = 2^5 = 2*2*2*2*2
• 64 = 2^6 = 2*2*2*2*2*2
• 128 = 2^7 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2
• 256 = 2^8 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2
• 512 = 2^9 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2
• 1024 = 2^10
• 2048 = 2^11
• 4096 = 2^12
• 8192 = 2^13
• 16384 = 2^14
• 32768 = 2^15
• 65536 = 2^16
• 131072 = 2^17
• 262144 = 2^18
• 524288 = 2^19
• 1048576 = 2^20
• 2097152 = 2^21
• 4194304 = 2^22
• 8388608 = 2^23
• 16777216 = 2^24
• 33554432 = 2^25
• 67108864 = 2^26
• 134217728 = 2^27
• 268435456 = 2^28
• 536870912 = 2^29
• 1073741824 = 2^30
[...]

The powers of 2 are like an ever-lengthening snake swimming across a pool. The snake has an endlessly mutating head and a rhythmically waving tail with a regular but ever-more complex wake. That is, the leading digits of 2^p don’t repeat but the trailing digits do. Look at the single final digit of 2^p, for example:

• 02 = 2^1
• 04 = 2^2
• 08 = 2^3
• 16 = 2^4
• 32 = 2^5
• 64 = 2^6
• 128 = 2^7
• 256 = 2^8
• 512 = 2^9
• 1024 = 2^10
• 2048 = 2^11
• 4096 = 2^12
• 8192 = 2^13
• 16384 = 2^14
• 32768 = 2^15
• 65536 = 2^16
• 131072 = 2^17
• 262144 = 2^18
• 524288 = 2^19
• 1048576 = 2^20
• 2097152 = 2^21
• 4194304 = 2^22
[...]

The final digit of 2^p falls into a loop: 2 → 4 → 8 → 6 → 2 → 4→ 8…

Now try the final two digits of 2^p:

02 = 2^1
04 = 2^2
08 = 2^3
16 = 2^4
32 = 2^5
64 = 2^6
• 128 = 2^7
• 256 = 2^8
• 512 = 2^9
• 1024 = 2^10
• 2048 = 2^11
• 4096 = 2^12
• 8192 = 2^13
• 16384 = 2^14
• 32768 = 2^15
• 65536 = 2^16
• 131072 = 2^17
• 262144 = 2^18
• 524288 = 2^19
• 1048576 = 2^20
• 2097152 = 2^21
• 4194304 = 2^22
• 8388608 = 2^23
• 16777216 = 2^24
• 33554432 = 2^25
• 67108864 = 2^26
• 134217728 = 2^27
• 268435456 = 2^28
• 536870912 = 2^29
• 1073741824 = 2^30
[...]

Now there’s a longer loop: 02 → 04 → 08 → 16 → 32 → 64 → 28 → 56 → 12 → 24 → 48 → 96 → 92 → 84 → 68 → 36 → 72 → 44 → 88 → 76 → 52 → 04 → 08 → 16 → 32 → 64 → 28… Any number of trailing digits, 1 or 2 or one trillion, falls into a loop. It just takes longer as the number of trailing digits increases.

That’s the tail of the snake. At the other end, the head of the snake, the digits don’t fall into a loop (because of the carries from the lower digits). So, while you can get only 2, 4, 8 and 6 as the final digits of 2^p, you can get any digit but 0 as the first digit of 2^p. Indeed, I conjecture (but can’t prove) that not only will all integers eventually appear as the leading digits of 2^p, but they will do so infinitely often. Think of a number and it will appear as the leading digits of 2^p. Let’s try the numbers 1, 12, 123, 1234, 12345…:

16 = 2^4
128 = 2^7
12379400392853802748... = 2^90
12340799625835686853... = 2^1545
12345257952011458590... = 2^34555
12345695478410965346... = 2^63293
12345673811591269861... = 2^4869721
12345678260232358911... = 2^5194868
12345678999199154389... = 2^62759188

But what about the numbers 9, 98, 987, 986, 98765… as leading digits of 2^p? They don’t appear as quickly:

9007199254740992 = 2^53
98079714615416886934... = 2^186
98726397006685494828... = 2^1548
98768356967522174395... = 2^21257
98765563827287722773... = 2^63296
98765426081858871289... = 2^5194871
98765430693066680199... = 2^11627034
98765432584491513519... = 2^260855656
98765432109571471006... = 2^1641098748

Why do fragments of 123456789 appear much sooner than fragments of 987654321? Well, even though all integers occur infinitely often as leading digits of 2^p, some integers occur more often than others, as it were. The leading digits of 2^p are actually governed by a fascinating mathematical phenomenon known as Benford’s law, which states, for example, that the single first digit, d, will occur with the frequency log10(1 + 1/d). Here are the actual frequencies of 1..9 for all powers of 2 up to 2^101000, compared with the estimate by Benford’s law:

1: 30% of leading digits ↔ 30.1% estimated
2: 17.55% ↔ 17.6%
3: 12.45% ↔ 12.49%
4: 09.65% ↔ 9.69%
5: 07.89% ↔ 7.92%
6: 06.67% ↔ 6.69%
7: 05.77% ↔ 5.79%
8: 05.09% ↔ 5.11%
9: 04.56% ↔ 4.57%

Because (inter alia) 1 appears as the first digit of 2^p far more often than 9 does, the fragments of 123456789 appear faster than the fragments of 987654321. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies in all other bases (apart from bases that are powers of 2, where there’s a single leading digit, 1, 2, 4, 8…, followed by 0s). But although a number like 123456789 occurs much frequently than 987654321 in 2^p expressed in base 10 (and higher), both integers occur infinitely often.

As do all other integers. And because stories can be expressed as numbers, all stories ever (and never) written appear in the powers of 2. Infinitely often. You’ll just have to trim the tail of the story-snake.

I Say, I Sigh, I Sow #14

“In a very real sense, the Holocaust, as the ultimate moral and aesthetic obscenity, was also the ultimate drum-solo.” — Simon Whitechapel, 31i18

ზამვარდები

ვარდები

მე, ზამთრისაგან ჯაჭვაწყვეტილი,
ნაცნობ ბაღისკენ მივემართები,
სად ფერად უცხო, ყნოსვად კეთილი,
ზამთარ და ზაფხულ ჰყვავის ვარდები.


Roses

Unchained from winter,
I walk to a long-known garden,
Where, sweet-scented and bright,
Roses grow winter and summer through.

ვარდები, გალაკტიონ ტაბიძე
“Roses”, Galaktion Tabidze — a translation into English

Modes vs Tossers

“U2 are a band who believe in meetings, so everything has a meeting. With Depeche, it’s an exception to have a meeting at all. When I did visuals for The Joshua Tree 30th anniversary tour, I also filmed the show in Mexico City. After the concert, U2 all came to look at the footage. At midnight! For two hours! I mean, Depeche – you couldn’t get them to watch a minute. It’s an incredible difference in attitude. But that’s also the charm of Depeche. They don’t do many interviews, there’s no big plans, they just make a record and tour.”

‘They had soul’: Anton Corbijn on 40 years shooting Depeche Mode, The Intermzinator, 1vi21


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

The peri-parapractic paronomasia in the title of this post corely references key Kulturkampf “Mods vs Rockers” in terms of 1960s Britain.

Twi-Phi

Here’s a pentagon:

Stage #1


And here’s the pentagon with smaller pentagons on its vertices:

Stage #2


And here’s more of the same:

Stage #3


Stage #4


Stage #5


Stage #6


Stage #7


Stage #8


Animated fractal


At infinity, the smaller pentagons have reached out like arms to exactly fill the gaps between themselves without overlapping. But how much smaller is each set of smaller pentagons than its mother-pentagon when the gaps are exactly filled? Well, if the radius of the mother-pentagon is r, then the radius of each daughter-pentagon is r * 1/(φ^2) = r * 0·38196601125…

But what happens if the radius relationship of mother to daughter is r * 1/φ = r * 0·61803398874 = r * (φ-1)? Then you get this fractal:

Stage #1


Stage #2


Stage #3


Stage #4


Stage #5


Stage #6


Stage #7


Stage #8


Stage #9


Animated fractal


Performativizing Papyrocentricity #71

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents…

Clive DriveUnreliable Memoirs (1980) and Always Unreliable: The Memoirs (2001), Clive James

Nou’s WhoArt Nouveau, Camilla de la Bedoyere (Flame Tree Publishing 2005)

Hit and MistletoeThrough It All I’ve Always Laughed, Count Arthur Strong (Faber & Faber 2013)

Beauties and BeastsShardik, Richard Adams (1974)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Plow-Pair

Futoshiki is fun. It’s a number-puzzle where you use logic to re-create a 5×5 square in which every row and column contains the numbers 1 to 5. At first, most or all of the numbers are missing. You work out what those missing numbers are by using the inequality signs scattered over the futoshiki. Here’s an example:


There are no numbers at all in the futoshiki, so where do you start? Well, first let’s establish some vocabulary for discussing futoshiki. If we label squares by row and column, you can say that square (4,5), just above the lower righthand corner, dominates square (4,4), because (4,5) is on the dominant side of the inequality sign between the two squares (futōshiki, 不等式, means “inequality” in Japanese). Whatever individual number is in (4,5) must be greater than whatever individual number is in (4,4).

Conversely, you can say that (4,4) is dominated by (4,5). But that’s not the end of it: (4,4) is dominated by (4,5) but dominates (3,4), which in its turn dominates (2,4). In other words, there’s a chain of dominations. In this case, it’s a 4-chain, that is, it’s four squares long: (4,5) > (4,4) > (3,4) > (2,4), where (4,5) is the start-square and (2,4) is the end-square. Now, because 5 is the highest number in a 5×5 futoshiki, it can’t be in any square dominated by another square. And because 1 is always the lowest number in a futoshiki, it can’t be in any square that dominates another square. By extending that logic, you’ll see that 4 can’t be in the end-square of a 3-chain, (a,b) > (c,d) > (e,f), and 2 can’t be in the start-square of a 3-chain. Nor can 3 be in the start-square or end-square of a 4-chain.

Using all that logic, you can start excluding numbers from certain squares and working out sets of possible numbers in each square, like this:

[whoops: square contains errors that need to be corrected!]


Now look at column 1 and at row 4:


In column 1, the number 5 appears only once among the possibles, in (1,1); in row 4, the number 1 appears only once among the possibles, in (4,1). And if a number appears in only one square of a row or column, you know that it must be the number filling that particular square. So 5 must be the number filling (1,1) and 1 must be the number filling (4,1). And once a square is filled by a particular number, you can remove it from the sets of possibles filling the other squares of the row and column. I call this sweeping the row and column. Voilà:


Now that the 5 in (1,1) and the 1 in (4,1) have swept all other occurrences of 5 and 1 from the sets of possibles in column 1 and row 4, you can apply the only-once rule again. 2 appears only once in row 4 and 5 appears only once in column 4:


So you’ve got two more filled squares:


Now you can apply a more complex piece of logic. Look at the sets of possibles in row 3 and you’ll see that the set {2,3} occurs twice, in square (3,1) and square (3,4):


What does this double-occurrence of {2,3} mean? It means that if 2 is in fact the number filling (3,1), then 3 must be the number filling (3,4). And vice versa. Therefore 2 and 3 can occur only in those two squares and the two numbers can be excluded or swept from the sets of possibles filling the other squares in that row. You could call {2,3} a plow-pair or plow-pare, because it’s a pair that pares 2 and 3 from the other squares. So we have a pair-rule: if the same pair of possibles, {a,b}, appears in two squares in a row or column, then both a and b can be swept from the three other squares in that row or column. Using {2,3}, let’s apply the pair-rule to the futoshiki and run the plow-pare over row 3:


Now the pair-rule applies again, because {4,5} occurs twice in column 5:


And once the plow-pare has swept 4 and 5 from the other three squares in column 5, you’ll see that 3 is the only number left in square (1,5). Therefore 3 must fill (1,5):


Now 3 can be swept from the rest of row 1 and column 5:


And the pair-rule applies again, because {1,2} occurs twice in row 2:


Once 2 is swept from {2,3,4} in square (2,1) to leave {3,4}, 3 must be excluded from square (2,2), because (2,2) dominates (2,1) and 3 can’t be greater than itself. And once 3 is excluded from (2,2), it occurs only once in column 2:


Therefore 3 must fill (5,2), which dominates (5,1) and its set of possibles {2,3,4}. Because 3 can’t be greater than 4 or itself, 2 is the only possible filler for (5,1) and only 3 is left when 2 is swept from (3,1):


And here are the remaining steps in completing the futoshiki:

The complete futoshiki


Animation of the steps required to complete the futoshiki


Afterword

The pair-rule can be extended to a triplet-rule and quadruplet-rule:

• If three numbers {a,b,c} can occur in only three squares of a row or column, then a, b and c can be swept from the two remaining squares of the row or column.
• If four numbers {a,b,c,d} can occur in only four squares of a row or column, then a, b, c and d can be swept from the one remaining square of the row or column (therefore the number e must fill that remaining square).

But you won’t be able to apply the triplet-rule and quadruplet-rule as often as the pair-rule. Note also that the triplet-rule doesn’t work when {a,b,c} can occur in only two squares of a row or column. An n-rule applies only when the same n numbers of a set occur in n squares of a row or column. And n must be less than 5.


Post-Performative Post-Scriptum

Domination. Exclusion. Inequality. — an earlier look at futoshiki