Mathematics desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 12[edit]

The Turing test[edit]

Isn't it easy to tell a computer from a human, if it can't tell that 0.1+0.2=0.3? 134.74.85.3 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babies can't tell you that either, but they are still human. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your point. Do you mean that floating-point arithmetic on a computer will usually use rounding which says they are different? The Turing test assumes the computer is using an advanced program. Such a program could be coded to work with base-10 decimals in the software and detect that 0.1+0.2=0.3. The program would be slower at calculations than floating point hardware so it's rarely done. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC Turing's original work had the computer being tested giving an incorrect answer to an arithmetic question - a wrong answer was a sign of intelligence. Smart man. I think he passed his own test. ;-) John Z (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google already knows the correct answer. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dedekind psi function[edit]

The OEIS describes the Dedekind psi function (OEIS: A001615) as the "Number of primitive sublattices of index n in generic 2-dimensional lattice." An equivalent condition is give later, but it's not clear where this comes from. I'm pretty sure that a 'lattice' means free abelian group here, but 'primitive' has any number of meanings depending on context so Google turns up a lot of unrelated results. I'm guessing 'primitive sublattice' means a subgroup with cyclic quotient group; can anyone confirm this? --RDBury (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I massaged my search string and found [1], p31. Most of the rest of the paper is over my head but that definition seems clear enough. --RDBury (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of the 24-cell vertices into Hexagons?[edit]

I noticed that the 24-cell can be partitioned into 4 sets, three of which are ~~Octagons~~Octahedra and one of which is a Hexagon. The discussions at 24-cell refer to to disjoint sets of four of these 6-cell great circle rings, which given that the 24-cell is self dual would seem to indicate that there is a way to partition the verticies of 24-cell into four hexagons, but I'm not seeing it. Can someone please help? (I'm fine with either of the standard methods of denoting the 24-cell vertices (either permutations of (+/-1,+/-1,0,0) or ((+/-1,+/-1,+/-1,+/-1) union permuations of (+/-2,0,0,0))Naraht (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Taking the vertices to be permutations of (±1, ±1, 0, 0).) A possibility for the first partition is the intersection of the vertices with the plane x+y+z=0 for the hexagon, and the planes x=y, x=z, y=z for the three octahedra. The planes x+y+z=0, x-y+w=0, x-z-w=0, y-z+w=0 intersect the vertices in four disjoint sets of six, each of which forms a hexagon. Not sure if that's exactly the partition you were looking for, but it is "a" partition into four hexagons. --RDBury (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]