October 8th, 2012, 11:42 AM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Oct 2012 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0  Number dimensions
1, [color=#BF0040]2[/color], 4, [color=#BF0040]3[/color], 8, 6, 16, 12, 32, 9, 24, 64, 18, 48, 128, 36, 96, 256, 27, [color=#BF0040]5[/color], 72, 192, 512, 54, 10, 144, 384, 1024, 108, 20, 288, 768, 81, 15, 2048, 216, 40, 576, 1536, 162, 30, 4096, 432, 80, 1152, 3072, 324, 60, 8192, 864, 160, 2304, 243, 45, 6144, 648, 120, 16384, 1728, 320, 4608, 486, 90, 12288, 1296, 240, 32768, 3456, 640, 9216, 972, 180, 24576, 2592, 480, 65536, 6912, 1280, 729, 135, 25, [color=#BF0040]7[/color], 18432, 1944, 360, 49152, 5184, 960, 131072, 13824, 2560, 1458, 270, 50, 14, 36864, 3888, 720, 98304, 10368, 1920, 262144 This is the order of integers when ordered according to their distance from the origin in hyperspace when expressed as points in 20 dimensional space corresponding to the primes having to be multiplied together to form the number (padded with 1 so that all numbers are expressed in 20 dimensions). For example, in this space the integer 12 = 1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*2*2*3 and would be represented by the point (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3) and would sit at a distance of SquareRoot 34 from the origin. Interesting to see how powers of two are common but primes are spread out over large intervals. To get an accurate ordered list up to that point (given that there are an infinite number of dimensions corresponding to primes), it is necessary to factorize a huge quantity of numbers (up to 2ˆd, where d is the dimension where the numbers are expressed) 
October 8th, 2012, 12:58 PM  #2 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Number dimensions
It seems to make more sense to express them in infinitedimensional space with unused coordinates set to 0 instead of 1. Then you're looking at A067666 and the order goes 1, 2, 4, 3, 8, 6, 16, 12, 9, 32, 24, 18, 64, 5, 48, 36, 27, 128, 10, ...

October 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM  #3 
Newbie Joined: Oct 2012 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0  Re: Number dimensions
It certainly simplifies things to use 0 instead of 1. It's just that it seems odd to me to use 0 when the coordinates are defined as being factors of the number they represent. I feel that by using 0's, I can represent lowerdimensional objects in higher dimensions (0 just means that they don't exist in that dimension), but by using 1's, I can really create higherdimensional objects, which seems to me a more satisfactory way of expressing a bunch of numbers in the same dimensions. Unfortunately, I have no idea why this approach would be useful at all! But it's always fun to play with numbers and try different things. 
October 8th, 2012, 06:17 PM  #4 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Number dimensions
The problem with 1s is that as you change the dimension, you change the numbers. The problems with finitely many dimensions is that you can't represent all numbers. Using infinitelymany dimensions also solves another problem: the arbitrariness of which numbers go in which dimension. With infinitely many you can have a dimension set aside for 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, ... so that all numbers divisible by 3 have the same coordinate in that dimension.


Tags 
dimensions, number 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
How to calculate number of dimensions using only dot product  BenFRayfield  Real Analysis  7  March 21st, 2013 11:36 AM 
Dimensions  MattJ81  New Users  3  July 27th, 2011 11:40 PM 
Dimensions  bignick79  Algebra  1  June 24th, 2010 05:21 PM 
VC dimensions  redandtheblue  Applied Math  0  February 15th, 2009 11:07 AM 