the sad tale of my not posting equations for months

First, let us happily acknowledge that others now are using their minds for this activity. We (that’s the royal we, of course) hope they enjoy themselves.

Second, to return to the title: Yes, I haven’t posted for months, and now it has been pointed out. Actually, it’s not a sad tale, though some might find it lame. Here’s a fresh start, in honor of tomorrow’s palindromic date:

3 + 1 = 1 + 3

And here’s one with some fancier stuff than usual:

3! = 3 * (1+1)

And, since it’s still 2/28/13, we have the pleasure of:

2 + 2 = 8 – 1 – 3

which is in order, and makes me realize that the factorial equation above should have been

3! = (1 + 1) * 3

to get those “leaving the numbers in the order in which they were already” bonus points.*

 

 

 

*Bonus points have absolutely no value. They cannot be redeemed anywhere, under any circumstances. All rights reserved.

Advertisement

equationizing partial catch-up

No editorializing, folks, just the facts.

6/1/12 — √(6-1-1) = 2

6/2/12 — 6 = (2 + 1) * 2

6/3/12 — 6 = 3 + 1 + 2

6/4/12 — 6 * √4 = 12

6/5/12 —6 – 5 + 1 = 2

6/6/12 — Left as an exercise for the reader.

6/7/12 — 7 + 1 = 6 + 2 [Points off for breaking the order]

6/8/12 — 6 / √(8 + 1) = 2

6/9/12 — Nice sequence.

6/10/12 — √(6 – 1 – 0 – 1) = 2

6/11/12 — 6 = (1 + 1 + 1) * 2

6/12/12 — 6 = 1 + 2 + 1 + 2

6/13/12 — 6 = 1 * 3 * 1 * 2

6/14/12 — 6 + 1 – 4 – 1 = 2

6/15/12 — 6 + 1 – 5 = 1 * 2

6/16/12 — 6 + 1 – 6 + 1 = 2

6/17/12 — 6 – 1 + 7 = 12

6/18/12 — 6 – √(1 + 8) = 1 + 2

6/19/12 — 6 + 1 = 9 – (1 * 2) [Cheesy multiplying by 1, though]

6/20/12 — 6 = (2  + 0) * (1 + 2)

6/21/12 — 6 = 2 + 1 + 1 + 2

6/22/12 — 6 / 2 – 2 + 1 = 2

6/23/12 — 6 + 2 * 3 = 12

6/24/12 — No equation needed, just interesting to think about six being multiplied by the powers of 2 out of sequence…

6/25/12 — 6 – √25  + 1 = 2

6/26/12 — 6 * 2 = 6 * 1 * 2

6/27/12 — 6 + 2 – 7 + 1 = 2

6/28/12 — (6 + 2) / 8 + 1 = 2

6/29/12 — 6 * 2 – 9 – 1 = 2

6/30/12 — 6 = 3 + 0 + 1 + 2

July en route soon…

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Places in the real world – Good Things around Boston (according to Josh Lubarr)
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr

Mental Reunion at Geeky U (actually, geeky me)

Mental reunion sounds like the Vulcan mind meld to me, which is strangely relevant in this context.

I watch a lot of movies and I like John Cusack a lot, so when someone handed me a copy of Martian Child, I decided to watch it. It wasn’t bad (see my mini-review here), but I probably wouldn’t have thought about it further, until I noticed that it was adapted from a novelette by David Gerrold. “Okay, whatever,” you say. But I, a geek, say “David Gerrold? The author of the Star Trek episode, The Trouble with Tribbles? And the author of the book, The Trouble with Tribbles, about the making the episode, which I devoured when I was ten or eleven?” And you say, “Wow, Josh, you are a geek.”

And, of course, the answer is, yes, the same David Gerrold, who now has his virtual residence at gerrold.com. Now, I haven’t read any science fiction in decades (“Heretic! NON-GEEK!”), but, if I’d had this blog back then, there would have been a page for every Star Trek episode as I counted down seeing them (The Tholian Web, meh, was the last one). And there would have been extensive admiring prose about Mr. Gerrold’s book, which I loved. Even now, I smile at the anecdote he recounted about how revisions to the script were printed on different colors of paper, and Nichelle Nichols commented on how colorful the shooting script for The Trouble with Tribbles was.

 

A few backlogged equations, part two

The one that I really want to note is 5/24/12, as in

5 * (2.4) = 12

and if the fact that I like that doesn’t prove I’m a geek, I don’t know what does.

Just to be thorough, here’s what else we’ve missed since I last posted:

5/20/12 — 5 = 2 + 0 + 1 + 2 — pleasantly simple

5/21/12 — 5 – 2 – 1^1 = 2 — a little cheesy

5/22/12 — 5 – 2 – 2 + 1 = 2

5/23/12 — 5 = √(23 + 1 * 2) — going in order but treating the 23 as a full number; can you live with it?

5/25/12 — 5 = √25 * 1^2 — meh

5/26/12 — √(5 * 2 – 6) * 1 = 2 — frankly, multiplying by 1 always bugs me

5/27/12 — 5 * 2 = 7 + 1 + 2 — not bad

5/28/12 — 5 * 2 – 8 ^ 1 = 2 — not too keen on the “^1” either

5/29/12 — 5 – 2 + 9 = 12  OR  5 * 2 – 9 + 1 = 2 — both fine

5/30/12 — 5 – 3 – 0 = 1 * 2 — ecch

5/31/12 — 5 – 3 + √(1 + 1 + 2) — at least it doesn’t multiply by 1, put to the power of 1, or have the dreaded “+ 1 – 1” in it

 

 

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Places in the real world – Good Things around Boston (according to Josh Lubarr)
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr

A few backlogged equations

Aside from delicious days like 11/11/11, 1/2/12, or 2/1/12, we’ve gotten through most of the factors of 12 days for this year, which are:

1/12/12
2/6/12
3/4/12
4/3/12

and the upcoming

6/2/12
12/1/12

then there’s the radical (je suis le troublemakeur) approach to 5/12/12:

(5 + 1) * 2 = 12

which keeps everything in order, though treats some numbers as isolatable (yes, I know, not a real word) digits and others as actual numbers.

And before I go to sleep, I might as well be thorough and do today:

5/19/12

First, there’s the obvious

9 = 5 + 1 + 1 + 2

but there’s also

(5 – 1 – 1) ^ 2 = 9

and also

5 * 2 * 1 = 9 + 1

and, just to make up for months of missing days:

(5 – 2)! / (1+1) = √9

 

—

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr

10/7/11 — today’s equation

(For background, see Equationizing.)

Another challenging one, like yesterday. If we include the year and change the order, at least we can have

√(7+2) = 1 + 1 + 1

which is valid but forced us to cut too many corners for my taste.

10/6/11 — today’s equation

(For background, see Equationizing.)

Now we start getting into the dates that are a little more challenging, which is nice.

Yes, of course, we can change the order and get

6^0 + 1 = 1 + 1

but it would be awfully nice not to have to do that. We can include the year, which yields the obvious

√(1^0 * 6) – 2 + 1 = 1

but I’m not so big on that one either. And there’s also

1^0^6 = 1 * 1

which ignores the 6, which is also not so great.

All equations, but none too elegant.

10/5/11 — today’s equation

(For background, see Equationizing.)

Okay, no shenanigans, like yesterday, just the facts:

1 = √(5-1) – 1

though it’s awfully tempting to see this one as

10 – 5 = (1 + 1)

but that breaks the basic rules of converting one part of the date into digits and not the others.

10/4/11 — today’s equation

(For background, see Equationizing.)

This one’s just like the last few — simplistic, but almost elegant. Just for fun, I’ll include all the digits, and even the special bonus equation at the end. First, the basics:

1^0 * √4 = 1 + 1

or, if that looks sloppy to you (it does to me)

√(1^0 * 4) = 1 + 1

or

√(1 *  (0 + 4)) = 1 + 1

And now the bonus equation, starting from 10/04/2011,

1^0^0 * 4 = 2 + 0 + 1 + 1

of, if you want to leave out all those 0’s and 1’s that are just playing games to make themselves disappear, you get

4 = 2 + 1 + 1

or even

√4 = 2

 

10/3/11 — today’s equation

Like yesterday, this is a little simplistic, but maybe the whole premise is simplistic. (For background, see Equationizing.)

It’s actually almost (almost!) elegant:

1 = 3 – 1 -1

QED, if I dare use that here.