# An Exact Value For The Fine Structure Constant.

### #69

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:29 PM

### #70

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:33 PM

I'm wondering whether we an somehow use the FSC's linkage of quantum mechanics to relativity (if we can call it that). Note all the odd mathematical findings I've been making that relate to the electronic and nuclear periodic systems. Dealt with by ignoring all known relativistic effects, these are very strongly motivated by the Pascal Triangle and its sisters. The curve of N vs. P of isotopes follows closely trends defined by half-magic numbers versus Fibonacci and Lucas numbers (maybe other related series as well), and both half-magics and the other series also belong to Pascal math.

There are hints that other Metal Means are involved beyond merely the Golden Mean. All are linked through functions involving squares and square roots, continued fractions, etc. And the powers of Metal Means are intimately connected to the sister of the Pascal Triangle with sides (2,1). In the earlier part of the P vs. N nuclide curve P/N is around 1 for the most stable nuclei. The first Metal Mean is 1.00000. The middle part of the curve seems to converge on a function that involves Fibonacci and Lucas denominators and tetrahedral-number related numerators. Can this part of the curve then relate to the Golden Mean, which is the next after 1.0000.... After this the elements become unstable, and you'd need neutrons in greater numbers than Phi x P. The next Metal Mean, the Silver Mean, is 2sqrt2. We don't currently have means of assembling nuclei with such numbers, and in any case the forces within nuclei (strong attractions versus electromagnetic repulsions) are supposed to limit the structure to somewhere in the mid-100's of protons (137 for a Bohr atom, 173 for a supposedly more realistic nucleus with actual cross section). Is there some special number of protons where 2sqrt2 x this number will balance things out? The mean of 173 and 137 is 155, which is 1/4 of 620, related to the Golden Mean. What about some multiple (or something close to it) of the Silver Mean?

What I'm hoping for here is some inkling that we can account for the effects of relativity, which often muck up the nice straightforward links to the Pascal Triangle, by appealing to other Pascal Triangles and Metal Means, interacting with each other in some way. Of course we may have to go all the way to string theory for this (yikes...).

Jess Tauber

**Edited by pascal, 21 April 2012 - 10:37 PM.**

### #71

Posted 21 April 2012 - 11:42 PM

Glad to see this thread reactivated. Good times. God I need to get a life...

I'm wondering whether we an somehow use the FSC's linkage of quantum mechanics to relativity (if we can call it that). Note all the odd mathematical findings I've been making that relate to the electronic and nuclear periodic systems. Dealt with by ignoring all known relativistic effects, these are very strongly motivated by the Pascal Triangle and its sisters. The curve of N vs. P of isotopes follows closely trends defined by half-magic numbers versus Fibonacci and Lucas numbers (maybe other related series as well), and both half-magics and the other series also belong to Pascal math.

There are hints that other Metal Means are involved beyond merely the Golden Mean. All are linked through functions involving squares and square roots, continued fractions, etc. And the powers of Metal Means are intimately connected to the sister of the Pascal Triangle with sides (2,1). In the earlier part of the P vs. N nuclide curve P/N is around 1 for the most stable nuclei. The first Metal Mean is 1.00000. The middle part of the curve seems to converge on a function that involves Fibonacci and Lucas denominators and tetrahedral-number related numerators. Can this part of the curve then relate to the Golden Mean, which is the next after 1.0000.... After this the elements become unstable, and you'd need neutrons in greater numbers than Phi x P. The next Metal Mean, the Silver Mean, is 2sqrt2. We don't currently have means of assembling nuclei with such numbers, and in any case the forces within nuclei (strong attractions versus electromagnetic repulsions) are supposed to limit the structure to somewhere in the mid-100's of protons (137 for a Bohr atom, 173 for a supposedly more realistic nucleus with actual cross section). Is there some special number of protons where 2sqrt2 x this number will balance things out? The mean of 173 and 137 is 155, which is 1/4 of 620, related to the Golden Mean. What about some multiple (or something close to it) of the Silver Mean?

What I'm hoping for here is some inkling that we can account for the effects of relativity, which often muck up the nice straightforward links to the Pascal Triangle, by appealing to other Pascal Triangles and Metal Means, interacting with each other in some way. Of course we may have to go all the way to string theory for this (yikes...).

Jess Tauber

Imagine a variation of the pyramid as a continuum! All spherical vertices. In that I'm referring to all triangles, side and base, are eliptical. We could actually apply this geometry to the orbital wave-particle structure of the atomic orbitals. The higher the atomic number, so the denominative ratio of the major axis to the minor axis, and proportional to the eccentricity of the foci. Apply the motion chacteristics of a 2 plane vortex and voila! we develop an eliptically, triangular twister. Because the tetrahedral vertices are also eliptical, what would diminish to a conical vertex, having the motion applied, the velocity nearest the nucleus would approach infinity. There's your relativistic element (no pun intended.)

### #72

Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:56 PM

As a constant for practical purposes on a local level, the FSC in either case is close enough.

When it is applied as a factor associated with the Cosmological Constant, it is another matter entirely because

even though we have come great strides in astronomy and astrophysics, we cannot be certain our

concept of in and out are correct, evidenced by mysteries of dark matter. If dark matter is at the center,

we have no idea how many star and galactic bodies are beyond it. How can we do better than estimate without all the facts?

Having a value of the FSC that is "close enough on a local level" is one thing,

having a bonifide mathematical

**that requires the FSC is quite another.**

*function*Functions can be modified, incorporated with and applied to other functions

(such as the Lorentz functions) which describe other aspects of reality.

In other words, functions allow us to

*.*

**explore**Of course, I agree with you that any prospect of accurately determining the "big picture"

does indeed seem bleak when we take into account things like dark matter and dark energy.

Experimental data on this stuff is scarce and extraordinarily difficult to aquire, but at least now,

we have a

**stable**mathematical construct whose results can be compared to those generated by

other models such as the "Minimal Supersymetric Standard Model", which, by the way,

**allow for**

*does*the existence of dark matter, and predicts that the FSC at "unification energy" is about 1/25 or so.

We'll see...

Don.

### #73

Posted 22 April 2012 - 02:17 PM

*my*work on those sets, i'm something of an expert on the topic. the only "significance" of the natural density of polygonal numbers is that it is a strictly increasing function (strictly decreasing for non-polygonals), but again there is no end of strictly increasing and decreasing functions that might be employed.

you conclude nearly all of such posts as below with "if only we (say someone besides you)" extended the natural density calculation of polygonals then your accuracy would improve. well, everytime someone else has done that it has necessitated another version of your equation to get a match. at some point, if not already, the extended natural density value of polygonal numbers is going to exceed the bona fide observed value of the fine structure constant which of course insures that your postulated value cannot be verified.

given my expertise in one aspect of your theory and the expertise of other critics that have evaluated it, i trust you can understand my concern.

As we have seen, each and every version of my counting function

remains extraordinarily accurate to at least [math]x=10^{15}[/math].

However, I do believe that the following version:

snip...

So, in theory, if we had sufficiently large values of [math]\varpi(x)[/math], say , to about [math]x=10^{20}[/math] or so...

snip...

Don.

**Edited by Turtle, 22 April 2012 - 02:19 PM.**

### #74

Posted 22 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

Quoting 7DSUSYstrings:

Having a value of the FSC that is "close enough on a local level" is one thing,

having a bonifide mathematicalthat requires the FSC is quite another.function

Functions can be modified, incorporated with and applied to other functions

(such as the Lorentz functions) which describe other aspects of reality.

In other words, functions allow us to.explore

Of course, I agree with you that any prospect of accurately determining the "big picture"

does indeed seem bleak when we take into account things like dark matter and dark energy.

Experimental data on this stuff is scarce and extraordinarily difficult to aquire, but at least now,

we have astablemathematical construct whose results can be compared to those generated by

other models such as the "Minimal Supersymetric Standard Model", which, by the way,allow fordoes

the existence of dark matter, and predicts that the FSC at "unification energy" is about 1/25 or so.

We'll see...

Don.

Yes. We shall one day. It will be interesting to see where this type of discussion heads in 5 or 10 years. As for now, I've been pondering the possibility of the pyramid without sharp edges of corners. I keep returning to the eccentric elliptoid with tetrahedral foci then added to m/2PI log r as an integral rather than a summation using the centers of the focae along the base as the outer plane, while the spherical vertex of the convergent foci supplies the innewr plane. (Also, I noticed I misspelled "twistor" in my earlier post. )

It might be good to ask if you are familiar with the lobelar type of orbital theory (Marc Loudon, "Organic Chemistry" third ed.). IO'll see if I can dig it up or scan from the book. (Please be patient on that. I just moved my engineering machine to another room and don't have it or my scanner hooked up yet...)

### #75

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:37 PM

I disagree.Your equations(s) does/do not provide any special insight.

Polygonal numbers have been studied since before the days of the ancient Greeks,

yet,

**polygonal numbers of order greater than 2**or "

**regular figurative numbers**"

as they are otherwise known, have only been counted up to [math]x=10^{15}[/math].

That's only

*of the value of [math]x[/math] to which*

**one billionth****prime numbers**have been counted,

so

**clearly**, our mathematical literature is desperately in need of higher tables of [math]\varpi(x)[/math],

(the number of

**regular figurative numbers**under some number [math]x[/math]).

That's utterly shameful, because even young children who are typically fascinated by

the properties of figurative numbers, are being deprived of the answer when they

innocently ask that most obvious and simple question of all...

"Mommy, how many

**regular figurative numbers**are there?"

Clearly, our colleges, univerities and other so called "institutions of higher learning"

who

**have access to powerful computers and can therefore**

*do***count how many**

*easily***regular figurative numbers**there are up to at least [math]x=10^{20}[/math] have not done so,

and have thus displayed a total and utter disregard for those poor helpless children!

They should

**all**be ashamed of themselves, and I urge all who read this to

e-mail this thread to as many colleges and universities as possible!

Now, just as there are

**many**theories in particle physics, all of which are plausible,

yet may be wrong or incomplete, I have, in this very thread, proposed

**many**possible counting

functions for

**regular figurative numbers**, all of which are quite similar and all of which give

**exellent**approximations of how many regular figurative numbers there are up to at least [math]x=10^{15}[/math].

You see, the stunning accuracy which all of my counting functions achieve tells us that,

at the very least, I have discovered the correct

**. Indeed, all other attempts**

*form*at developing a counting function for

**regular figurative numbers**have failed miserably,

and my counting functions, all of which

**involve the fine structure constant**

*do*are the

**only**ones left standing!

But here's the best part.

As

**undeniably**accurate as my counting functions are, they all involve

**only three constants**:

[math]\pi=3.14159..., e=2.7182818...[/math] and [math]A=2.566543832171388844467529...[/math]

which, allows us to generate all of the prime numbers in sequential order by applying a very simple rule!

If that's not enough to make our colleges and universities spring into action, then nothing is!

Don

### #76

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:01 PM

[quotename='Turtle']Your equations(s) does/do not provide any special insight.[/quote]

I disagree.

Polygonal numbers have been studied since before the days of the ancient Greeks,

yet,

**polygonal numbers of order greater than 2**or "

**regular figurative numbers**"

as they are otherwise known, have only been counted up to [math]x=10^{15}[/math].

That's only

*of the value of [math]x[/math] to which*

**one billionth****prime numbers**have been counted,

so

**clearly**, our mathematical literature is desperately in need of higher tables of [math]\varpi(x)[/math],

(the number of

**regular figurative numbers**under some number [math]x[/math]).

That's utterly shameful, because even young children who are typically fascinated by

the properties of figurative numbers, are being deprived of the answer when they

innocently ask that most obvious and simple question of all...

"Mommy, how many

**regular figurative numbers**are there?" [/quote]

in short, poppycock. there exists an infinite number of polygonal numbers. period. their natural density, as that of primes, is only of interest to a relatively narrow range of even college educated mathemeticians and at that these ratios have no utility. it's pure math; math for math's sake. they don't add anything to calculating orbits, or actuarial tables, or any such serious or even less so application of mathematics. your saying that they do over & over does not make it so and i have told you this and read many others comments on your work both here and elsewhere who have told you.

[quote name='Don Blazys'] Clearly, our colleges, univerities and other so called "institutions of higher learning"

who

**have access to powerful computers and can therefore**

*do***count how many**

*easily***regular figurative numbers**there are up to at least [math]x=10^{20}[/math] have not done so,

and have thus displayed a total and utter disregard for those poor helpless children!

They should

**all**be ashamed of themselves, and I urge all who read this to

e-mail this thread to as many colleges and universities as possible! [/quote]

more popycock. again,

*my*work on non-polygonals & polygonals -and again it is

*my*work you are playing off of- is of interest to a relative few mathematicians. while you convinced lars to go to 10

^{15}, the first such calculations were made here by jayqu, donk, and phillip at my request. that you had to get lars to do it is only because you could not convince the fellas here to carry it further.

my current ongoing personal calculations are to record the individual non-polygonals and polygonals and while their natural densities are a result, it is a trivial consequential result. even at that, as i now have 100 gigabytes of this data and my thread is getting 1000 views a week, no one has asked for any of the data and there have been only 4 downloads of the 2 files i attached. again, there is no significance to this work other than as a curiosity.

[quote name='Don Blazys'] Now, just as there are

**many**theories in particle physics, all of which are plausible,

yet may be wrong or incomplete, I have, in this very thread, proposed

**many**possible counting

functions for

**regular figurative numbers**, all of which are quite similar and all of which give

**exellent**approximations of how many regular figurative numbers there are up to at least [math]x=10^{15}[/math]. [/quote]

refrain.

**the natural density of non-polyognal or polygonal numbers is a mathematical curiosity and has no significance to physics or chemistry or farming or sewing or any other practical application.**

[quote name='Don Blazys'] You see, the stunning accuracy which all of my counting functions achieve tells us that,

at the very least, I have discovered the correct

**. Indeed, all other attempts**

*form*at developing a counting function for

**regular figurative numbers**have failed miserably,

and my counting functions, all of which

**involve the fine structure constant**

*do*are the

**only**ones left standing! [/quote]

i'm awesomely underwhelmed. you keep saying "my counting function" and yet it was my work and the work of the others that i mentioned that gave you the idea and the ability to produce re-worked equation after re-worked equation of no utility. i don't know that shameful is applicable, but it certainly is disheartening. some stand on the shoulders of giants, others sit on their faces.

### #77

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:31 PM

That the fine-structure constant is thus related to the prime numbers was also discovered (independently) by Ke Xiao

who publised his findings in a paper entitled "Dimensionless Constants and Blackbody Radiation Laws" in

The Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics.

This is what I found most attractive to this discussion, where it relates to the FSC. Blackbody Radiation, referring to Kirchof, relates back to the singularity. This is why the tetrahedron offers a geodesic that is not isolated to merely a faceted interpretation of a light cone. It would have the ability to converge as well as diverge, same as any primary quantum packet, still the fine structure intrinsically intends to define the singularity. A black body is not static. It is rotating, thus comparable to the vortex model, yet it is polyhedral as well, ironically revisiting the notion of a cubic carbon atom suggested by R. Buckminster Fuller. As I mentioned the modern concept envisions lobes as wave-particle orbitals, so the four sp

^{3}orbitals of carbon as conical lobes leave a gross imbalance of empty space between the orbitals. Only a continuous tetrahedron expands, with the focae at the vertices, to take up most of the space, thus stablizing the mass uniformly. This would tend to envision the prime particle structure, thus the fine structure, as a fractal.

### #78

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:57 PM

This is what I found most attractive to this discussion, where it relates to the FSC. Blackbody Radiation, referring to Kirchof, relates back to the singularity. This is why the tetrahedron offers a geodesic that is not isolated to merely a faceted interpretation of a light cone. It would have the ability to converge as well as diverge, same as any primary quantum packet, still the fine structure intrinsically intends to define the singularity. A black body is not static. It is rotating, thus comparable to the vortex model, yet it is polyhedral as well, ironically revisiting the notion of a cubic carbon atom suggested by R. Buckminster Fuller. As I mentioned the modern concept envisions lobes as wave-particle orbitals, so the four sp

^{3}orbitals of carbon as conical lobes leave a gross imbalance of empty space between the orbitals. Only a continuous tetrahedron expands, with the focae at the vertices, to take up most of the space, thus stablizing the mass uniformly. This would tend to envision the prime particle structure, thus the fine structure, as a fractal.

[/quote]

first, buckminster fuller's physics are pure fantasy. see my analysis of his work here. >> Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking that you think his 30 year old work could go unnoticed or unrecognized by

*real*physicists is indicative of your illogical thinking. while my curiosity was piqued by this disjoint, i actually did the research to resolve it.

as to primes, the fine structure constant, and and Ke Xiao, his invocation of primes has nothing to do with the natural density of primes.

Dimensionless Constants andBlackbody Radiation Laws

[quotename='Ke Xiao']...The pattern of Planck spectra is given by f(x) = x3/(ex − 1) where the photon

hν is hidden in the argument x = hν/kBT. The photon integral in (1) is equal to a

dimensionless constant where the Euler product extends over all the prime numbers. ...[/quote]

then...

Euler product

[quotename='wikipedia']In number theory, an Euler product is an expansion of a Dirichlet series into an infinite product indexed by prime numbers. ...[/quote]

the primes as indices is what Xiao invokes and going from that to infer a relation to natural density is bogus. color me not surprised.

### #79

Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:16 AM

that you think his 30 year old work could go unnoticed or unrecognized by real physicists is indicative of your illogical thinking.

The fact that you interpretted my words to have this meaning is indicative of your inability to read comprehensively. Your weak imagination is a given. Flamboyant use of emoticons is not imaginative, it is only wishful thinking at best. That's normal, though, for a 3 year old or someone jaded going senile.

If you would decide to refrain from stalking me, or even perhaps clicking on the metaphorical "ignore this dude" button, you might give fewer opportunities for other members to see you as a troll with thousands of posts. As I said before, your attacks on me only demonstrate your pedantic nature. It is obsolete.

Who first conceptualized the internet, albeit by other terminology?

### #80

Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:48 AM

I ask because H, though nice and simple, is not normal. No neutrons. Every other element has neutrons. Dunno if this will make the numbers more interesting, just wanna see for myself. Thanks, and may God defend the Righteous.

Jess Tauber

### #81

Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:01 AM

Sorry to interrupt what I'm sure will turn out to be a a brilliantly bloody slugfest, but I'm wondering if anyone knows what the FSC would be, both for a Bohr atom, and for the supposedly more accurate version based on a nucleus with an actual cross-section, if Deuterium were used instead of Protium.

I ask because H, though nice and simple, is not normal. No neutrons. Every other element has neutrons. Dunno if this will make the numbers more interesting, just wanna see for myself. Thanks, and may God defend the Righteous.

Jess Tauber

what!!??? how dare you be on topic with a serious question!! no rest for the wicked and the righteous don't need any.

but, to your question. i don't know deuterium from delirium, but the fine structure constant is well, a constant. while the exact value as i understand it has been adjusted in accordance with better measurements, it still is a constant in regards to its use in physics calculations. well, here's a recent article on the adjustment last year and maybe you can find what you're curious about there. good luck and may the electromagnetic force be with you.

The Constants They Are A Changin': NIST Posts Latest Adjustments to Fundamental Figures

**Edited by Turtle, 23 April 2012 - 01:07 AM.**

### #82

Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:54 AM

Sorry to interrupt what I'm sure will turn out to be a a brilliantly bloody slugfest, but I'm wondering if anyone knows what the FSC would be, both for a Bohr atom, and for the supposedly more accurate version based on a nucleus with an actual cross-section, if Deuterium were used instead of Protium.

I ask because H, though nice and simple, is not normal. No neutrons. Every other element has neutrons. Dunno if this will make the numbers more interesting, just wanna see for myself. Thanks, and may God defend the Righteous.

Jess Tauber

As for the slugfest, it is more of a Schroedenger's Catbox hissy fit, only the box is semi-transparent, so we don't need to lift the lid... just press the flush lever

As for the Bohr model, not here. As for the presence of a neutron, my suggestion only, at this point, would be adding a 3rd, intermediate plane that bisects the neutron center. At this point it would only be a "first pass" suggestion, but it's ironic because that very same thought occurred to me yesterday, although I've really been envisioning carbon. Are you psychic?

### #83

Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:31 PM

"Here, my little girl, Mommy will explain to you in a simple way that even you as a small child will understand:"

[math]

\varpi(x)\approx\left(\left(\sqrt{\left(\left(1-\frac{1}{\left(\alpha*\pi*e+e\right)}\right)*x\right)}-\frac{1}{4}\right)^{2}-\frac{1}{16}\right)*\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{\left(6*\pi^{5}-\pi^{2}\right)}\right)

[/math]

where:

[math]

\alpha=\left(\left(A^{-1}*\pi*e+e\right)*\left(\pi^{e}+e^{\left(\frac{-\pi}{2}\right)}\right)-\frac{\left(\left(\pi^e+e^{\frac{-\pi}{2}}+4+\frac{5}{16}\right)*\left(\ln\left(x\right)\right)^{-1}+1\right)}{\left(6*\pi^{5}*e^{2}-2*e^{2}\right)}\right)^{-1}

[/math]

"Now you see, don't you?"

**Edited by LBg, 28 April 2012 - 02:24 AM.**

- Turtle likes this

### #84

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:46 AM

Somehow, an error occured when you "copied and pasted" the equation for [math]\alpha[/math].

Please change that "201" to a "2".

Anyway, thanks for making my point with such outstanding eloquence and humour.

I can easily imagine that hypothetical dialogue between MOTHER and DAUGHTER

continuing as follows:

DAUGHTER

(surprised)

Wow mommy, those equations sure do look pretty.

Heck, I would even go so far as to say that they appear downright elegant!

However, I'm afraid that I can't quite understand them because I'm still

just a little kid. Look, all I want to know is

**exactly**how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are up to [math]x=10^{16}[/math],

so instead of showing me that beautiful equation, why don't you just show me

a damn

**table**of how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are under [math]x[/math].

Now,

**that**would be

**easy**to understand, even for a little kid like me!

MOTHER

(sternly but gently)

Now, you watch your language my dear.

We don't use words like heck and damn in this household.

DAUGHTER

(sobbing)

I'm sorry mommy, but it's just that I am so completely and utterly frustrated.

You see mommy, in my heart of hearts, I truly feel that in this day and age

of supercomputers, my math teacher

**should**be able to tell me

**exactly**

how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are under [math]x=10^{16}[/math].

After all,

**regular figurative numbers**or

**polygonal numbers of order greater than 2**

as they are otherwise known, are a truly fascinating sequence of numbers,

whose mysteries have been probed for thousands of years,

and like the

**prime numbers**, they are an

**erratic**sequence!

MOTHER

(soothing and consoling)

There, there my dear. I understand. You are after all, a bright, gifted and curious child.

DAUGHTER

(now crying hysterically)

So, what will we do? We can't just sit here in complete and utter ignorance of

how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are under [math]x=10^{16}[/math].

MOTHER

(with a glimmer of hope)

I know! Let's go to the computer and Google search

**polygonal numbers**.

After all, Google is the greatest search engine in the world, and it always puts

the

**best**and

**most important**stuff on the

**very first page**!

DAUGHTER

(wiping away tears)

Okay. I guess it's worth a try.

MOTHER

(exitedly)

Look dear! Right here on the

**very first page**, we have

**A Special Polygonal Number Counting Function**by Don Blazys! And look!

Don's paper has a

**table**of how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are under [math]x[/math].

DAUGHTER

(sadly)

But that table doesn't go up to [math]x=10^{16}[/math]. Gee whiz.

MOTHER

(again, sternly but gently)

Now, I told you to watch your language my dear.

We don't use words like gee whiz in this household.

DAUGHTER

(looking down, shaking her head)

I'm sorry mommy, but I've had it up to here with the so called math community.

If our mathematical literature doesn't even contain a decent

**table**of how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are under [math]x[/math], then the math departments of

our colleges and universities must be populated by idiots, and as such, are a complete

and utter disgrace to humanity. I mean, if they don't even care enough about this incredibly

fascinating sequence of numbers to provide us kids with a decent table of how many

**regular figurative numbers**there are under [math]x[/math], then they don't care about math,

and I, as a small child, see no reason why I should take them seriously.

I think that I will just forget about math and listen to Justin Beaver on my smart phone.

MOTHER

(screaming angrily)

There will be none of that brainless auto tuned gansta rap in this house young lady!

As long as I am your mother, you will listen to good music, like Mozart, Tchaikovsky,

Bing Crosby, Cream and the Jimi Hendrix Experience!

DAUGHTER

(concerned)

Please don't be angry mommy, anger leads to the dark side of the force.

MOTHER

(regaining her composure)

You're right my dear, thanks for reminding me.

Now, let's see what else we can find on this here computer.

DAUGHTER

(nonchalantly, no longer caring)

Okay. Whatever.

MOTHER

(clicks the mouse and begins jumping up and down exitedly)

Wow!!! I can't believe it!!!!!!

This conversation that we are having right now has

**already**been posted on Hypography,

in a thread called An Exact Value for the Fine Structure Constant, by Don Blazys!!!!!

DAUGHTER

(with equal exitement)

Gee, that Don Blazys must be the smartest man in the world!

It's no wonder that his

**counting function**for

**regular figurative numbers**has got

first page status on Google and is even referenced in the On Line Encyclopedia of Number Sequences!

MOTHER

(nodding vigorously)

And he's really good looking too! He may be old, but he's still way better looking than

that Justin Beaver punk that you like.

DAUGHTER

(smiling)

Oh mommy, I think you have a crush on him.

MOTHER

(daydreaming)

All women want him, and all men want to be like him.

Even Clint Eastwood tried to portray him in his Dirty Harry movies.

DAUGHTER

(shakes her head)

He's probably concieted.

MOTHER

(reasuringly)

No my dear. You have to understand his sense of humour.

He knows that humility is a virtue, so he just acts concieted,

so that others will appear more virtuous than him.

He can't even spell the word

**concieted**. That's how humble he is.

Moreover, by making people laugh, he makes them stop fighting.

You've got to admit, this post is really funny!

You know my dear, last Christmas he e-mailed Lars Blomberg,

thanked him for all his help in the developement of the counting function

that you see in this thread, and asked his permission to thank him publicly

when he finally gets around to putting it on his website.

He wishes to extend the same courtesy to all those who helped him

**even if they disagree with him**.

**Edited by Don Blazys, 27 April 2012 - 06:59 AM.**

### #85

Posted 26 April 2012 - 01:53 PM

I can easily imagine that hypothetical dialogue between MOTHER and DAUGHTER

continuing as follows:

snip...

don, to quote clint reading a fiction writer's line, you are a legend in your own mind.