I saw the video tonight, but didn’t like the presentation. They showed only one example twice. I would have preffered multiple examples by different methods.
John, the whole point of our paper (not the paper discussed in the video in more detail) is that a similar result is true for bases 2, 3, 4. For bases 3 and 4 we get the same bound: 3 terms. But for base 2 four terms are needed.
Intransitive says
I saw the video tonight, but didn’t like the presentation. They showed only one example twice. I would have preffered multiple examples by different methods.
They also compared it to sudoku. I’d say it’s closer to long division math puzzles.
polishsalami says
It’s remarkable that this is true in all bases.
John Morales says
polishsalami:
No, it’s not, because it isn’t.
(“for all bases b >= 5”)
shallit says
John, the whole point of our paper (not the paper discussed in the video in more detail) is that a similar result is true for bases 2, 3, 4. For bases 3 and 4 we get the same bound: 3 terms. But for base 2 four terms are needed.