Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board
Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board  ›  General Futurama Forum Category  ›  Re-Check/Weird Scenes  ›  Bender and Flexo's Serial numbers « previous next »
Author Topic: Bender and Flexo's Serial numbers  (Read 6930 times)
Pages: [1] Print
knightwizard

Poppler
*
« on: 02-28-2001 12:56 »
Now for some real trivia. (As well as a cheap ploy to prove how big a math nerd I really am...)

In the first episode involving Flexo, both Bender's and Flexo's serial numbers are reveiled, as if the fact that they are both expressible as the sum of two cubes. Just for fun, I decided to write a quick computer program to see just *what* those two cubes are. Flexo's serial number, 3370318, break down into 119^3 + 119^3, or 1685159 + 1685159.

Bender's (2716057), however, doesn't seem to break down into anything. Did I get the number wrong, or is Bender "Bending" the truth once again?

I'm just curious...I only wrote the program just to test my skills for school, and I spent God only knows how long trying to figure out where I screwed up on the Bender portion of the program. Oh well, take care people!
iliketowankalot

Professor
*
« Reply #1 on: 02-28-2001 19:24 »
What is funny about jokes like that is that nerds like you spend ages trying to figure it out, while everybody else laughs at you cos there is no solution, you should know better than to believe everything Bender says.
knightwizard

Poppler
*
« Reply #2 on: 02-28-2001 20:30 »
Well, it made for an interesting puzzle, plus a nice test of my programming skills :-)

Having said that, I'll concede to your point, and stop wasting my time on this venture.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #3 on: 03-01-2001 01:48 »
uh...welcome to the board knightwizard!  :p
knightwizard

Poppler
*
« Reply #4 on: 03-01-2001 01:56 »
Thanks a lot! It's great to be here :-)

1500 posts? Wow! You are one dedicated fan!
Nixon+Morbo~???

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #5 on: 03-01-2001 03:34 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by knightwizard:
1500 posts? Wow! You are one dedicated fan!

Just did some quick math, ff.  You have more posts than both the Re-Check/Weird Scenes and Websites/Reviews sections combined.
chumpbender

Crustacean
*
« Reply #6 on: 04-27-2003 19:05 »
« Last Edit on: 04-27-2003 19:05 »
Actually, they can't be expressed as the sum of the cube of two integers, but if we don't leave negatives out we have: 3370318 = 119^3 + 119^3 and 2716057 = (-951)^3 + 952^3.   :D
El Zilcho

Professor
*
« Reply #7 on: 04-27-2003 23:51 »
Wow. Resurrecting a two year old thread AND answering the original problem. That's gotta be a record.
JDHannan

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #8 on: 04-28-2003 04:33 »
THAT is amazing, chumpbender, you remind me of a young me.  not much younger mind you, perhaps even a few years older.
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #9 on: 04-29-2003 13:54 »
« Last Edit on: 04-30-2003 00:00 »
That is very impressive chumpbender.  I once tried to puzzle out what bender's two cubes must be, and couldn't accomplish it.  I got the 119 right away of course, but I kept trying to look for a way to solve it algebraically instead of by trail and error.

My only question is, who said we have to leave out negatives?  Actually, Bender never even said the numbers had to be intergers.  If he just meant the sum of two real numbers cubed, then we have an infinite number of answers, because then we have the situation:  x^3 + y^3 =  2716057  and we could have x being the cube root of 2,000,000 and y being the cube root of 716,057 or any other combination of such terms.

Once again though, very impressive.   :)
SQFreak

Professor
*
« Reply #10 on: 05-01-2003 09:34 »
I thought integers included negative numbers. They do in computer science anyway, in most languages. But very nice - ridiculously amazingly well done - job, chumpbender!
payn
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #11 on: 05-01-2003 22:55 »
Here's one mathematical definition of integers, rendered in something close to normal English:

* 0 is an integer.
* If n is an integer, so is n+1.
* If n+1 is an integer, so is n.

In other words, negative numbers are integers.

The set of only positive integers is called the natural numbers; the set of only nonnegative integers is called the whole numbers.

As far as computers go, the type "integer" doesn't really represent the integers in most languages. For example, a C/C++ int on a typical system (2's complement, 32-bit) only handles the numbers from about -2 billion to 2 billion (-2^31 to 2^31-1). But numbers larger and smaller than that are still integers.

Oh, and a 10-line program could give you a trial-and-error solution (checking all the numbers that fit into your compiler's int) in second, so it doesn't take that much work....
Britz

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #12 on: 05-13-2003 02:54 »
My brains just started leaking out my eyesockets just trying to comprehend your post payne, now for a really hard question, where for does this come in useful in real life?
LAN.gnome

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #13 on: 05-13-2003 04:03 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Britz:
where for does this come in useful in real life?

I'd assume this kind of mathematical knowledge comes in handy anywhere that you work with obscenely large or small numbers:
Astronomy
Meteorology
Computer Programming
Medicine
(look at me, I'm like an infomercial for a correspondence school: Call now to become an: Electrician! TV Repairman! And much much more!)

I've always found math to be inadvertently hilarious. "I can't have the square root of negative one! What'll I do? I know! I'll invent imaginary numbers! Yippee-hooray!"

Then you've got Newton & the like, who got fed up with regular math and went off and invented Calculus, for God's sake. Hysterical.
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #14 on: 05-13-2003 04:09 »
dont talk about imaginary numbers, and all that i stuff yuck! I spent many an hour trying to understand that, took me ages. If that semester's test had been purely on that unit I would have done well on the test...
LAN.gnome

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #15 on: 05-13-2003 04:17 »
Yeah, it's weird. But once I got over the fact that i is not intended to be a number -- just a placeholder in case some exponential comes along to bring it back into the real world -- it was OK.
SQFreak

Professor
*
« Reply #16 on: 05-13-2003 19:59 »
i is just like a variable that you can't solve for. Write sqrt(-1) if you prefer, then make it an i at the end.
Delta-V

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #17 on: 05-13-2003 22:01 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by LAN.gnome:
Yeah, it's weird. But once I got over the fact that i is not intended to be a number -- just a placeholder in case some exponential comes along to bring it back into the real world -- it was OK.

What's really wierd is when the 'imaginary' side of an equation produces real results.  That really gave me a headache in quantum physics class.  You could have 2 waveforms that interact, and even though the imaginary part of the waveform isn't observable or measurable, the interaction of the two imaginary parts can produce an observable result...
LAN.gnome

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #18 on: 05-13-2003 22:36 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Delta-V:
 What's really wierd is when the 'imaginary' side of an equation produces real results.  That really gave me a headache in quantum physics class.  You could have 2 waveforms that interact, and even though the imaginary part of the waveform isn't observable or measurable, the interaction of the two imaginary parts can produce an observable result...

Wow. That went way over my head.

One thing I do remember that was weird was the whole "particle in two places at once" thing back in basic physics. Was that a quantum thing? I can't even remember.

All I remember is that they likened the interference caused by the particle being in two places at once to two water waves interacting and creating new ripple patterns, even though only one particle moved at a time. I can't place what that example was related to, though...
AJ

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #19 on: 05-28-2003 06:25 »
Wow. So very very very cool.

The enthusiasm and downright genius that everyone here shows toward the show makes Futurama such a great show and this such a great board to be a part of.
alexvilagosh

Goose Patrol
Space Pope
****
« Reply #20 on: 05-29-2003 04:39 »
Wow, yes very very cool.

Two years in the dark and out it comes... (much like Futurama in Australia!)
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #21 on: 02-17-2005 06:58 »
Another two year ressurection...just for S's and G's.
OhSnap

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #22 on: 02-18-2005 02:23 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by iliketowankalot:
What is funny about jokes like that is that nerds like you spend ages trying to figure it out, while everybody else laughs at you cos there is no solution, you should know better than to believe everything Bender says.


Actually, if I remember correctly, david x cohen specifically states that the relation is true, and that they have two mathematicians on the writing staff that ensure that they get that stuff right.

So if memory servers correctly, he specifically singled out that line and said it was true.
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #23 on: 02-18-2005 19:54 »
You're replying to something from four years ago, Sparky.
Jicannon

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #24 on: 02-18-2005 20:24 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Chalic:
Another two year ressurection...just for S's and G's.
.................why did you do that?
Chalic

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #25 on: 02-18-2005 23:21 »
Because I was here for the first two year ressurection, and it had been coincidentally another  two years, and I am..for the moment, posting again. 

I believe it says why.  S's and G's.  Colloquially, that would be shits and giggles.

Thank you M0le, for consulting the first post, and my post's time stamps.
chumpbender

Crustacean
*
« Reply #26 on: 02-06-2007 17:00 »
And another 2 year resurrection. This time by the person who did it 4 years ago.

The Internet is fun
SonicPanther

Professor
*
« Reply #27 on: 02-16-2007 00:28 »
Is bumping this thread ever two years a tradition now? =D
Fatdude

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #28 on: 02-25-2007 15:14 »
« Last Edit on: 02-25-2007 15:14 »
did anyone figure out P an NP yet?
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #29 on: 02-25-2007 15:17 »
Nope, still not solved.
KurtPikachu2001

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #30 on: 03-14-2007 11:32 »
Bender and Flexo are almost indentical.  Only difference is Flexo has a magnetic beard. 
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #31 on: 03-14-2007 11:57 »
[Fry]Thanks, Eagle Eye.[/Fry]
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.436 seconds with 36 queries.