HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@vieta.math.uni-sb.de (Marc Conrad)
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Organization: U of Saarbruecken, Dept. of Computational Linguistics
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:22:08 GMT

aproden@ac.dal.ca (Andrew P. Rodenhiser) writes:

>In article <marc.714911571@vieta.math.uni-sb.de>, marc@vieta.math.uni-sb.de (Marc Conrad) writes:
>> bjornts@ii.uib.no (Bjoern Tore Sund) writes:
>> 
>>>I always assumed that there was no "deeper meaning" to 6*9=42 apart
>>>from what Arthur said (at least in the TV series), when he had
>>>just drawn the scrabble-pieces out of the bag: "Oh. I always knew 
>>>there was something fundamentally wrong about the Universe." I sort
>>>of assumed that this was all the deeper meaning that DA intended.
>>>I might have been wrong though... :-(
>> 
>> No, that 6*9=42 (13) is not more than an accident. If you take two
>> arbitrary numbers, multiply them, then the probability, that there exist 
>> a N , so that the product of these numbers is 42 in Base N, is about  0.25 !!

>Is there a simple formula to find this probability, or did you perform
>(infinity)^2 multiplications?

>Actually, I would expect this to be infinitely improbable :)
>> 
>> For instance: 10 * 9 = 42 (22) 
>>               1234 * 56789 = 42 (17519406)

Sketch of proof: 
1)     A * B = "42" to some Base is eqivalent to A * B congruent 2 modulo 4. 
2)     Let 0 <= a <= 3. The probability that an arbitrary number is congruent
       a modulo 4 is 0.25 (This 0.25 has a priory nothing to do with the 0.25 
       in the statement above). 
3)     Now you have to count: A * B congruent 2 modulo 4 is equivalent to 
	A congruent 2 and B congruent 1 or 3   or    B congruent 2 and A cong.
	1 or 3. 
4)     So the probability is 0.25 * (0.25 + 0.25) + 0.25 * ( 0.25 + 0.25 ) 
	= 0.25        
Remark: The statement 1) is not true for _small_ numbers A and B e.g. A = 1
       and B = 2. But for this argumentation, I think you can ignore this. 
Marc

     

--
     \   /                     | Marc Conrad, Universitaet des Saarlandes 
      \ Luxemburg              | marc@math.uni-sb.de  phone: 0681 302-2297
France \|   Germany            | these opinions are not necessarily these   
        \x <---- you are here! | of the SIMATH-group (and maybe even not mine).
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: dz@mohawk.desktalk.com (Dave Zobel)
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Summary: A similar proof, and does it really, cosmically speaking, matter?
Keywords: 42 proof
Organization: Desktalk Systems Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:09:25 GMT

Marc Conrad (marc@vieta.math.uni-sb.de) writes:
>                                                    If you take two
> arbitrary numbers, multiply them, then the probability, that there exist 
> a N , so that the product of these numbers is 42 in Base N, is about  0.25 !!

A less rigorous method, but one that is perhaps clearer to non-mathematicians
while still maintaining the thrust of this whole irrelevant thread, is:

1.  First, you have to convince yourself that any even number can be
    represented as "2j," and any odd number as "2j + 1," for some integer j.
2.  Now you can do some tiresome algebra to see that an odd times an odd
    always gives an odd, and an even times anything always gives an even.
3.  In any base b, 42 means 4b + 2.  This is always even, since it can be
    written as 2(2b + 1), where "2b + 1" stands in for "j" in step 1.
4.  Let's list all the possible ways to multiply two numbers together:

       Case    First number    Second number   Product
       ----    ------------    -------------   -------
        1       odd [2j + 1]    odd [2k + 1]    odd [2(2jk + j + k) + 1]
        2       odd [2j + 1]    even [2k]       even [2(2jk + k)]
        3       even [2k]       odd [2j + 1]    even [2(2jk + k)]
        4       even [2k]       even [2j]       even [2(2kj)]

5.  When can the right-hand column equal 42 for some base b (in other words,
    2 (2b + 1))?  Answer:  Only in cases 2 and 3, where 2b + 1 = 2jk + k.
    Stir while cooking to get:
        k = (2b + 1) / (2j + 1)
    Since the numerator is odd, k must be odd.  If you pick an even
    number (2k) at random, k will be odd half the time.
6.  What have we got?  In half the cases (2 and 3), and half the time (when
    k is odd), the product is 42 for some base b.  1/2 x 1/2 = 0.25.

Back to the World of Relevance:  I still think the significance of
forty-two is really best summed up in LtUaE:

    "That's a pity," said Arthur.  ". . . . Presumably [Prak] would know
    what the Question to the Ultimate Answer is.  It's always bothered
    me that we never found out."

    "Think of a number," said the computer, "any number."

IMHO, the computer has just answered Arthur's question, not changed the
subject.  Picture DNA, writing scripts madly with the aid of his "digital
writing system."  It's now time to come up with the Answer, as given by
Deep Thought.  He stares at the screen, the screen stares back, and via the
magic of telepathic something-or-other, the computer whispers, "Think of a
number, any number."

And he answers:  "Forty-two."

-- Dave Zobel
From: marc@vieta.math.uni-sb.de (Marc Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:32:51 GMT
Organization: U of Saarbruecken, Dept. of Computational Linguistics

bjornts@ii.uib.no (Bjoern Tore Sund) writes:

>I always assumed that there was no "deeper meaning" to 6*9=42 apart
>from what Arthur said (at least in the TV series), when he had
>just drawn the scrabble-pieces out of the bag: "Oh. I always knew 
>there was something fundamentally wrong about the Universe." I sort
>of assumed that this was all the deeper meaning that DA intended.
>I might have been wrong though... :-(

No, that 6*9=42 (13) is not more than an accident. If you take two
arbitrary numbers, multiply them, then the probability, that there exist 
a N , so that the product of these numbers is 42 in Base N, is about  0.25 !!

For instance: 10 * 9 = 42 (22) 
              1234 * 56789 = 42 (17519406)
Marc
--
     \   /                     | Marc Conrad, Universitaet des Saarlandes 
      \ Luxemburg              | marc@math.uni-sb.de  phone: 0681 302-2297
France \|   Germany            | these opinions are not necessarily these   
        \x <---- you are here! | of the SIMATH-group (and maybe even not mine).
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: leveret@warren.demon.co.uk (Nick Leverton)
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: 42
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.14 $
Organization: Indexed; Access: Random.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:01:39 +0000

ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com (christopher j talbott) provides us with the
ideal solution to his sig barfulosity:

>//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>/// Chris Talbott     ///////// ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com ///////
>/// Software Designer ///////// chris@ews7.dseg.ti.com     ///////
>//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>/// "There are very few personal problems that cannot be        //
>///  solved through a suitable application of high explosives." //
>//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

                        /           /
                  /
                    /        //               /
                       /              //              /
         /               /                      /
                    /     solved
  /         // / /           / / ///   /  ///   //      / / // / / /
   /            /       /            / /                /            /
        /   Software            /  / / /               /   /   / // /
                                 ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com
   /       "    /       /   / / /     personal        //  ///      //
        /          Talbott                                  explosives
    /  /         /      /    /        / be /      /          / // /
  of                   few                          suitable
         / / .  /  /   /  //           / / / / //         / / / / //
       /     chris@ews7.dseg.ti.com                    /     /
                    /                   There    /
  / Chris        /  ///    /    "    /           through a  /
                      /         /       are                   /
      / ///     //   Designer     //               /    /
  that                              //        problems    /
   ///   / // //     //    very   /      /              high
       /      /    /    cannot   /        /   /         /       application

              BBBBB     OOOOO     OOOOO     M     M   !
              B    B   O     O   O     O    MM   MM   !
              B    B   O     O   O     O    M M M M   !
              BBBBB    O     O   O     O    M  M  M   !
              B    B   O     O   O     O    M     M   !
              B    B   O     O   O     O    M     M
              BBBBB     OOOOO     OOOOO     M     M   !


Nick Leverton
-- 
leveret@high.explosive.org      | The Meach gave me nuclear capability !
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: new abbreviations
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:41:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I have gotten a little annoyed with the abbreviations used here, one
because they are long, and two because they are difficult to say.

here are my propostions

HHGttG is fine as it is

RatEotU - Restaurant

LtUaE - Life

SLaTFATF - Fish

of course, this is all IMHO

--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour

Didn't your parents tell you not to talk to strangers?
	And I'm STAAANGER than you are!
From: hermit@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Ron O\'Dell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 30 Aug 1992 05:52:40 GMT
Organization: The Pen
Reply-To: keeper@deeptht.armory.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <17hvf2INN34@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> keeper@deeptht.armory.com writes:
>Depending on the base numbering system, `42' can be any number.

I'll be the first to admit that I am generalising here.
Really, `42' can be twenty-two, twenty-six, thirty, thirty-four,
thirty-eight, forty-two, forty-six, fifty, fifty-four, etc., adding
by fours.

-- 
--- keeper@deeptht.armory.com (Ron O'Dell)   Do >not< mail hermit!
					     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: shimkus@athena.cs.uga.edu (Peter Gambit)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:11:40 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Sorry, this is slightly off-subject, but I cant resist.  I came in this morning and logged on to my acct to read my news.  As i scaned down the list of groups
I was amused to notice that there were 42 unread messages in alt.fan.douglas-adams!

Peter Gambit
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: tsmaster@media.mit.edu (David LeCompte)
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:50:04 GMT

In article <92Aug26.121503edt.262@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> pedmonds@cs.toronto.edu ("Philip G. Edmonds") writes:
>Besides, it's the meaning that counts not the way you write or speak it.

>Is `six' times `nine' = `forty-two' (base `thirteen')?
>Of course it is.

'six' times 'nine' = 'fifty-four' base anything.

'forty-two' base 'thirteen' is written 33 but not pronounced
'thirty-three'

The way that something is written can make a difference what the meaning
is. If I write 'too' or 'two', I agree, the meaning is what is relavent,
but saying that the meaning of life is forty too is clearly misleading.

There is a parallel here. "Forty too" and "Forty Two" are pronounced the
same, yet written differently. The difference in how it's written helps
to indicate the meaning. When I write "forty-two" I am speaking of "six"
times "seven". "six" times "nine" is NOT "forty-two" base anything. The
meaning of the string "forty-two" is slightly different from the number
"42", as the number "42" is subject to changes of base. 

Now, if deep thought said that the meaning of life was "a four followed
by a two" or "the number where the first digit is a four and the second
digit is a two" then the six times nine discussion would have merit.

I apologize to those for whom this is an unpleasant review of math, and
I apologize for inserting math into this newsgroup. It won't happen
again. :)

	
					-Dave



-- 
Your Mom!       The Carburator!         |I'm not paid to HAVE opinions.
Your Shoes!     A gardenhose!           |
You got to got to got to got to ...     |This sig can be yours; send $15 to
SCUD MISSILE!!!	-"Scud Missile", Grunge |tsmaster@athena.mit.edu
From: navsaria@bass.bu.edu (Dipesh Navsaria)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: navsaria@bass.bu.edu (Dipesh Navsaria)
Followup-To: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Aug29.025531.5657@eskimo.celestial.com> flagg@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Jacobs) writes:
>Does anyone know if young zaphod is available by itself and not
>part of the trilogy?
>and if it is, where can I find such a book in the US? 
>--
>If it's glowing, don't eat it.

   I don't think it is available by itself, but I could be wrong.  The funny
thing is that half the bookstores in Boston that have a bargain books section
seem to have copies of the "trilogy" (the one with HHGTG, RATEOTU, LTUAE, and
SLATFATF...oh, and Young Zaphod) available for the wonderful price of $11.98.  
This includes the big Barnes and Noble at Downtown Crossing and the wonderfully
overpriced Boston University Bookstore Mall, if anyone cares...

			Dipesh (navsaria@bu-pub.bu.edu)
			"Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty"
From: dzembj@vccsouth26.its.rpi.edu (Jason Eric Dzembo)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: NO! NO! NO!!!
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:24:51 GMT
Reply-To: dzembj@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

In article <Btr0r6.L0M@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v120qldp@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PATRICK FERREL) writes:
|> 
|> Dammit!  For the LAST time!  We are talking about the SIX PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT
|> THE PRESIDENT OF THE GALAXY DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER!
|> 
|> Five of these six people are Yooden Vranx, Zarniwoop, Roosta, Zaphod's
|> great-grandad, and Zaphod himself.
|> 
|> It wasn't Ford because he remarked when Zaphod told him that Yooden told him
|> the secret.
|> 
|> It certainly wasn't Slartibartfast because he was asleep when all this went on!
|> 
|> It can't be the man who rules the Universe because he is clueless.
|> 
|> I can't imagine who the sixth person is.
|> 
|> Patrick A. Ferrel - Scholar. Helpless romantic. Modem geek.  | Disaster Area
|> v120qldp@ubvms.buffalo.edu  | WWIVnet 1@7659 | IceNET 1@7659 | (716)683-6657

Gee...it would have to be Arthur...he seems to have his finger in everything
else that's going on in the Universe.  ;-)

					- Jason (who knows perfectly well that
					this is unprovable and, very possibly,
					easily disproved, but, IMHO, amusing,
					nonetheless...:-)
From: paf4@po.CWRU.Edu (Peter A. Fortman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: Golgafrinchams
Date: 2 Sep 1992 16:33:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: paf4@po.CWRU.Edu (Peter A. Fortman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) says:

>1> the pattern printed in Arthur's brainwaves and seen there by
>1> Marvin, give the question `What do you get if you multiply
>1> six by nine'. It ain't surprising that you don't get
>1> fourty-two, because the program was all screwed up, so it
>1> gave the wrong answer.
>2> My guess (and it is only a guess) is that DNA meant us to
>2> assume that the real Question was in fact `What do you get
>2> if you multiply six by seven'.
>
>=-= So who says that's the wrong answer?  You're all being
>digitocentric.  The equation works just fine if you use
>base 13!
>    <_Jym_>
>
13 is an unlucky number since we first learnt to count. you could count all
the way up to twelve if you used all ten digits and two feet.

you COULD go to thirteen if you used another appendage.... ;)

but what would women do?

|D
Douglas Adams has said that 69 is the answer.. right?
-- 
Pete Fortman	paf4@po.cwru.edu	a.k.a. Dirk Gently
						the Marginally Sane
	"Non Ego Vecors Sum Sed Dumtaxat Male Sanus"
		^      ^   |   ^     ^       ^      in Dactyllic Hexameter
From: esa@acpub.duke.edu (EMILY ANGERER)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6 times 9
Keywords: 42, adams, 6 times 9
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:08:19 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug24.192338.1205@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau) writes:
 <stuff deleted>
>matter what time they are there.  The race that they showed up with sort
>of take over and the cave men become extinct.  That implies that arthur is
>a decendant of the 'useless' people, not the cave men.  From listening to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the radio plays, it sound as if arthur is the one taking the scrabble
>peices out of the bag.  Put all this togeth now, Arthur who is not part of
>the program, as it was interupted by the arival of the others, pulls out
>the scabble letters.  It's bound to be wrong, he not part of it, the whole
>program was bothced up when the others arrived.  Any  other ideas?

The program may have been botched up, as you say, but if you read the
novels, "Life, the Universe, and Everything" suggests that the Golgafrinchans 
were not necessarily Arthur's ancestors.  The conversation is:

"'What happened to the Golgafrinchans?' asked Ford.
"Arthur shrugged.
"'A lot of them didn't make it through the winter three years ago,' he
said, 'and the few who remained in the spring said they needed a holiday
and set off on raft.  History says that they must have survived....'"

So possibly, they didn't make it -- most likely they drowned or starved
on the way, and there was no official word on the survival of the
cavepeople.  Further, the fact that the caveman was able to come up with
"Forty-two" in scrabble letters implies that Earth wasn't giving up on
these guys yet, either.  

Just my $0.02...

-Emily
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: domalley@unix1.tcd.ie (Slartibartfast            (alias Daniel O'Malley))
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:23:48 GMT

In <94939@bu.edu> navsaria@bass.bu.edu (Dipesh Navsaria) writes:

>In article <1992Aug29.025531.5657@eskimo.celestial.com> flagg@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Jacobs) writes:
>>Does anyone know if young zaphod is available by itself and not
>>part of the trilogy?
>>and if it is, where can I find such a book in the US? 
>>--
>>If it's glowing, don't eat it.

>   I don't think it is available by itself, but I could be wrong.

It is, and you are. It originally appeared in "The Utterly, Utterly Merry
Comic Relief Christmas Book", published in 1986 by God knows who.
(FYI, Comic Relief is a charitable organisation consisting of 
comedians and other entertaining persons who raise money for the
needy through telethons and other things, like this book).
The story was DNA's contribution to the whole thing (apart from    
actually being editor of the book).

Daniel.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+  |-----Daniel O'Malley-----|----"Look - I didn't mount an invasion just to----|  |-------------------------|-------whisk some flippin' eggs!", protested------|
|        //               |----the Supreme Dalek from the TARDIS kitchen.----|  |   ====//  ====    ====  |--------------------------------------------------|
| //   // //   // //   // |---"In the beginning, the universe was created.---|  |  ===//   ===// //   //  |-This has made a lot of people angry and has been-|
|-------------------------|---------widely regarded as a bad move."----------|  |--domalley@unix1.tcd.ie--|----The Restaurant at the End Of The Universe-----|  +-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
From: bernard@sirius.gte.com (Bernard Silver)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
Subject: Re: 6*9=42(13)
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:13:12 GMT
	<marc.714911571@vieta.math.uni-sb.de> <1992Aug27.101056.7174@ac.dal.ca>
	<marc.715004528@vieta.math.uni-sb.de>
	<BPOSTOW.92Sep3215710@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>
Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated
In-reply-to: bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 02:57:10 GMT

In article <BPOSTOW.92Sep3215710@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow) writes:

   actually, the probablilty isn't about .25, it is EXACTLY .25.

   any number thta is of the form 4k + 2 is going to be 42 in some base,
   because that is what a base is, 42 in base 10 is 4 (10) + 2, etc. and
   since 1 of every 4 numbers is 4k +2, .25 of all numbers will be 42 in
   some base.

Just to nitpick, your proof of "exactly 0.25" includes the case where
k is 0,1,2 or 3, which are unacceptable bases to write "42" in.  So you need
a correction  of 4/aleph-null, which is, I admit, pretty nearly 0.
--
				Bernard Silver
				GTE Laboratories
				bsilver@gte.com
				(617) 466-2663
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com (christopher j talbott)
Subject: Re: Young Zaphod
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.112838.14202@alf.uib.no>, bjornts@ii.uib.no (Bjoern Tore Sund) writes:
|> In article <Bto0GI.MHz@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v120qldp@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (PATRICK FERREL) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Aug27.140638.25102@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Virginia.A.Reed@dartmouth.edu (Virginia A. Reed) writes...
|> |> >>Actually, if I'm not wrong, there are only six:  Zaphod, Zaphod's
|> |> >>great-grandfather, Yooden Vranx, Zarniwoop, Roosta and someone whom I can't
|> |> >>remember.
|> |> > 
|> |> >I belive that the seventh is Slartibartfast.
|> |> 
|> |> How is Slartibartfast supposed to know?  He slept for five million years.  He
|> |> probably wouldn't have a clue if you talked about Improbability Physics.
|> 
|> Now, as you might remember, Slartibartfast actualle mucked around in a space-ship
|> much more advanced than the ones based on infinite improbability. I can`t remember
|> the exact name of it (shame on me!), but it was based on the tremendously advanced
|> maths of restaurant bill calculation. Besides, remember that the equipment used
|> to keep Slartibartfast and the rest of his people alive were indexed linked to
|> the galactic stock-market. Slartibartfast probably had his means of aquiring info.
|> on that and other subjects....
|> 
|> Bjoern Tore Sund
|> Department of Informatics
|> University of Bergen
|> bjornts@ii.uib.no
|> 

Just FYI, the mathematics of restaurant bill calculation was called...

(drumroll please)

...Bistromathics.

(just as a side note, that one passage led to the development of an entire
philosophy called Corridomathics, which was based on the movement of people
in crowded hallways [originally high school, but the same concepts seemed to
work in college and for company evacuation drills] )

and just when you thought that I was a raving lunatic...
-- 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// Chris Talbott     ///////// ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com ///////
/// Software Designer ///////// chris@ews7.dseg.ti.com     ///////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// "There are very few personal problems that cannot be        //
///  solved through a suitable application of high explosives." //
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////