Talk:Tupper's self-referential formula

message: This should be merged with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_tupper_self_referential_formula 132.239.215.69 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: where does k come from ?
it isn't in the formula
yet another example of how STEM wiki fails to present at a level appropriate for an encylopedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:C4E2:9D6F:FAB7:480A (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: It seems wiki enough to me.  Mathiastck 14:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seems fine now 

message: Replaced original image; new image is misleading because it has white pixels outside the range of the plot, and this is not the case. Dysprosia 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I don't mind. When I first noticed it, there were two pictures present, and I just chose whichever one looked nicest. --Wafulz 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I'd recommend to directly mention that actually there's nothing self-referential in the formula. It's only a generic decoding formula (as is said later in the article). A 'true' self-referencial formula would not need something like n as input. 131.246.194.46 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still something self-referential about a formula which plots an ASCII representation of itself over certain inputs. It's not perfect, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a misnomer. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stating that "that" is self-referential is the same as stating that a "space" is self-referential because it and its representation are always identical...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfortuny (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a bit like saying that a pencil is self-referential because it's possible to use a pencil to draw a picture of a pencil. --Tanner Swett (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same issue: the formula is designed to produce every possible pattern of bitmap  rectangles 17 pixels high.  The number k is simply about finding where in this mass of patterns, one wich looks vaguely like the formula is.  But there are other values of k where the words of the Bible are interleaved with the words of Shakespeare, and others where the text I am typing now can be found.--Rumping (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer 

message: Where is the 'k' symbol in the formula?! Outslider (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the range definition of y.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.194.212 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I’ve moved k into the plot axes for clarity. —Anders Kaseorg (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  k? 

message: But I think the least significant bit of k/17 is the bottom left corner as in the Cartesian coordinate system. Let x=0 and y=k. Then the right hand side of the formula is mod(k/17, 2). This is the least significant bit and it locates at the bottom left corner.
--203.143.165.250 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top right corner or bottom left corner? 

message: The original link for reference article Experimental Mathematics in Action is broken, so I find a source with the same name in the same website. To my surprise, the authors listed in the link are not the same as the ones listed here. A source with the same author list is here. Which should be placed here as a source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin Yu (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference list 

message: Two of the image links are broken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.53.76 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Images broken

message: This formula does produce every and all possible bitmaps with 17 pixels height. so, it should contain said formula in all rotations and mirrored in all dorections.
why is the example chosen in a way that the formula is upside down (and when you look at the image, both axes are flipped, so it is mirrored left to right too)? Why wasnt an example chosen which initially shows the formula right side up, left to right?
217.9.110.2 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should the image be upside down if all bitmaps are possible?? 

message: 4858450636189713423582095962494202044581400587983244549483093085061934704708809928450644769865
5243648499972470249151191104116057391774078569197543265718554420572104457358836818298237541396
3433822519945219165128434833290513119319995350241375876523926487461339490687013056229581321948
1113685339535565290850023875092856892694555974281546386510730049106723058933586052544096664351
2653493636439571255656959368151843348576052669401612512669514215505395545191537854575257565907
40540157929001765967965480064427829131488548259914721248506352686630476300  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.215.5.60 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct value is this 544-digit number!!! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tupper's self-referential formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150424181239/http://arvindn.livejournal.com/132943.html to http://arvindn.livejournal.com/132943.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When I click on the "Official Website" Link, It gives me a 404 error on that site… -GeniusWorkbench4622 13:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: Is this really notable? It seems the same as any other quine, is it even the first in mathematics? Exaisle (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability