Category Archives: proof

The chromatic number of the plane, part 4: an upper bound

In my previous posts I explained lower bounds for the Hadwiger-Nelson problem: we know that the chromatic number of the plane is at least 5 because there exist unit distance graphs which we know need at least 5 colors. Someday, … Continue reading

Posted in geometry, proof | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iterating squared digit sums in other bases

In a previous post I wrote about iterating the squared digit sum function, which adds up the sum of the squares of the digits of a number; for example, . Denis left a comment asking about other bases—what happens if … Continue reading

Posted in arithmetic, computation, proof | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

The chromatic number of the plane, part 3: a new lower bound

In my previous post I explained how we know that the chromatic number of the plane is at least 4. If we can construct a unit distance graph (a graph whose edges all have length ) which needs at least … Continue reading

Posted in geometry, proof | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The chromatic number of the plane, part 2: lower bounds

In a previous post I explained the Hadwiger-Nelson problem—to determine the chromatic number of the plane—and I claimed that we now know the answer is either 5, 6, or 7. In the following few posts I want to explain how … Continue reading

Posted in geometry, proof | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Iterating squared digit sum

Another fun fact I learned from John Cook. Let be the function which takes a positive integer and outputs the sum of the squares of its digits. For example, . Since the output is itself another positive integer, we can … Continue reading

Posted in arithmetic, computation, proof | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments

The chromatic number of the plane, part 1

About a week ago, Aubrey de Grey published a paper titled “The chromatic number of the plane is at least 5”, which is a really cool result. It’s been widely reported already, so I’m actually a bit late to the … Continue reading

Posted in geometry, proof | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Properties of orthogons I

First things first: from now on, when talking about polygons with only right angles, instead of calling them “orthogonal polygons” I’m going to start calling them “orthogons”, which sounds cool, is much less clunky than “orthogonal polygons”, and doesn’t seem … Continue reading

Posted in combinatorics, geometry, proof | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments