Hi all :)
I was wondering if any of you knew whether Zapp's ship, The Nimbus, has code equivalent to the Enterprise, ie the Enterprise is NCC-1701. Does the Nimbus have one or not?
I've heard that it is DP-1729, so can anybody confirm or deny this. Any help would be appreciated, thanks :)
Well, actually, I had a look at that number on my videotape of the episode "Brannigan, Begin Again" and came up with BP-1729. I think this would make sense, because Bender is his mother's 1729th child, so I think there is a link there of sorts. Originally, when looking at the Nimbus in "War is the H-Word", I thought it was DP-1729, but it seems that it's BP-1729. Can't wait for the second season DVD, where this will be clearer.
Oh, the number on the dorsal fin seems to be the same as on the side; well, at least the 1729 part is the same.
Anyway, anyone know why the number 1729 could be important, or can think of a good reason?
Graham
The Leela Zone - http://www.leela.com.ar/
Actually, 1728 could make sense itself, if it meant that the ship was created just before Bender. However, I'm sure it's 1729 that's on the Nimbus. The Bender thing could be a coincidence, but I doubt it; it means something, IMO.
Graham
The Leela Zone - http://www.leela.com.ar/
Graham wrote in message news:[email]...
So Bender and the ship could be related? Or Bender is the ship through some time loop thing and you'll find that out later.
The old "conceptial continuity" thing Zappa used to do.
Maybe it's part of a "running gag" of some sort?
Remember that Bender and Flexo's serial numbers are both "expressible as the sum of two cubes"? 1729 is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two positive cubes in two different ways (12 cubed plus 1 cubed; 10 cubed plus 9 cubed).
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Graham wrote:
1729 is an interesting number: http://users.pipeline.com.au/owen/Numbers.html
Chris
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:38:01 +0200, Chris Hartmann wrote:
All numbers are interesting in some way. If you were to take a list of every number up to say 10,000. Then cross out every umber that was interesting for one reason or another (Primes, Perfect numbers, factorials, sums of squares, sums of cubes . . .), you would have a list of "uninteresting" numbers. But, the lowest and highest numbers on that list would be the highest and lowest numbers that are not interesting, which is pretty interesting on it's own. So you take them off the list, and then you have a shorter list of uninteresting numbers. If you keep repeating the process, you will exhaust the list to the last uninteresting number, which would be very interesting.
Rating numbers as more or less interesting is very subjective. Although closer to zero, numbers are somewhat more interesting, on an average.
Prime numbers, perfect numbers, sums of cubes, factorials etc. all get less common the further you more from zero. Also, most non-periodic functions tend to vary less from linear as you get further from (0,0). This is especially true in polynomials if you do not allow zero order coefficients.
--Larry
Perhaps you didn't follow the URL in the message you're replying to. It makes the same observation, and gives essentially the same proof you do.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry wrote:
That's not the point. The point is that the series has lots of cross references for nerds who e. g. see a number, start laughing and explain to a "human being": "Intersting number! Ramanujan!", which is a bad mistake if this being is a Fox exec.
Chris