118 reputation
4
bio website en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
location United Kingdom
age 26
visits member for 2 years, 1 month
seen Feb 3 at 17:19

Pentester, ex-developer, security researcher, reverse engineer, electronics tinkerer, internet activist, zombie eradicator, promulgator of useless facts, shrubbery inspector, bacon aficionado.

Strengths: Security, Crypto, Win32 API, C#, .NET, PHP, x86 assembly

All answers and comments are encrypted with ROT256-ECB.

Opinions are my own. Advice provided with no warranty.


Aug
1
comment Solving the “Library of Babel” puzzle, but for polygons.
The number of polygons is arbitrary - one would include variable that as part of the solution. I also don't see how a polygon that has, essentially, two distinct points is valid - it's an infinitesimally thin line.
Jul
30
comment Solving the “Library of Babel” puzzle, but for polygons.
Very good point, I hadn't considered the problem of three points on the same line. That should certainly be disallowed. On the other hand, yes, two different polygons can share edges. The points are "randomly" chosen - the polygons may overlap, or share edges, share a single point, or they may be completely separate. The colours are an extension of the original idea of generating all possible images that could exist.
Jul
30
asked Is $e$ uniformly distributed in all bases?
Jul
30
asked Solving the “Library of Babel” puzzle, but for polygons.
Jan
18
awarded  Scholar
Jan
18
accepted Moving the negative out of the integral - a bug in Wolfram Alpha?
Jan
18
comment Moving the negative out of the integral - a bug in Wolfram Alpha?
One thought is that $f(x)$ might be the reason it works, since it can't try to "optimise" with identities and other shortcuts.
Jan
18
awarded  Student
Jan
18
asked Moving the negative out of the integral - a bug in Wolfram Alpha?
Aug
1
awarded  Supporter
Aug
1
comment Solving $5^n > 4,000,000$ without a calculator
@GerryMyerson The intent wasn't to pick on you, I was just joking. I actually upvoted you. The fact that you're dividing by two makes this a very good answer, because you have to take it to ridiculous extremes (like I did) before this method becomes implausible to use.
Jul
31
comment Solving $5^n > 4,000,000$ without a calculator
Now do it for $5^n > 6.24*10^{310}$ ;)
Jul
31
awarded  Autobiographer