# Lighter Topics – what do you want to know?

The category theory series is finally winding down; I’ve got one topic I’d like to write about, and then I’ll have had my fill of category theory for a while. I don’t want to dive right in to another really deep topic like topology, so I’m looking for some subjects that people are interested in that can be covered in one or two posts. I could come up with some by myself (and probably will), but there are a lot of things like the zero article which so many people seemed to enjoy which I could write about, but probably wouldn’t think of on my own.
So, what would you like to see one or two posts on?

## 0 thoughts on “Lighter Topics – what do you want to know?”

1. coturnix

Whatever topic you touch on, I really like it when you take it through the history first – who thought about what, who did what, who disagreed with whom, and why, and how we got to know today what we know today.

2. Dave S.

Yeah, like getting the dirt on calculus Newton v. Leibnitz, and why it was thought up in the first place.
Or how do you multiply Roman numbers? (And why is the numeral on a clock face IIII and not IV?)

3. Raul P. Murguia

An explanation of how the Kelly Criterion & Leo Breiman’s work follows from Shannon’s Information Theory. (& how it would follow K-C Theory)

4. MiguelB

Maybe something about innumeracy, and how sometimes our intuition on numbers, probability and risk is wrong.
To expand on the proposal on calculus and the other on history, maybe a bit about how Archimides was able to do integration on certain curves. I recently learned about it and it’s fascinating (and 2000 years before Leibnitz/Newton).

5. Thomas Winwood

I’ll second the request for the Archimedes integration stuff – I haven’t heard much about this beyond a very customary Horizon program on it.

6. Blake Stacey

No particular order, preference or otherwise:
* Surreal numbers
* Quantum computing/P vs. NP
* Archimedes integration
* Innumeracy, e.g., anything in the “how to lie with statistics” vein
* Quaternions and octonions

7. Marc Buhler

Hi Mark,
The thread “2 + 2 = 4? – Not Always” started on Aug 1st begins with Sean asking:
“Let’s put it another way. How many rolls of a single die will I have
to cast, on average (the mean), before I roll six twice in a row? The
answer is 36 – right? Now, how many times will I have to roll the die
before I roll six twice in a row, two times? According to you, it
should take a mean of 36 * 36 =1296 rolls. That’s the wrong answer.
The correct answer is 36 + 36 = 72 rolls.
“What you are doing is assuming that the mean number of rolls it would
take to roll twice sixes in a row twice are pretty much the same as the
number of rolls it would take to roll 4 sixes in a row once. That’s
just not true.
“So, on average, how many times will 2 sixes be rolled in a row in a
series of 72 rolls? Twice – right? And, on average, how many times
will a series of 4 sixes be rolled back-to-back in a series of only 72
rolls? 0.0555 times – right?
“Protein and DNA sequences are simply dice with more sides than 6. The
problem is the same however. The odds that two 3aa or 9bp sequences
will be in a given collection of residues or string of DNA is much much
greater than the odds that one 6aa or 18bp sequence will be there.”
(this message continues, and various replies are made in the thread – we need a referee to rule on some of this debate!)
There are other recent threads (of course)- one is “Determining the Functional Specificity Requirement – addition vs multiplication” and another is “Limited Evolutionary Potential? – for Marc” where the range of Sean’s issues with evolution are under discussion.
In a post following up on my pointing out your recent “Debunking” article, his reply gives an example of the arguments he is making (from a recent thread “In the news: Experts debunk evolution” started on July 18th and this reply was posted on July 27th)
(starting from the middle of Sean’s reply…)
“I’ve told you before, I don’t care if evolution of a high-level system
happens in one shot or takes many small steps. Either way would be
fine with me. I’m looking for a real time demonstration of the
evolution of a novel system of function that requires more than 3-4
thousand fairly specified bp of DNA. For example, the function of
flagellar motility is a rather high-level system that requires a
minimum of at least 10,000 fairly specified base pairs of DNA. Not
even one of the proposed steps in flagellar evolution has been
demonstrated in real time. I’m not talking about gaining the entire
function of flagellar motility from scratch. Not at all. I’m talking
about gaining the next novel steppingstone in the pathway of flagellar
evolution when the steppingstone function requires a minimum of more
than 3-4kbp of DNA.
> Oh… did you visit the Good Math, Bad Math blog yet to see how your
> statistical model fails?
“Please quote the relevant portion of this blog where any discussion of
the non-beneficial gap problem is provided. I failed to find this in
the blog myself. Also, the author seems confused about arguments
dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is a difference
between thermodynamic entropy and informational entropy, which the
author seems to confuse. In order for a biosystem to be able to use
the abundant energy from the Sun to do some sort of “useful work”, it
has to have a certain amount of pre-established informational
complexity – which the random/chaotic energy from the sun cannot
provide. Functional complexity is not the same thing as the
“complexity” of a snowflake or the complexity of a randomly generated
number. These features are largely the result of randomness or chaos.
“Thermodynamic entropy tends toward a maximum state of “complexity”,
non-predictability, chaos, or randomness. This is not at all the same
as the use of the term “complexity” when talking about a complex system
of function – which is not at all at a maximally chaotic state. Random
energy tends to turn ordered highly functional systems into less
ordered and less functional systems over time – creating more and more
randomness or chaos in the system.
“How is this loss of information checked? Not by random non-directed
energy. What does random energy do to a pot of jumbled DNA and amino
acids? Does it have the information needed to direct itself to build a
complex functional biosystem? Not at all. All the random energy does
to the pot is make it hot. It does not increase the
informational/functional complexity of the material in the pot beyond
what was already there. If anything, it tends to reduce the
informational complexity of the materials in the pot – tending toward
maximum informational chaos or randomness.
“The Sun-Earth system of thermodynamics just doesn’t have the
pre-established information needed to produce biosystems beyond very
low levels of functional complexity. Where does this higher-level
information come from? Random mutations do happen, but they also tend
toward chaotic complexity, not informational complexity. Natural
selection is supposed to solve this problem since it is able to
maintain the good while getting rid of the bad. Well, nature can only
work once the good is found. Until then, nature is blind to any
neutral changes and actively works against all non-beneficial changes –
even those non-beneficial changes that would otherwise be heading in
the direction of a novel beneficial sequence if they were allowed to
continue. This is why gene duplication really doesn’t solve any
problems for evolution.
“Of course, I talk about these problems fairly extensively on my website
– if you care to read the parts about the gap argument and
informational complexity. You tell me to read all of these papers and
blogs without making an argument of your own. It would be much better
if you make your own argument here and quote from these references
listing dozens of bald references that really do counter my position in
the least.
> (signed) marc
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
************************
Thanks again, Mark – I hope you can help us!
(signed) marc

8. malpollyon

There are a few things I’d like to see, continued fractions, surreal numbers, maybe something on complex analysis. I always loved the fact that if a function is differentiable once over c, it’s also differentiable infinitely many times, very neat. Or the way contour integration can evaluate infinite real integral is very cool (but maybe a bit to advanced for one post).

9. dave

My first university calculus class started with the prof posing this question:
(a) Suppose you have a basketball with a non-stretchy string wrapped tightly around its diameter. Replace that string with a string exactly one meter longer, and arrange the new string in a perfect circle centered at the center of the ball (so the distance between the string and the surface of the ball is constant). How far is the string from the surface of the ball?
(b) Suppose you have a perfectly spherical earth-size planet with a railroad track running around its equator. Insert an additional meter of track, and smooth out the bump so that the new track forms a perfect circle centered at the center of the planet (so the track’s distance from the surface is constant). How far is the track from the surface of the planet?
I think everybody in the class checked their results at least three times before they believed them. If you can dig up a few similar problems and provide interesting commentary on why they’re counterintuitive and why the correct answer is indeed correct, that would probably make a Rather Interesting post.

10. assman

How about explaining the relationship if any between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy

Mark:
Interesting but large subjects to survey:
– Connections between Church-Turing, Halting problem/Gödel incompleteness and other CS results.
– Why the complexity zoo is large. (Some of that due to Chomsky hiearchies, no doubt.)
– Complex analysis. (I just made a similar comment as malpollyon’s on analytic functions, so…)
– Distribution theory (functionals with test functions do fancy stuff) and nonlinear algebra extensions.
Perhaps smaller subjects to treat:
– Chaitin’s ideas on randomness and why one can’t prove it ad hoc.
– Archimedes integration.
Marc:
Sean Pitman seems to be a bullshit operator of Ken Ham’s class, ie he is used to make a lot of presentations, and he makes a lot of verbal diarrhea to cover up that he doesn’t say anything at all sensible.
For example, you quote him as discussing “random energy”. There is no such thing. What he really seems to be discussing is heat. He says heat can’t “reduce the informational complexity”.
That is of course trivially wrong. Obviously heat machines does work (think car engine) and that work may be employed to increase order, for example by driving a refrigerator. Of course, there is a simultaneous increase of entropy elsewhere, but his point is shown to be invalid. It is the same old tired creationist canard on life and 2LOT that Mark has analysed here thoroughly.
If one wants to engage such a bullshit artist, one can perhaps slow him down by concentrating on a specific topic that you choose, doggedly keeping him on that topic, and asking him to define each and every vague or false concept he throws out. IMO the best one can do with the Ken Ham’s of the world is to show others that they are either wankers really only interested in money or sociopats really only interested in attention, and not worth listening to.

“Obviously heat machines does work”
And the reason for that is that heat isn’t “random”. Temperature is a measure of random motions, but heat flows from a warm body to a less warm.

13. malpollyon

Some more computer science related posts would be nice, perhaps on some of the nicer search/sort algorithms (shell sort, splay trees, etc.).

14. Paul "the tree" Carpenter

I don’t know how many other readers are also students but I’d really like to see techniques on how to solve miscellanious interesting problems. It’s the little tricks that solve scaryishly big equations that I find the most fascinating.
(by the way, trying to include my URL in the apropriate field tripped your spam filter)

15. Marc Buhler

I intend to carry of with some of the debate with Sean in regard to my area of interest (immunogenetics and immune evolution), but lately, as mentioned, the threads have gone into stats and such, plus when I saw the recent entry by Mark that was quite relevant and suggested it, Sean just dismissed it, so I thought Mark’s help was worth requesting. Yes, Sean’s a kook, but he thinks he has the answers and we don’t want the lurkers to believe Sean just because of his clever use of language.

16. Chris Nelson

IIII vs. IV: As I’ve heard it, IV is close to the start of “JUPITER” (rendered “IVP…” in those funny letters you sometimes see engraved on the top of buildings. 😉 and using the prefix of a god’s name was considered blasphemous and thus avoided.

17. Chris Nelson

You talked about i and I have some intuition for π but I’ve never really grasped e. Euler’s equation is amazing but e comes up all over. I’m an electrical engineer by eduction (a software engineer by vocation) and I should have understood e 20 years ago but it never clicked.

18. Phillip Brooks

Theory behind dataflow and graphical programming languages? (e.g. LabVIEW, VEE)

19. Corkscrew

I’d second quaternions and octonions, with coverage of how you lose useful properties as you increase the power of two.
Maybe a good opportunity to touch on some representation theory.

Marc:
I believe we agree. I do think it is much easier to try to confine the kook to ones own speciality, alas that isn’t always easy or possible.
Chris:
Exponentials are natural real solutions to simple differential equations that grow or vane. Even the middle man the sigmoid contains them IIRC. The basis e is a natural choice for diff eq’s, since the derivative d(exp(x))/dx = exp(x). It is the stationary ‘point’ so to speak.
It just so happens that in the complex plane they also describe rotations. One way to think of that is that in the complex plane the separate solutions of real exponentials (growth) and real sinuses (oscillations or rotations) are described concurrently. Which BTW is a nice thing since exponentials also often are a systems transient, particular solution and oscillations “steadystate”, general solutions, so one gets both for free. (Cue Fourier analysis and Laplace transformations.)
BTW; I just learned that power functions are typical of complex systems (for example selfsimilar systems or phase transitions). And that power functions gives the 20/80 rule that are often seen in pareto diagrams describing real world systems. So I too see that simple numerics have the darnedest roots.

21. David L. Reiner

In response to Paul “the tree” Carpenter’s request for simple but powerful “tricks”, how about an article about solving problems with the “principle of insufficient reason”.

22. Blake Stacey

The theory about “IV” and “IVPITER” can be found in Isaac Asimov’s works, in particular (I believe) the essay collection Of Time and Space and Other Things. Also, this problem was addressed in Dave Feldman’s Imponderables books — but Chemosh dammit, I can’t remember which ones!

23. MDG

I’ve read that in the 1960s and 1970s some mathematicians rehabilitated infinitesimals — two different formulations — for use in calculus. I’d be interested to learn more about them.

24. Julia

Someone suggested sorting algorithms. I’d be interested in that.
Someone was interested in e. I’d like to see what you say and how you present it. (Phi is good, too, but e is more important and harder to “get”.)
Transcendental numbers might be interesting for those who don’t know what they are.
Posting sort programs written in pathological languages would be entertaining, but maybe only in a train-wreck sort of way.
If I think of anything else later today, I’ll add another comment.

25. Philip Eve

dave –
I’ve never seen that question before. You’ve made me insecure. If the calculation I did in my head is correct then in each case, the string / track is 1/2*pi metres from the surface of the sphere. Is that the correct answer, and if it is, why is it counterintuitive? It doesn’t seem counterintuitive to me. I can’t say I had any intuitive idea of what the answers “should have” been, though.
As for the question posed as the topic, um… I haven’t been reading long enough to know what has and hasn’t been covered, but if it hasn’t been done yet, stuff on geometric tasks that can’t be done in general, like trisecting the angle, might be good. Maybe to include the work of cranks who claim to be able to do it. (I searched for “trisect” and “trisecting” and it came back with no results, so I take it this hasn’t been covered.)

26. roystgnr

A late suggestion:
Game theory

27. Koray

I second Game Theory. It appears to be quite a hype (a la A Beatiful Hype). What are some of its largest, most successful applications?

28. Blake Stacey

@FhnuZoag:
According to what I’ve read (which is of course a limited subset of all relevant readable things), surreal numbers don’t actually help you very much in working out non-standard analysis. Quoting page 44 of John Conway’s On Numbers and Games:

We can of course use the Field of all [surreal] numbers, or rather various small subfields of it, as a vehicle for the techniques of non-standard analysis developed by Abraham Robinson. Thus for instance for any reasonable function f, we can define the derivative of f at the real number x to be the closest real number to the quotient

{f[x + (1/ω)] – f(x)} / (1/ω).

The reason is that any totally ordered real-closed field is a model for the elementary statements about the real numbers. But for precisely this reason, there is little point in using subfields of No [the surreal numbers] when so many more visible fields will do. So we can say that in fact the Field No is really irrelevant to non-standard analysis.

29. Zero

That’s just astonishing. The fact that there is such a close relationship between i, π, and e is just shocking to me.
Posted by Mark C. Chu-Carroll at 02:06 PM • 57 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
**************************************************************
Infinity.
Posted by: txjak | August 2, 2006 01:29 PM
**************************************************************************************************
The “sign” of infinity is a “point” (circle) (360 degrees) with a 180 degree twist.
It ‘crosses” in the middle. The “cross” is a reference “point”.
The first ( i ) x last ( i + e ) x 180 = love x G x o x d ( 54 x 7 x 15 x 4 )
Man’s best friend is God turned backwards.
Blessings
Zero

30. Xanthir

… … …
Do I even need to point out how random your manipulations were in this ‘analysis’? Seriously, Zero, that fact that you have to contort yourself *so* much to get things to come together should be proof enough that you’re just finding random coincidences, not meaningful connections. I mean, do you multiply each letter of God in anything else?
Plus, you know, the whole English thing.

31. Zero

Xanthir, if you click on my URL (Zero), you’ll
find 342 more “random coincidences”.
Speaking of contortions,did you hear about the man
who lost his left side? He’s all right now.
Blessings

32. Xanthir

Zero:
Yeah, they’re coincidences. You’re using whatever operations happen to result in something that you can call meaningful. There’s no rhyme or reason behind it.
i x (i+e) x 180 = (l+o+v+e) x g x o x d
1) Why do you add the letters of love, but multiply the letters of god? In this particular case, you seem to be consistent with multiplication between each ‘unit’ of the equation, but you’re mixing operations within each unit.
2) How does i represent the first? What does this even mean?
3) How does i+e represent the last? What does this mean?
4) What possible connection could there be between the amount of a three-dimensional rotation of a symbol that happens to resemble the symbol of infinity and all the rest? Heck, you’d think if we were using the names of constants, you’d multiply by i+n+f+i+n+i+t+y or something. The fact that you had to contort yourself so much to get 180 is very telling.
And the names i and e didn’t even exist back then. We invented them recently. Ancient man had no idea what the numbers were, let alone what they would eventually be called.
If you can answer those four questions, at least, I’d be quite impressed. Not quite enough to believe you, but it would certainly make me listen to what you have to say. That’s the proper approach to the world, by the way. You must always ask yourself the question, “What would it take for me to believe otherwise?” Otherwise, you’ll find yourself believing in things without ever questioning them, never discovering that you’re wrong. We’re quite fallible creatures, after all. We must always guard against our minds tricking us by putting them to the question.
I’m quite certain that I won’t change my stance towards your numerology, but I at least can state with confidence what would make me reevaluate my beliefs. I just don’t think you can produce it.

33. Zero

Xanthir,
On point 1:
I am not a mathematition. When I run out of fingers and toes, I call a tow truck. Here is a paste of story # 324 on my web site where 47,900,160 started and how:
ONE FOLD
One day 11 years ago I was wondering what Jesus meant when he said, “I have chosen you twelve.” I decided to multiply the first twelve numbers together. When I had reached eleven, I ran out of space on my calculator so I started again. I decided to skip the number 10. Then I could get a total for 12 numbers by adding a zero later. The answer I got for these numbers was 47,900,160. I then wrote down 1260 and the numbers for God and love. The total for those three multiplied together equaled 47,900,160. Then I multiplied the Trinity times the Word and came up with 47,900,160. I thought my computer was going berserk.
A week later I took “one fold” and multiplied that by 99 sheep and love. The answer was 47,900,160. For over 15 more years, I knew there was a number that when subtracted from the above would result in reversing the 900 and 160, but I didn’t bother to find it.
One night in 1996, I was very bored, so I picked up a calculator and punched in 74, squared it, and then multiplied that by 135. (ace, one) The result was 739,260. Having no purpose in mind, I then subtracted that from 47,900,160. The answer was 47,160,900.
Point # 2
I , which is the first letter in the bible and having a value of nine, is the first part of God’s name, I AM.
Point # 3
i + e ( 9 + 5 ) = N (14) This is the last letter in the bible.I + N ( 23 ) = End, I AM
9 (first) x 14 (last) = 126 (AZ) ( God + Jesus + God ) (26 + 74 + 26 )
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Point # 4
The word “Infinity” begins with the “first and last”. (In) It’s the middle that’s a booger and it’s all hidden for a reason. Give a fan belt a 180 twist to find the middle.
Isa 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel.
Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it]
. Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Mat 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Mal 3:17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
Xanthir, I’m goin’ fishin’ tomarrow for 3 days. Hope we can talk more when I get back.
Zero

34. Paul "the tree" Carpenter

Wondered what he meant? He meant that he had chosen those twelve desciples to do his descipling for him.

35. Davis

Zero, how many different words and operations did you try before you found ones that gave the relationship you were looking for? I’m guessing it didn’t work on your first try. And the funny thing is, if you look hard enough you can always generate the kinds of statements you’re making. If I pull enough words out of Finnegan’s Wake and played with some mathematical operations, I could do the same thing.
Speaking as a mathematician who understands how easy it is to find seemingly surprising connections, this kind of numerology is nonsense and bad math.

36. Xanthir

All right, you answered questions 2 and 3. I is the first letter of the bible (when it’s written in english), while n (or i+e in the encoding you are using) is the last. This is born out by the New International Version in english, with the words In and Amen. Of course, in the Nueva Version Internacional, the first letter is d (Dios) and the last is n (Amen). That doesn’t work quite so well.
You never answered question 1. It doesn’t require any special counting. I simply asked why you multiply the letters in GOD but add the letters in every other context. Not very complex. This is important, though, because a real pattern would be consistent. Inconsistency is a hallmark of tortured thinking. If you can show that there is a good reason for multiplying GOD in this instance but not in others, then it is much more believable.
You also didn’t answer question 4.
All right, the english word for infinity starts with I and N. Is this significant? I know a couple of other english words that start with In. Are these significant in the same way? Why or why not?
The symbol that we use for infinity (also a modern construction which did not exist in the time of Jesus) is indeed a figure-eight (actually a mobius strip) which you can get by twisting a circle. Why is the number of degrees it twists significant? Why is this used as a placeholder for infinity? 180 is certainly not intuitively attached to the figure-eight symbol. Instead, it usually denotes half of a circle.
Do you see why I doubt? The most important reason I doubt you is still that you are doing everything in English, using English translations of the bible. Jesus didn’t speak English, nor did anyone who wrote any part of the bible, because it didn’t exist at that time. However, the fact that I’m seeing a lot of inconsistency in your process makes me almost as doubtful. Science is beautiful because it is consistent. When there are inconsistencies, it’s an indication that something is probably wrong, and that you either need a more encompassing theory, or your data is bad.

37. Zero

Davis, that’s the amazing point, it only took once as I described above.
Xanthir:
i x (i+e) x 180 = (l+o+v+e) x g x o x d
1) Why do you add the letters of love, but multiply the letters of god? In this particular case, you seem to be consistent with multiplication between each ‘unit’ of the equation, but you’re mixing operations within each unit.
*****************************************
When I first began looking for answers to life years ago, I arbitrarily
called 22,680 ‘word’ because it is 90 % of seventy 360s.
Instead of ” i x (i+e) x 180 = (l+o+v+e) x g x o x d”, I shouda or coulda said:
22,680 = I x N x 180
or
22,680 = love x 7 x 15 x 4
***************************************
The following statements are part of what I posted on the topic ‘zero’.
I x N = 126 (AZ)
First x Last ( 126 ) + love (54) = 180
word = 126 (az) x 180 (9 x 20)
word = 126 squared + (126 x love )
word = First ( I ) x Last (N) x 360 over 2
word = First x Last x 180 (AZ x fold) Zec 9:9Zec 9:9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (my words…….Az & fold)
word = one (ace) x 1 week (168 hours)
word = 90 % of seventy 360’s (the remainder is two 1260’s)
word = first x last x it (I Am x it )
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)
22,680 x 1.5 = iron Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.
iron x (2 x 704) = 47,900,160
704 x 1260 x 54 = 47,900,160
word x 2112 = 47,900,160
70 seven fold x love x 99 = 47,900,160
1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x11x12 = 47,900,160
Numbers are a universal language:
Infinity ‘big’ is composed of an infinite number of infinity ‘smalls’. The one fold (zero)is in the middle. Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
74/2 = 37, cg, fold
88 x 8 = 704
3 x 704 = 2112 (U 12)
ass + 15 = 54
15 = nickel, dime (us) (the least is greatest) (king & first & last) Zec 9:9
I & E is hidden in ‘life’.
I & E is hidden in a field.
The word ‘God’ says “seven circles folded”. (1260)
A CD on a hil (child) can knot. Be hid.
Are there not (knot) 12, ours in a day?
360 = A through Z plus the golden wedge of Ophir ( 9 degrees).
Zero

38. Xanthir

Zero: Unfortunately, there was not a single word in your post that actually answered the question. Why do you multiply the letters of god, but add the letters of love? I still haven’t seen an explanation of this. I can only assume that the answer is “because otherwise it wouldn’t work”, but I hope that you have a better answer than that, because you can’t change the rules whenever it becomes more convenient.
I would also like to get a good answer on question 4. You gave me a bare answer, and so I expanded it in my last post. Let me ask it again.

All right, the english word for infinity starts with I and N. Is this significant? I know a couple of other english words that start with In. Are these significant in the same way? Why or why not?
The symbol that we use for infinity (also a modern construction which did not exist in the time of Jesus) is indeed a figure-eight (actually a mobius strip) which you can get by twisting a circle. Why is the number of degrees it twists significant? Why is this used as a placeholder for infinity? 180 is certainly not intuitively attached to the figure-eight symbol. Instead, it usually denotes half of a circle.

39. Zero

Xanthir
Sometimes I add, sometimes subtract, sometimes divide, and other times multiply G, O, and D
to, as you say “fit”. IMO, there are no rules.
As I stated in my first post on the thread ‘Zero’, I have among others, four values for the word “God”.
26, 54, 704 & 1260
I get them in several different ways. Some of which are not math.
Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Placeing a “nothing” between 7 and 4 breaks all the rules, but then again, walking on water does too. That’s why science doesn’t believe it happened.
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
For 1260, I “read” the letters G, O, & D as:
Seven circles folded once. Or…… Seven 360s divided by 2
For ‘God’ as 70 seven fold, I double 70 seven times.(8960)
8960 x 99 x 54 = 47,900,160 by ‘chance’.
The number ‘180’ IMO, has to do with God making a U – turn, turning backwards, doing a 180.
Also IMO, it’s one fold of infinity. Place a plus sign inside one side and a minus in the other.
Time for thought (Time,times & half time)
Time travels at the speed of light.
If you left earth hooked on to a hunk of light as it sped away and had
a good enough telescope pointed backwards toward earth, you would see a still picture. Nothing would move. Time would stop. Jesus would still be hanging on the cross if you left at the right time, about 2,000 years ago.
If you wanted to see time going backward at the same rate that it normally goes forward,you would have to excelarate to twice the speed of light. Leaving now, you would have to travel about 4,000 light years at twice the speed of light to move back in time to the same picture.
Likewise, when one travels toward earth at twice the speed of light,while looking through a scope, time would appear to do double time forward. Getting home from 2,000 light years away would take 1,000 years. Man’s best friend is God turned backward.
Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which [was] upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that [it shall be] for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these [things] shall be finished.
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Or maybe just seeing God’s backside as he passes.
Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Check out the 342 stories on ‘chance’ at hereoisreal.com
Blessings
Zero

40. Xanthir

Sorry for the late response.

Sometimes I add, sometimes subtract, sometimes divide, and other times multiply G, O, and D
to, as you say “fit”. IMO, there are no rules.

Thank you for admitting that. This is a great relief to me, because it means that everything you say is, unfortunately, complete nonsense. *Real* patterns do follow rules. If you mix and match things to make your data fit your expectations, you aren’t doing science. You aren’t using logic. You are simply making stuff up.
If there was some science, some regularity, in what you say, then I’d have to look into it very closely. Without it, though, I can simply discard all your reasoning, because it’s all fundamentally flawed. Nothing you find is worthwhile without a pattern behind it.
It was nice talking to you, Zero. I hope you draw something from this discussion. If you can find messages in the bible while being consistent in your methods, I will listen. Until then, I bid you good luck, and safe journeys.

41. Zero

“If you can find messages in the bible while being consistent in your methods, I will listen. Until then, I bid you good luck, and safe journeys.”
*******************************************************
Xanthir, there is a pattern in life. All living
things, and fossels too, are symmetrical by chance, just like the center of heaven. Also like the name of the mother of all living, “EVE”. Also like the creator’s
name, ” I Am that I Am ”
.Exd 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
Exd 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Jos 8:33 And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them; half of them over against mount Gerizim, and half of them over against mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel.
Blessings
Zero

42. Xanthir

Nope, things are symmetrical because it’s fairly convenient and easy to code for in the genetic code. Rather than having genes for describing both sides, you just specify one side and then mirror it.
You are correct, though, that there is a pattern in life. The entire universe consists of patterns – this is why we can discover the rules of the universe, because it is predictable. That, unfortunately, is your failing. Rather than look for true patterns, you simply look for what fits. This is not the way the universe works.

43. Zero

xanthir, who desides to place the mirrors and where?
Symmetry has to do with “one fold”, then
whatever is folded can be shaped like paper dolls,
leaves,blades of grass, hearts,ect. Even a blind person can do it.
IMO, God set the rules and made the “patterns”:
Exd 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it].
Exd 25:40 And look that thou make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.
Num 8:4 And this work of the candlestick [was of] beaten gold, unto the shaft thereof, unto the flowers thereof, [was] beaten work: according unto the pattern which the LORD had shewed Moses, so he made the candlestick.
Jos 22:28 Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should [so] say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say [again], Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it [is] a witness between us and you.
1Ch 28:11 Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat,
1Ch 28:12 And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things:
1Ch 28:18 And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out [their wings], and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD.
1Ch 28:19 All [this, said David], the LORD made me understand in writing by [his] hand upon me, [even] all the works of this pattern.
Eze 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
Hbr 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
BTW, allthough the parts came from all over the
world, everything “fit” without noise of hammer.
Blessings
Zero

44. Zero

1Ki 6:7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe [nor] any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.
dies, let it die.
Zero

45. Xanthir

Well, the threat didn’t die of natural causes – you killed it. I was hoping to be able to show you something of how you are being so inconsistent, and why that was bad. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be able to listen. You don’t realize what’s wrong with being inconsistent. At the same time, you contradict yourself by talking about patterns laid down by God.
If there are patterns, then find them! Show them! Coincidences are not patterns. If you find a lot of coincidences, and they all have a pattern running through them, then you can state that you’ve found something. But you haven’t done that. Nothing that you say is anything more than random coincidences, with no underlying order.
Science is all about finding the order behind coincidences, about finding the patterns causing discrepancies. Theories predict consistent thing. When they’re wrong, they’re wrong in consistent ways, and that order that you find in the mistakes is the key to generating the new, still consistent theory.
But you aren’t finding order. You aren’t finding patterns. You’re finding coincidences by any way possible.
Plus, of course, there’s the whole “using the Bible in English” thing, rather than using the languages that it was actually written in.

46. Zero

xanthir posted:
“If there are patterns, then find them! Show them! Coincidences are not patterns. If you find a lot of coincidences, and they all have a pattern running through them, then you can state that you’ve found something.”
**************************************
Exd 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle…………
Exd 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims …………………
*************************************
Eureka! I found it! And God sits in the middle. 100 % of all living things, plus all fossels, being symmetrical like the mercy seat, is a pretty good pattern. Try that with “chance”.
Blessing
Zero

47. Zero

Plus, of course, there’s the whole “using the Bible in English” thing, rather than using the languages that it was actually written in.
Posted by: Xanthir | August 26, 2006 03:17 PM
**********************************************
But then, “paradise” (pair rode Az) Zec 9:9 in Greek would have been Greek to me.
Zec 9:9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly,
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
(AZ x one fold = Word) (God x God)
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Also:
“A cd on a hil (child) can knot. Be hid.” might sound funny latinized.
Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
(Hidden treasure on a level playing field)
Zero

48. Zero

Why symmetry? (balance)
Is life by design or by chance?
IMO, symmetry is the best proof of an IDOL. (Intelligent designer of life)
Science has never found two snow flakes alike, although 100 % have symmetry.
Science has never found two grains of sand alike nor do any have, by chance, symmetry.
Every living thing is symmetrical like the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies. (center of heaven)
There is a pattern in life. All living things are symmetrical just like the center of heaven,
also like the name of the mother of all living, “EVE”, as well as the creator’s name, ” I Am that I Am “.
Jos 8:33 And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them; half of them over against mount Gerizim, and half of them over against mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel.
Chaos is natural. Order is mind made. Priorities are mind made, planed, set.
Life is about family and home
Luk 9:58 And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.
The first thing God “made” was heaven, a rock in the middle, between “nests in the air” and “holes
in the ground”, something that doesn’t move or change.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
It’s easier to form order from chaos than to create something from nothing, (See Gen. 1:2) especially if you have a pattern:
Exd 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle…………
Exd 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
Exd 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims ……
Eureka! I found it! (Father, son, and whole sphere, it.) It is “finished” and God sits in the middle. 100 % of all living things, plus all fossels, being symmetrical like the mercy seat, is a pretty good pattern. Try that with “chance”.
God between God is symetrical, also a treasure hidden in a field, leaven hidden in
three measures, eleven hidden in 2112 (three measures),
“A cd on a hil (child) can knot. Be hid “,
God and two olive trees, God and two witnesses, God and two candle sticks, God and two thieves, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof, also, a king, ass, and foal:
Zec 9:9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(AZ)
Here is a puzzel. The two easiest pieces to find are the first and last, beginning and end.
Mathematically, AZ x it = Word (God x God)
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Why symmetry? It is balance.
Isa 61:1 ¶ The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
While, IMO, vengeance is not a healthy motive for living, at least God gets even.
Even, so come Lord Jesus.
Zero

49. Zero

Painting a picture by numbers
Jesus said, “I have choosen you twelve.” (one is a booger)
12 + 12 = (3 x God) + (3 x Jesus)
The first, second, and third 12 total 666 ( 9 x Jesus )
The 3rd 12 + 12 foundations = (6 x God) + (3 x Jesus)
The first, second, third, and forth 12 = (3 x God) + (3 x Jesus) + 3 x AZ
AZ =(alpha & omega), (first x last), or (beginning x end)
The above numbers and the bible verses below all paint
the same picture:
(AZ + half AZ) x (AZ + Love) = Iron
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.
Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should
make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (AZ under)
“Word” x 3 AZ = Love x G x O x D
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Blessings
Zero