29 Dec 14
73, is the 21ste prime number, it's mirror 37 is the 12th and it's mirror 21 is the product of multiplying, hang on to your hats, 7 and 3.
The fact that even minute differences in them would lead to a far different result is quite interesting at the least.
The point is that given the way these are, is it logical to believe that it is that way because of random chance?
I find this line of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God.
29 Dec 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat's not very deep .. just a consequence of decimal system.73, is the 21ste prime number, it's mirror 37 is the 12th and it's mirror 21 is the product of multiplying, hang on to your hats, 7 and 3.
The fact that even minute differences in them would lead to a far different result is quite interesting at the least.
The point is that given the way these are, is it logical to believe that it is ...[text shortened]... ne of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God.
73 is 61 in base 12 and "19"th prime
37 is 31 in base 12 and "10"th prime
no pattern
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDemonstrate that there is a small set of operations / relationships that can be consistently applied to a significant proportion of the primes then perhaps many of us will be ready to listen ... point to just one prime, the number of which hardly special in it's own right and show that you can do some jiggery pokery with it, and well ... meh!73, is the 21ste prime number, it's mirror 37 is the 12th and it's mirror 21 is the product of multiplying, hang on to your hats, 7 and 3.
The fact that even minute differences in them would lead to a far different result is quite interesting at the least.
The point is that given the way these are, is it logical to believe that it is ...[text shortened]... ne of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God.
Hell perhaps there exists some mth prime that is equal to the sum of the digits of m modulo floor((m-1)th prime / (m-2)) ... wouldn't that be cool ... and totally a proof of ID! 😕
30 Dec 14
Originally posted by DeepThought
You might, most of us have eight fingers and two thumbs.
You may be wondering why we evolved to have ten fingers and ten toes. Why not eight, or only four?
The truth is that we don’t really know why ten became the magic number for fingers and toes.
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/10-fingers-10-toes/
In light of this fingers-are-the-hand’s-limbs observation, in this piece I’d like to ask…
Why do we have ten fingers?
In addition to being fundamentally interesting, this question also has deep implications for why we use a base-10 number system (rather than a base-2 or base-8 system, each which would arguably be better).
http://www.science20.com/mark_changizi/why_do_we_have_ten_fingers
You should consider the fact that the pattern detailed in the OP utilizes base-10 and the fact that humans have 10 fingers.
Originally posted by Agerg...point to just one prime, the number of which hardly special in it's own right...
Demonstrate that there is a small set of operations / relationships that can be consistently applied to a significant proportion of the primes then perhaps many of us will be ready to listen ... point to just one prime, the number of which hardly special in it's own right and show that you can do some jiggery pokery with it, and well ... meh!
Hell perhaps t ...[text shortened]... modulo floor((m-1)th prime / (m-2)) ... wouldn't that be cool ... and totally a proof of ID! 😕
The pattern detailed in the OP shows otherwise. Unless of course you can show other numbers for which it is also true.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnewell 21, in it's own right isn't particularly special to be honest (without the tenuous relation to 73 and 37 you propose).
[b]...point to just one prime, the number of which hardly special in it's own right...
The pattern detailed in the OP shows otherwise. Unless of course you can show other numbers for which it is also true.[/b]
Consider 19 ... it has two digits, subtract 2 from 19 and you get 17. take the average of 17 and its reverse to get 44 - A palindromic number! moreover divide the number by either it's right or left digit to get 11! Now add the number of digits of 11 to 11 in order to get 13, but the product of its digits is 3 which is also prime again. Now take the factorial of this prime and subtract / add the number of digits to get two more primes 5 and 7, subtract the smaller from the larger to get 2 - this lists all of the primes up to 19 (and refers to another prime 71) ... total number of primes = 9 = 1*9 (the product of the digits of 19) Ignoring the implicit 71 then 8 = 9 - 1 (the difference of the digits of 19)!!!
Isn't 19 a wonderful number (especially since the 19th prime is 67 - two consecutive integers whose product divided by the number of operands is the number of digits in the result greater than 19!!!!) 😕
I can carry on all day doing this crap ...
Originally posted by AgergDidn't think you could come up with one that fit the pattern detailed in the OP.
well 21, in it's own right isn't particularly special to be honest (without the tenuous relation to 73 and 37 you propose).
Consider 19 ... it has two digits, subtract 2 from 19 and you get 17. take the average of 17 and its reverse to get 44 - A palindromic number! moreover divide the number by either it's right or left digit to get 11! Now add the number ...[text shortened]... er of digits in the result greater than 19!!!!) 😕
I can carry on all day doing this crap ...
Of course it would have been much easier if you had simply admitted as much instead of posting all that hand waving "crap" as you put it.
30 Dec 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you think that without a god numbers would have different properties?
Didn't think you could come up with one that fit the pattern detailed in the OP.
Of course it would have been much easier if you had simply admitted as much instead of posting all that hand waving "crap" as you put it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy should I find a second number that fits the pattern you describe in the OP? What good would that do for my position that there is nothing interesting about the jiggery-pokery you did with it!??? ... Hell I just came up with a *more* interesting number (by virtue of applying *different* jiggery-pokery)
Didn't think you could come up with one that fit the pattern detailed in the OP.
Of course it would have been much easier if you had simply admitted as much instead of posting all that hand waving "crap" as you put it.
Originally posted by AgergWhy should I find a second number that fits the pattern you describe in the OP?
Why should I find a second number that fits the pattern you describe in the OP? What good would that do for my position that there is nothing interesting about the jiggery-pokery you did with it!??? ... Hell I just came up with a *more* interesting number (by virtue of applying *different* jiggery-pokery)
You're the one that asserted that the number was "hardly special in it's own right". I pointed out that "the pattern detailed in the OP shows otherwise". If you have no interest in backing up your assertion by showing other numbers that fit the pattern, that's your prerogative.
Hell I just came up with a *more* interesting number
Actually your initial description of your pattern being "crap" seems correct. I concede to that assessment.
30 Dec 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59You seem to have missed the point of the OP which was the following:
Do you think that without a god numbers would have different properties?
The fact that even minute differences in them would lead to a far different result is quite interesting at the least.
The point is that given the way these are, is it logical to believe that it is that way because of random chance?
I find this line of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God.