1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'll say it again, the 21 in the "21st prime" is not very special, it's quite a boring number if you ask me...
[b]Why should I find a second number that fits the pattern you describe in the OP?
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, that's your prerogative.
Hell I just came up with a ...[text shortened]... ur initial description of your pattern being "crap" seems correct. I concede to that assessment.
Can explain what is so special about reversing a number and taking digit products when there are so many other different ops you could have chosen that would have been rubbish??? 😕
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThere is more to it than what you've described here. You seem to have not apprehended all the elegance and symmetry. Perhaps you should reread the quote given in the OP.
I'll say it again, the 21 in the "21st prime" is not very special, it's quite a boring number if you ask me...
Can explain what is so special about reversing a number and taking digit products when there are so many other different ops you could have chosen that would have been rubbish??? 😕
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThinkOfOne, much as I hate to pull the degree card on you - I have a maths degree ... and I have seen wonders far more majestic, breath-taking, and humbling than the infantile parlour tricks detailed in your OP.
There is more to it than what you've described here. You seem to have not apprehended all the elegance and symmetry. Perhaps you should reread the quote given in the OP.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergWell, the fact is that there's more to the pattern than what you described. The fact is that there is an elegance and symmetry to the pattern in the OP that is seriously lacking in your attempt to provide a different pattern.
ThinkOfOne, much as I hate to pull the degree card on you - I have a maths degree ... and I have seen wonders far more majestic, breath-taking, and humbling than the infantile parlour tricks detailed in your OP.
What does that say about your maths degree?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOriginally posted by ThinkOfOne73, 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 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.
Wow!
Interlocking symmetry. Wonder if there are additional examples? Thanks...
Interlocking symmetry. Wonder if there are additional examples? Thanks...
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt says more than your numerology studies certificate (and the amazement of GB shows the calibre of your work here) 😵
Well, the fact is that there's more to the pattern than what you described. The fact is that there is an elegance and symmetry to the pattern in the OP that is seriously lacking in your attempt to provide a different pattern.
What does that say about your maths degree?
But anyway, on the subject of symmetries, given a product establishing 21, what product in there establishes 12!?? how about the other arithmetic operators defined on integers, what symmetries do we get if we try 3 + 7, or 3 ^ 7, or ... that's right, nothing!
You've identified a couple of flukes - hardly in the same vein as Euler's identity.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You may be wondering why we evolved to have ten fingers and ten toes. Why not eight, or only four?
[b]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/
[quote]In light of this fingers-are-the-hand’s-limbs observatio ...[text shortened]... t that the pattern detailed in the OP utilizes base-10 and the fact that humans have 10 fingers.[/b]Possibly you should consider that some posts are made in jest. Incidentally, the number of digits is not actually genetically fixed, people are occasionally born with six fingers on one or both hands. Around the time tetrapods were evolving the number of digits varied between species. Five per limb seems to just have been the most convenient number.
Mathematics is derivable from logic meaning that it is unconditionally true. There is no possible world where 1 + 1 = 3. Patterns in our representations of numbers are therefore not contingent on the existence of a God, they appear whether God exists or not. You'd need a pattern in something that is not unconditionally true to provide evidence for universal design.
Alternatively you could attempt to construct an argument that there exist possible worlds where logic and hence mathematics are different - and thereby show that logic is not unconditionally valid. I think this would be difficult since you'd have to undermine the equipment needed to prove your point in order to prove your point.
Originally posted by DeepThought"You'd need a pattern in something that is not unconditionally true to provide evidence for universal design."
Possibly you should consider that some posts are made in jest. Incidentally, the number of digits is not actually genetically fixed, people are occasionally born with six fingers on one or both hands. Around the time tetrapods were evolving the number of digits varied between species. Five per limb seems to just have been the most convenient number.
...[text shortened]... e you'd have to undermine the equipment needed to prove your point in order to prove your point.
And that evidence depends on what the alternative is to universal design, in the proof, what is the null hypothesis.
In its barest bones it is "not universal design."
What would be evidence of "not universal design"?
One candidate is the existence of true random events: events that the designer does not specify in all their particulars, such as when they occur, and that influence other events.
It seems implausible that a designed universe having such events would follow the intended design.
Another similar candidate (similar in its effects) is truly free will of at least some of the inhabitants.
Can a universal design have true random or true free will events as part of its makeup?
Originally posted by DeepThoughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Possibly you should consider that some posts are made in jest. Incidentally, the number of digits is not actually genetically fixed, people are occasionally born with six fingers on one or both hands. Around the time tetrapods were evolving the number of digits varied between species. Five per limb seems to just have been the most convenient number.
...[text shortened]... e you'd have to undermine the equipment needed to prove your point in order to prove your point.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI didn't want to preface my point with a discussion about difficulties with the foundations of maths to avoid obscuring it. I didn't regard the qualification as overwhelmingly important since my point depends on mathematics being unconditionally true in the same way logic is rather than all of it necessarily being expressible in logic. In any case Peano arithmetic can be defined in first order logic and is enough for a discussion revolving around coincidences concerning representations of small primes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Also in reply to Duchess64
Godel's theorems aren't important to this. All of the statements about primes made in this thread are provable from Peano's axioms so the incompleteness theorem isn't relevant. What Godel showed was that a sufficiently complex theory T1 would be able to generate statements like "This sentence is not provable in T1." where the italics are in place of a Godel number. Either the sentence is provable from the axioms and so the theory is inconsistent as a falsehood will have been derived from the theory's axioms or it is true in which case the theory is incomplete. This can be added as an axiom to create a new theory T2, but T2 will have its own unprovable sentence: "This sentence is not provable in T2.". Normal deductions aren't affected by the incompleteness theorems.