1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11463
    30 Dec '14 02:541 edit
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [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.
    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??? 😕
  2. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    30 Dec '14 03:021 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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??? 😕
    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.
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11463
    30 Dec '14 03:242 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    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.
    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.
  4. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    30 Dec '14 03:511 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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.
    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?
  5. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    30 Dec '14 05:541 edit
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    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.
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    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...
  6. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11463
    30 Dec '14 08:233 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    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?
    It says more than your numerology studies certificate (and the amazement of GB shows the calibre of your work here) 😵


    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.
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    30 Dec '14 08:33
    Originally posted by JS357
    I'm all thumbs. Explain THAT as intelligent design.
    Okay, that was a good one!
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    30 Dec '14 18:15
    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.
  9. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    30 Dec '14 19:51
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    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.
    "You'd need a pattern in something that is not unconditionally true to provide evidence for universal design."

    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?
  10. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    30 Dec '14 20:02
    Look, if you put a hundred scientists in a large room with one hundred typewriters, eventually one of them will eat a banana.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    30 Dec '14 20:111 edit

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Dec '14 20:50
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    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.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    31 Dec '14 01:141 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
    Also in reply to Duchess64
    I 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.

    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.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    31 Dec '14 02:071 edit

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree