Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 123
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    269
    Here is yet ANOTHER link ...

    Genesis 1:1 = 37 x 73 = 2701 (and 2701 + 1072 = 3773) and John 1:1 = 39 x 93 ...

    The PRODUCT of 26 and 45 (26 x 45) = The sum of the digital PRODUCT of 3773 (3 x 7 x 7 x 3) with the digital PRODUCT of 3993 (3 x 9 x 9 x 3)!!! Further, we already saw how the numerical distance between 3 x 7 x 7 x 3 and 3 x 9 x 9 x 3 = 2 x 3 x 6 x 8 (which links up with the fact that the sum of Genesis 1:1 with 26 + 45 = The 2368th composite number)!!!

    So we now have 4 corroborating links ...

    1) 26^2 + 45^2 = The STANDARD value of Genesis 1:1.
    2) The 26th Prime + The 45th Prime = The ORDINAL value of Genesis 1:1.
    3) The SUM of Genesis 1:1 with 26 + 45 = The 2368th composite number.
    4) The PRODUCT of 26 and 45 (26 x 45) = The sum of the digital PRODUCT of 3773 (3 x 7 x 7 x 3) with the digital PRODUCT of 3993 (3 x 9 x 9 x 3).

    Btw, (3 x 7 x 7 x 3) + (3 x 9 x 9 x 3) = 117 x 10 ...

    The sum of the SINGULAR form of ELOHIM (31) with the PLURAL form of ELOHIM (86) = 117!!! ...

    John 1:1 = 31 x 117 and 117 is the 86th composite number!!! JESUS IS ELOHIM!!! ...

    The numerical distance between the PERIMETER of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle and the PERIMETER of the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 Triangle = 117!!! ...

    The sum of the digital roots of the first 26 PRIMES = 117 AND 117 is the EXACT midpoint between 37 and the 45th PRIME (you didn't forget that the 45th PRIME = The sum of all the PRIMES up to 37, right?)!!!

    26 = YAHWEH

    45 = ADAM

    2368 = JESUS CHRIST
    Last edited by Gambini; 03-05-2014 at 10:10 AM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    2701 and 4995 have the same Totient function ( 2592 )

    I also got the same result as Richard, for 703, ( 648 )

    ---------------------------------------

    Richard, I have a quick question, if you get the time

    I was trying to educate myself on quadratics and summation, using the form : n(n+1)/2 to find the sum of a series

    If I write the same in summation notation, where i and n are the upper and lower bounds of the series, is it better to write the indices for the summation in full form, or can I simply use a cube or square ? ( where it's applicable )

    Ie, if I am writing the summation for a large number like 443556, is it better to write n = 443556, or can I simply replace this with n = 666^2, or even a shorter notation if one exists ?

    Thanks again


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    269
    "2701 and 4995 have the same Totient function ( 2592 )"

    Yes ... The Totient function of Genesis 1:1 = The Totient function of the total sum of the Hebrew alphabet! And for even more confirmation, check THIS out ...

    The difference between the Totient function of Genesis 1:1 (2592) and the Totient function of John 1:1 (2160) = The total sum of the Totient functions for the first 37 integers!!!

    BINI BOBO
    Last edited by Gambini; 03-05-2014 at 12:06 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    Ha!

    The difference between the sums of the series of the palindromic rank numbers 12 and 21 for the emirp pair of 37 and 73 is the 17th triangular 153

    T(37)P(12) sum(12) = 78
    T(73)P(21) sum(21) = 231

    231-78 = 153 = T(17) which is the sum of 1-17

    The prime previous to 73 is 71

    That's pretty neat, at least to me, haha

    71/17
    37/73
    12/21

    Apparently there is a subset of emirp pairs that also have the property of palindromic rank numbers like the primes 37 and 73

    Another reason I thought this was neat, is because if we sum for 153, we get 11781, which doesn't really seem to bear any sort of relation to anything aside from the set of syntactic structures that seem to be based on 117, 118, ie shortest verse, middle chapter, middle verse, etc ( I know these numbers are different depending on which version you pick from ) and some of gematria values Richard has posted here based on 18, 108, 1080, 810, etc

    That and the Shema sum being 1118

    Name:  giphy.gif
Views: 39
Size:  468.6 KB

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    Here is my attempt at showing the math, I hope I got this right, lol

    Name:  blahblah.JPG
Views: 34
Size:  37.0 KB

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Good evening Sir Gambininini,

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Btw, please know that just because I don't respond to a particular charge you make against me doesn't mean I have no response. Unlike you (apparently), I don't have the time to respond to every single comment.
    Ha! Classic dodge. You consciously ignore my challenges to your claims and then spend hours writing long posts that repeat the same errors. We would make a lot more progress if you actually dealt with the points I bring up. If they are not true, you could expose my errors and establish the truth of your claims. If they are true, then you need to admit the truth. It's really pretty simple stuff. You know that I acknowledge any truth that can be demonstrated. It would be great if you did the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "You had started that thread with the ludicrous assertion that the value of the Hebrew alphabet (1495) was "encoded" in a sum of permutations of the seven values of Genesis 1:1"

    The value of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet actually IS encoded in the seven word values of Genesis 1:1. Observe ...

    The seven word values of Genesis 1:1 are 913, 203, 86, 401, 395, 407 and 296. Now take the DIGITS in these values and sum their grouped digital sets ...

    000 + 11 + 22 + 333 + 44 + 5 + 66 + 7 + 8 + 999 = 1495!!!

    It isn't surprising that the value of the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet is divinely encoded in Genesis 1:1
    That is a very intriguing result. Did you discover it yourself or learn it from someone else?

    Now if you are correct in your assertion that it was not a "mere coincidence" but rather a deliberate design by the infinitely intelligent omniscient God, then we should expect to see the same thing in John 1:1 since it too was supposedly designed by the same infinitely intelligent omniscient God. So I wrote a quick little bit of javascript, and found this:

    John 1:1 = 55 + 719 + 58 + 70 + 373 + 31 + 70 + 373 + 58 + 450 + 420 + 134 + 31 + 284 + 58 + 70 + 373

    Collecting the digits as you did for Genesis 1:1 yields this:

    00000 + 1111 + 22 + 333333333 + 4444 + 555555 + 7777777 + 8888 + 9 = 341681139

    Hummm .... . What's going on? It doesn't look like the number 341681139 has anything to do with any of your number patterns. Is God really not that smart, or are you just finding random coincidences in a sea of numbers? Even its factors aren't related to the patterns you have been talking about:

    341681139 = 3 x 3 x 3 x 43 x 151 x 1949

    But I'm sure if you tie it down and torture it enough, you will eventually be able to coerce it to declare "JESUS IS GOD!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Further, Genesis 1:1 is ROOTED in the PRIME number 37 and all the repdigits 111 through 999 are related by the CONSTANT 37. And if that isn't enough, the total sum of the digital roots of 111 through 999 = The 37th COMPOSITE number!!! ...
    Again, you are using mathematical language incorrectly. Any given integer, 37, 333, 228, or whatever, is a "constant" because it does not change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    GIVEN ALL THE MATHEMATICAL LINKS WITH THE TRIPLE REPDIGITS (111 through 999), it is also significant that the numerical distance between 26^2 (YAHWEH = 26) and Genesis 1:1 = The sum of the digital products of 111 through 999!!!
    And again, you are using mathematical language incorrectly. The "sum of the digital products" of triple repdigits is nothing but the sum of the first 9 cubes. You need to learn to speak the language if you are going to be making mathematical claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "It is no great surprise that the sum of the Hebrew alphabet is related to the sum of the triple repdigits because that follows by necessity from the way humans assigned the numerical values"

    No, it does NOT follow by necessity BECAUSE ...

    1) The number of characters in the Hebrew alphabet did not HAVE to be 27 (different languages around the world have a whole variety of numbers of characters in their alphabets).
    2) The mathematical pattern in the letter values of the Hebrew alphabet did not HAVE to follow the particular order that it does.
    3) Humans did not HAVE to have 10 digits.
    Read again what I wrote. I did not say that the number system (base 10) or the number of letters (27) was necessary, I said that the relation to the sum of the cubes follows necessarily from the way that humans assigned the numerical values. My statement stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "What do you mean by "Phi function"? I presume you mean Euler's Totient which commonly goes by that name. If so, your assertion is false, since the value is 648 not 666. And even if it were correct, so what?"

    According to an online Euler's Totient calculator, the Phi Function of 703 = 666. Why is this significant? Because Genesis 1:1 is grammatically AND geometrically structured on the numbers 666, 703 and 2701. So all the mathematical links between these numbers demonstrates the level of mathematical awareness behind the mind who designed the mathematical structure of Genesis 1:1.
    This exemplifies one of your most significant failings. You accept things as true when you don't even understand them, and you don't bother to check. The totient function is easy to calculate if you know basic math. The formula is given and explained with examples on this page. You can confirm the correct value on this page and this page (which also gives the formula and explanation with examples). I found this page which gives the wrong answer. I'm guessing that's the only page you checked.

    So now that we know your value was wrong, what does it imply about your assertion that it "demonstrates the level of mathematical awareness behind the mind who designed the mathematical structure of Genesis 1:1"? If it would be evidence if true, what does its falsehood imply? I get the impression that you literally despise truth, logic, and facts if they contradict what you want to believe. That is the essence of delusion, and it seems you don't even care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "But you would have been just as convinced if the numbers summed to 111 rather than 101, right? This is why such "connections" are not very convincing. You can make them "fit" with pretty much anything you want"

    Why would it be significant if 37 + 64 was 111??? The REASON it is significant that 37 + 64 = The 26th prime is because the bible claims JESUS CHRIST is God (YAHWEH = 26)!!! Hence ...

    37 x 64 = 2368 (JESUS CHRIST) and 37 + 64 = The 26th prime (YAHWEH)!!!
    Read what I wrote. You missed my point (again). My point is that it doesn't matter what the numbers are. You would find a way to make them fit with some pattern that you felt confirmed your beliefs. That's why I chose the example of 111. You know that if the factors of Jesus Christ summed to 111 you would make connections with that number! Man, you are really dense. I have to repeat myself constantly, and you still show no understanding. You don't even respond to the points I make!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakeboy View Post
    Here is my attempt at showing the math, I hope I got this right, lol

    Name:  blahblah.JPG
Views: 34
Size:  37.0 KB
    Nicely done Snakeboy,

    I think the symmetric relation between the emirps 37/73, coupled with the symmetric relation of their indices 12/21 is quite elegant. And it is interesting how the triangle 153 fits in, though I don't see any significance in the appearance of the number 11781.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "There often are many ways to represent an integer as sums of squares. In the case of 2701, there are two"

    Okay ... But what are the odds that any two random squares would sum to a specific four-digit number (there are 8,999 four-digit numbers)? And what are the odds that any two random primes would sum to a specific three-digit number (there are 899 three-digit numbers)? ...

    We would then take those two probabilities and multiply them to get the probability (since both values share a numerical correspondence AND yield related values in that one produces the STANDARD value of Genesis 1:1 while the other produces the ORDINAL value of Genesis 1:1), no? ...
    I wrote a little javascript to analyze all the verses of the OT to get a sense of the probability of the pattern you found. It is rare. It happens by chance in about 1 in 4000 random verses. Here are the results:

    Verse #1: std=2701, ord=298
    sqrs: 10:51, 26:45, prime pairs:26:45
    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

    Verse #8681: std=2050, ord=250
    sqrs: 5:45, 23:39, 31:33, prime pairs:23:39
    2Sa 23:27 Abiezer the Anethothite, Mebunnai the Hushathite,

    Verse #11422: std=2405, ord=254
    sqrs: 2:49, 14:47, 17:46, 31:38, prime pairs:14:47
    2Ch 11:7 And Bethzur, and Shoco, and Adullam,

    Verse #13179: std=2813, ord=320
    sqrs: 2:53, 37:38, prime pairs:37:38
    Job 13:25 Wilt thou break a leaf driven to and fro? and wilt thou pursue the dry stubble?

    Verse #17389: std=2482, ord=250
    sqrs: 9:49, 31:39, prime pairs:9:49
    Ecc 4:7 Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.

    Verse #18108: std=2500, ord=286
    sqrs: 14:48, 30:40, prime pairs:30:40
    Isa 24:12 In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction.

    It seems to me that all except the first verse are almost certainly just a random coincidence. Note particularly the two that are just names from genealogies. Note also that they are all verses that can be written as a sum of squares in more than one way. Indeed, one of them could be written in three ways, and another in four! This is what increased the random chances enough so the indices of the squares had a chance to match the indices of the primes. And remember, there are usually many ways to write an even number as the sum of two primes which also increased the chances a lot.

    So we can see how chance plays a role, but I still grant that it is a "nice coincidence" to find it in the first verse, given its natural prominence. But I really can't say if it is significant since it has such a sense of randomness about it. It could be just one of the thousands of "patterns" that you could find in any verse if you looked hard enough.

    The real problem is that it does not appear to be common to any other "structured verses" (holographs). This is what impressed me about the holographs. They exhibit similar patterns (based on Hex/Star pairs, the Holographic Generating Set, etc.). I don't have that sense with the patterns relating to prime indices that you have been sharing, especially since you mix them with the wild tares of silly absurdities, like finding the square toot of roo in Psalm 7, etc. Simply stated, you thinking is does not follow any general PRINCIPLES and so is not convincing. You try to impress by throwing everything into one big pot of confusion followed by many exclamation points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "You could have chosen any arbitrary functions and looked for patterns. You could have used any arbitrary combination of figurate numbers"

    So what??? That has no bearing with regards to the SPECIFIC case of two random squares corresponding with the prime orders of two random primes (with the former producing the STANDARD numerical value of a given verse and the latter producing the ORDINAL numerical value of THAT VERY SAME VERSE).
    The "so what" is that you are fishing in the ocean of infinite numbers, cherry picking what you like and ignoring everything else. You still don't get it ... this is the essence of cognitive bias, which leads to delusion. And you don't seem to care ...
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    "2701 and 4995 have the same Totient function ( 2592 )"

    Yes ... The Totient function of Genesis 1:1 = The Totient function of the total sum of the Hebrew alphabet! And for even more confirmation, check THIS out ...

    The difference between the Totient function of Genesis 1:1 (2592) and the Totient function of John 1:1 (2160) = The total sum of the Totient functions for the first 37 integers!!!

    BINI BOBO
    And what is the significance of "having the same totient function"? How would that show any "design"? You seem to be of the mind that any two things that match is evidence of "design". That's the same fallacy that all the crank numerologists make. It's the fallacy that deluded Panin. It's exactly what the Muslims do when they find patterns just like you, except in the Qu'ran of course.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    147
    Thanks, Richard.

    I'm not really too sure either about the sum of 153, I just did it on a whim, however, I have noticed there is something very bizarre going on between the triple repdigits, some of the triangulars, the " orbits " in pi ( what you wrote the program for ) some primes Vs rank numbers and sums of series, but since I am so new at this I have no clue what exactly it is, lol.

    I'll try to post it in bite-sized chunks so we can discuss/discard, simplify notations, etc, or most likely, you'll explain it using simple axioms, lol, either way it's fun.

    I figured between Gambini's determination and stubbornness, your degree and patience, and my curiosity and boredom we should at least have some fun with it

    Somebody suggested also looking at Harvey Dubner's work, although most of it might be over my head.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Dubner

    I'll just put the Cravat's first few albums on repeat and make some coffee.

    Btw, I found this the other day, don't know whether you are a coffee drinker or not though

    Name:  dfghjlkj.JPG
Views: 30
Size:  17.0 KB

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •