Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
Welcome back Gambini!




Excellent example Gambini. I've been trying to explain this point to Desmild (Alex) for years now. Maybe you contribution will help him understand.



That's a good point about primes. But we probably should remember that the definition of prime has a certain arbitrariness about it. If we want to include 1, as was once common with mathematicians, we would simply adjust the definitions to exclude the number 1. A prime could be defined as "a number divisible (without remainder) only by 1 and itself, and so include the number one, but then a semiprime would be defined as an integrer > 1 that is divisible by exactly two primes, nether of which is a 1. It's not a very elegant definition which is one reason mathematicians changed their mind about it. Another reason is that the "universal divisor" has properties not shared by other primes. But that's also true for 2 (the only even prime) so it needs to be mentioned in many theorems about primes, which specifically refer to "odd primes". I do think that it is mathematically most elegant and sensible to put the number 1 in a class by itself, as the "unit" but I don't think we could justify insisting on that point as logically necessary.

Now as for the pattern you found. The skeptic might say that it appears to be entirely random. On your home page, you mention patterns you found using primes and semiprimes, but the patterns are different. They only thing they have in common is that they can be expressed using only two digits 3 and 7. Specifically, you found:

2368 - (37th + 73rd Primes) = 3^7 - 7^3

2368 + (37th + 73rd Semiprimes) = 37 x 73

Here's the thing - why do you care about semiprimes? Why not numbers with exactly three factors? Or four? Or squared primes? Or semiprimes raised to powers? Or composites? Or any other number pattern? How many numerical forms could you have chosen? By what principle did you choose that particular numerical form? Is there any a priori reason to think the one you chose would be significant? And how do you discern between random chance and design?

If you couldn't find a pattern with semirpimes would you look at composites? Why wouldn't that be your first choice? And if there isn't an obvious pattern with composites, would that be evidence against design? This, of course, is the critical criticism of your method. Is there anything in your method that would prove a text was NOT designed? If not, it appears to be a method to "confirm" what you believe, without any method to check if maybe your text is not coded. For example, would similar patterns in the Quran convince you? If not, why not?

To sum up: I see two primary problems with your method:

1) There is no way to discern between random chance and design.
2) There is an essentially infinite ocean of number patterns to pick from. Primes, Semiprimes, Composites, Triangles, Hexagons, Stars. etc. etc. etc. With that many options, how is it different than the "hopscotch" method you rightly reject?


But does that work with the other pattern that you linked with this one? You linked to patterns:

2368 - (37th + 73rd Primes) = 3^7 - 7^3

2368 + (37th + 73rd Semiprimes) = 37 ? 73

So if we apply the same "rule" to the first pattern, we get (37th prime = 157, 73rd prime = 367)

(2 + 3 + 6 + 8) - (1 + 5 + 7) - (3 + 6 + 7) = 19 - 29 = -10

Your pattern does not appear to work. How do you explain this inconsistency?

And that's the key for me ... consistency. Real patterns have real consistency. When an intelligent being encodes a text, every single character is accounted for. For example, if I used a code where A => B, B = C, etc. I could write

Ep zpv voefstuboe nf?

Which decodes to

Do you understand me?

I've never seen any Biblical numerology that satisfies this standard of encryption.


The self-reference is indeed a vast improvement over the seemingly random methods that Alex uses because it drastically limits the number of possibilities, but it still is insufficient because the number of possibilities is still very large. Case in point: You started with three numbers derived from the Greek name Jesus Christ (1480, 2368, and 205) but then used them in entirely inconsistent ways to found a connection between 2368 and John 1:1

2368 + 205th prime = Sum of John 1:1

1480 - 205 = Sum of "In the beginning was the Word."

Did you check 888 - 205, 888 + 205, 888 + 205th prime, 888 - 205th prime, 888 + 205th semiprime, 888 - 205 semiprime, 1480 + 205th prime, 1480 - 205th prime, 1480 + 205th semiprime, 1480 - 205th semiprime, and the same with composites, triangles, squares, etc. and with 2368, and with 3168 ... etc., etc., etc.?

Do you see the problem here? You are doing better than Alex because you have limited your set of numbers from which you cherry pick "connections" but you apparently have no principle limiting the kinds of patterns from which you choose, which means they are unlimited, which is a common definition of INFINITE. If you have an infinite ocean of random numbers from which to chose, you are guaranteed to find "patterns" right?



I totally understand what you are trying to do. It's what I tried to do when I believed in gematria. I wrote article about how important it was to be consistent with inflections (theos, theou, theon, etc) since each different inflection would give a different value for the same word. I was sensitive to this because the Theomatics guys totally ignored inflection and so would typically have half a dozen numbers for each word from which to cherry pick. But this is insufficient because your numerology has an unlimited number of mathematical forms from which to choose. So here's the bottom line:

Is there any way to discern between "design" and "randomness" in your numerology?

Great chatting! It seems you've advanced quite a bit in your studies. I'm really glad you came back for a visit. Looking forward to digging into this more with you.

Richard

Hey Richard!


Thanks for welcoming me back! Always good to hear from you.



You make a great point about the problem of having an infinite family of numbers to choose from and then basically cherry picking from them to form a set of seemingly related identities. That's why we need to be careful about which family of numbers we are using and the logic behind using them.



Aside from Genesis 1:1 itself being a Semiprime, my reasoning behind using them is that they represent the next logical step in the system of Primes and the so-called "Almost-Primes" (Primes, Semiprimes, Tri-Primes ... etc.). What I believe I have uncovered is that the very word values of Genesis 1:1, and the numerical identity of the encoder (2368), represents a coded system that is based on the natural order of Primes and Semiprimes. I have many related examples that show this, but I'll try to give a brief rundown here.




As you know, Peter Bluer showed how the number 37 turns up as a Prime Factor behind the Gen 1:1 word value combinations seven times above what would be expected randomly (I believe you replicated his results as well). I discovered that the Gen 1:1 word values themselves serve as actual pointers to the natural order of Prime numbers, which points back to the Gen 1:1 Prime Factors through the Gen 1:1 principle of mirror reflections. I call this "The Prime Index Code Of Genesis 1:1", which, to me, is simply mindblowing:


913th Prime = 7127

203rd Prime = 1237

86th Prime = 443

401st Prime = 2749

395th Prime = 2711

407th Prime = 2797

296th Prime = 1949


PRIME SUM = 2161st PRIME


2161 + 1612 = 3773


Gen 1:1 = 37 * 73




Before I show how this ties in with the Semiprime pointer between 2368 and the Gen 1:1 Prime Factors, we need to look at another discovery I made, which highlights the unique position of the only Prime word value of Gen 1:1 (401). I noticed that the only Prime word value happens to be at the exact center position (with 3 word values to its left/right). This is not a coincidence. For the Prime Factor sum of the word values to its left EQUALS the Prime Factor sum of the word values to its right. Notice also that this follows the Gen 1:1 principle of mirror symmetry again:


913 = 11 * 83

203 = 7 * 29

86 = 2 * 43

401 = 401

395 = 5 * 79

407 = 11 * 37

296 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 37


LEFT PRIME FACTORS = 175


RIGHT PRIME FACTORS = 175


Gen 1:1 Prime Factor Symmetry:


175 - (401) - 175




Now we understand that the center word value (and only Prime word value) is made up of TWO Hebrew letters, which are the FIRST/LAST letters of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph + Tav). This is where the natural order of Semiprimes come in (Semiprimes = The integers that are a product of TWO Primes). We saw how the Primes indexed to the Gen 1:1 word values points back to the Gen 1:1 Prime Factors (3773). This leads to what I call "The Semiprime Code": The 2368th Semiprime = 8927 and 8927 + 7337 = The sum of the Primes indexed to the Composite Gen 1:1 word values


913th Prime = 7127

203rd Prime = 1237

86th Prime = 443

395th Prime = 2711

407th Prime = 2797

296th Prime = 1949


2368th SEMIPRIME = 8927


8927 + 7337 = PRIMES indexed to COMPOSITE Gen 1:1 word values


Gen 1:1 = 73 * 37 = 37 * 73


2368 + (37th + 73rd SEMIPRIMES) = 37 * 73





I hope you can begin to see how the Gen 1:1 word values (and their symmetric structure) are tied to 2368 through the natural order of Primes/Semiprimes. This phenomenon of the Gen 1:1 word values serving as "pointers" to the natural order of Primes eventually led me to find that it is even encoded within nature itself (through the same logic of Prime/Composite indexing applied to the natural numbers within the first 37 atomic elements of nature). Notice also that Gen 1:1 is essentially an introduction to the creation of the natural world. You can read more about my findings here : https://sites.google.com/site/mathem...antum-gematria




Keep searching my friend


Leo (aka Bini)