magicdragon2 ([info]magicdragon2) wrote,
@ 2006-02-08 12:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Excerpt from GENE515
This partly answers a question asked of me when I was 21 years old, by my doctoral thesis advisor Oliver G. Selfridge. When I say "Man" I am echoing and older text, and not excluding Woman.

Excerpt from GENE515

What is Man, that he may know Number? What is Number that it may be known by Man?

As we are mathematicians, we are in the image of our creator, The Mathematician, who has other attributes beyond our comprehension, and is Transfinite.

He freely gives us this world, and the cosmos beyond, and the flora and fauna over which to be stewards, and our fellow human beings to love, which is in the image of His love, which is transfinite.

We have free will, and for those of use who choose to be mathematicians, he gives us the integers as toys, in which is His book coded.

We play with those toys, some of us in solitude, some of us playing together. And when we put aside childish things, behold, we still have the gift of Number, and they are more than first we knew.

Eureka!, and Aha!, and knowing what Mozart meant when he said that he did not write music, but it was already there and he plucked it from thin air as it blew past. And what Ramanujan said was given him by a Goddess, And what Gauss could see as a child, and Riemann in the looking glass of Primes, and Galois by candlelight in the brief hours before his fatal duel.

Euclid, alone, has looked on beauty bare. But we mathematicians today are not alone, far from it, cradled in the same Web woven of Number, binary and octal and hex, decimal and alphanumeric, vector and raster, and more in cables, trunks, and as wifi in the very air about us.

By knowing Number more deeply, we more deeply know ourselves, and our Creator.

Every word begins and ends with the empty word; the empty word begins and ends with itself.



Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

(225 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Response from Tim Poston, Bangalore
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-09 01:22 am UTC (link)
Number is known by Man because it lives in Man.

It grows in Man.

We make small numbers as qualities of things,
modified by the things. Many languages give
"one" masculine and feminine forms
(un + un = deux ... une + une = trois?),
some do it for two and higher (um, dois / uma duas):
Indian languages often have different 1 and 2 for humans
and non-humans: in Russian the first few numbers
inflect as adjectives. The larger Russian numbers stand proud,
invariant, and take the genitive ("seven _o_f_ these things").
English doesn't inflect, except pronouns, but think of all
the thing-specific words for two: a brace of partridges,
a yoke of oxen, ...

Low numbers serve, high numbers reign, because they
become dominant _in_our_minds_. That's where they
live.

The things don't count, they simply act, and our
number logic fits their action -- to some extent.
Every theoretical number is odd or even, but does it
even make sense to ask the parity of the number of atoms in
the Sun? Of the gods in the Hindu pantheon? Of the ideas
in the Pentagon?

The Stuff out there does what we perceive as Number,
and even more importantly, what we perceive as Line.
(Euclid's bare beauty was in geometry, not number theory).

And Stuff creates us. We separate the Stuff into Things,
and count them, making new Things of Number.
"As we are mathematicians, we are in the image of our
creator", the Stuff out there. In one of the Stuff's many
images.

How many images?

Odd or even?

Don't ask.

Tim Poston
Bangalore

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Response from Tim Poston, Bangalore
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-09 01:25 am UTC (link)
A good Antitheomathematics, or pantheomathematics.

Actually, Euclid was a number theorist too. He gave the first known proof that there are an infinite number of primes.

Also, the Euclidean algorithm, also called Euclid's algorithm, is an algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor of two numbers a and b.

We don't know all his other number theory, as there were some Lost Books.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

polytheomathematics, Re: Response from Tim Poston - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-09 06:27 am UTC
Re: polytheomathematics, Re: Tim Poston - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-09 06:29 am UTC
Re: polytheomathematics, Re: Tim Poston - (Anonymous), 2006-02-17 06:37 am UTC
Re: polytheomathematics, Re: Tim Poston - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-17 05:04 pm UTC
Evolutionary Traces Of Grammar (part 1) - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-17 07:33 pm UTC
Evolutionary Traces Of Grammar (part 2) - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-17 07:34 pm UTC
Ludwig von Bertalanffy; Re: Tim Poston - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:02 am UTC
Boltzmann; Re: Response from Tim Poston, Bangalore - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:03 am UTC
Sir Harold Jeffreys; Re: Tim Poston, Bangalore - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:20 am UTC
Fran Lebowitz; Re: Response from Tim Poston, - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:26 am UTC
Mathematics is man's own handiwork - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:04 am UTC
Simeon Poisson: Life is good for only two things - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:32 am UTC
G. H. Hardy: mathematical reality lies outside us - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:20 am UTC
Look Dad, I did applied math!
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-09 06:40 pm UTC (link)
How to zip a region in the plane...
or ``Look Dad, I did applied math!''
by
Steve Bell


"... In 1979 I thought of mathematics as a huge blob
of platonic goop in outer space, and I believed that
before I could discover new mathematical truths I
would need to grapple and claw my way far out into the
blob before I would encounter unexplored territory.
Now, after twenty years of doing mathematical
research, I find that Mathematics is more like a
sponge than a blob. There are holes everywhere --- big
ones and little ones. If you think about mathematics
for any length of time, you might just jam your head
into one of them and look upon a beautiful vista that
no one has ever seen before. Good mathematicians are
more like worms than mountain climbers. Kerzman and
Stein showed me that there are new and beautiful
truths to discover about something as old and well
worn as the Cauchy integral formula...."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

John Sokol crstallizes, Re: Look Dad, I did applied math!
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-09 06:42 pm UTC (link)
I always felt mathematics was more like a
crystalline material.

Where there is a central "seed" and everything
starts to build off that.

Each layer builds from the preceding layers, rigidly
interlocking into the next.

But it's not a symmetrical, clean crystal, but an
irregular crystal like quartz, where there are
branches that take off in odd directions and areas
where we just can't fill in yet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: John Sokol crstallizes, Re: Look Dad, I did applied math! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-09 06:45 pm UTC
Mathematics may be likened to a large rock - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:22 am UTC
Louis J. Mordell: considering two miners - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 06:00 am UTC
Thomas Hobbes; Re: Look Dad, I did applied math! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:14 am UTC
Poincare; Re: Look Dad, I did applied math! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:07 am UTC
Cauchy; Re: Look Dad, I did applied math! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:52 am UTC
Copernicus; Re: Look Dad, I did applied math! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 04:10 am UTC
Goethe, Re: Copernicus - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 04:12 am UTC
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, From Wikipedia - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 04:14 am UTC
Brahmagupta: are you is a mathematician? - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:09 am UTC
Like the crest of a peacock: An old Indian saying - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:45 am UTC
an airplane would or would not fly? - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 08:37 am UTC
Mathematics is the most exact science - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:22 am UTC
God is a Physicist
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:10 pm UTC (link)
Dr. Christine Carmichael comments:

"Of course God likes Math. That's because He's actually a Physicist."
Others opine similarly.

"[my] central theme ... concerns what I call the Big Four questions of existence:
(1) Why are the laws of nature what they are?
(2) Why does the universe consist of the things it does?
(3) How did those things arise?
(4) How did the universe achieve its organisation?"

"[As we proceed] ... tentative answers to these questions begin to emerge - answers based on the physicist's conception of nature. The answers may be totally wrong, but I believe that physics is uniquely placed to provide them. It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion. Right or wrong, the fact that science has actually advanced to the point where what were formerly religious questions can be seriously tackled, itself indicates the far-reaching consequences of the new physics.

[Paul Davies, preface to his book "God and the New Physics", 1983]

Bas von Frassen:

"... once atoms had no colour, now they also have no shape, place or volume...There is a reason why metaphysics sounds so passe', so vieux-jeu today; for intellectually challenging perplexities and paradoxes it has been far surpassed by theoretical science. Do the concepts of the Trinity and the soul, haecceity, universals, prime matter, and potentiality baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-time, event horizons. EPR correlations and bootstrap models."

[Bas von Frassen, taken from Mary Midgley, "Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning", Routledge, 1992, p. 107, via Anthony O'Hear's "The Element of Fire: Science, Art and the Human World", (Routledge, 1988) from "Empiricism in the philosophy of science", in Images of Science, ed. P. Churchland and C.A. Hooker, University of Chicago Press, p. 258]

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Edgar Allan Poe; Re: God is a Physicist
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 04:46 am UTC (link)
Science! true daughter of Old Time thou art
Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.
Why prayest thou thus upon the poet's heart,
Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?
How should he love thee? or how deem thee wise,
Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering
To seek for treasure in the jewelled skies,
Albeit he soared with an undaunted wing?


Edgar Allan Poe
Sonnet-- To Science
1829

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Poe's algebra pun; Re: Edgar Allan Poe - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:06 am UTC
Rutherford; Re: God is a Physicist - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:05 am UTC
Mathematics is inadequate; Re: God is a Physicist - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:00 am UTC
Charles Sanders Peirce; Re: Mathematics is inadequate - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 04:06 am UTC
James Clerk Maxwell; Re: God is a Physicist - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:04 am UTC
Physics Professor & Math Professor joke - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 07:04 am UTC
Raising Money; Re: God is a Physicist - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:49 pm UTC
Maria Goeppert Mayer: Physics is puzzle solving (1) - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 08:12 am UTC
Maria Goppert-Mayer (2): Timescape br Greg Benford - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 08:13 am UTC
Heinlein; re: Timescape by Greg Benford - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:15 am UTC
Dirac: Mathematics is the tool - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:40 am UTC
Einstein: God doesn't care about mathematical difficulties - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:18 am UTC
Einstein: I assure you that mine are greater - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:20 am UTC
Creationist skeptical about "God is a Physicist"
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:16 pm UTC (link)
Don Batten, a Creationist, has a different slant on this.

Physicists' God-talk by Don Batten

"... Some well-known physicists in recent times have used language which, to many Christians, sounds as if these men have some sort of Christian faith, or are leaning in that direction. Some Christian people have thus been encouraged. Some writers in Christian magazines have encouraged this belief that the physicists are getting 'closer to God', even claiming that what they say authenticates the Bible. [For example, Hugh Ross, 'Cosmology's Holy Grail', Christianity Today, December 12, 1994, pp. 24-7.]"

"Albert Einstein once said, in reference to the mathematical orderliness of the universe, 'God does not play dice'. This was taken by many to mean that Einstein had some sort of faith in God. More recently, physicist and philosopher Paul Davies titled his book The Mind of God. Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize-winner, called his book about the Higgs boson fundamental atomic particle, The God Particle. George Smoot, the cosmologist, described finding fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation as like 'seeing God'. Stephen Hawking, the well-known English cosmologist, seemingly echoing the sentiments of such Christian intellectual giants as Isaac Newton, tells us that the aim of science is to know the 'mind of God'."

"Are these men being drawn towards faith in God through their physics/astronomy/cosmology? Not at all! Biographies of Einstein's life show that he had no personal faith in God. A quote from a book review published in Nature [Frank Tipler, 'Sophistry and Illusion', Nature, Vol.369, May 19, 1994, p. 198 (a review of the book The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion and the Search for God, by Kitty Ferguson, published by Bantam)] shows how we should not let statements such as those by Lederman, Smoot and Hawking mislead us":

"'Such statements seriously mislead the average person, who believes that the scientists are finding the personal God of traditional theology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lederman calls the Higgs boson the 'God Particle' because it is the most important particle in particle physics today; Smoot means that, when contemplating the cosmic radiation, he experiences a feeling of awe analogous to that of religious believers; and Hawking's phrase is shorthand for the Theory of Everything. All three physicists — like most physicists of this century — describe themselves as agnostics or atheists. They do not believe in a Person who created the Universe.' Likewise, Professor Davies does not believe in a personal creator-God either." [Professor Davies, now at the University of Adelaide, received in March 1995 the Templeton Prize for progress in religion, worth more than $A1.4 million. He abandoned conventional Christian beliefs as a teenager when the local vicar could not answer his questions about creation and the universe (The Australian, March 9, 1995, p. 1].

"Physicists tend to use religious terminology because it graphically expresses the religious/philosophical nature of their thoughts and the sense of almost religious reverence they feel about their subject. Like the 'liberal' theologians, they use the language of orthodox Christianity, but in using the words they do not mean what we may think they mean."

"Dr Geoffrey Burbidge, Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego, spoke flippantly of his colleagues rushing off to join 'the first church of Christ of the Big Bang' because of their 'evangelical fervour' for the 'big bang', not because he saw any genuine revival of Christianity in them." [Letter from Professor Burbidge dated January 31, 1995.]

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Smite, Smoot; Re: Creationist skeptical
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 04:49 am UTC (link)
George Smoot is not to be confused with U.S. Senator from Utah named Reed Owen Smoot (1862-1941), who is best known for a strongly protectionist tariff, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930; and for a fight against pornography, which led to the classic headline in many newspapers, "Smoot Smites Smut", and the verse [excerpt below]:

Ogden Nash (Invocation)


Senator Smoot is an institute

Not to be bribed with pelf;

He guards our homes from erotic tomes

By reading them all himself.

Smite, Smoot, smite for Ut.,

They're smuggling smut from Balt. to Butte!

Strongest and sternest

Of your s_x

Scatter the scoundrels

From Can. to Mex!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Galileo; Re: Creationist skeptical - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 03:46 am UTC
Galileo was no idiot - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 04:02 am UTC
Whitehead; Re: Creationist skeptical - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 03:47 am UTC
Bertrand Russell, Re: Whitehead - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:17 am UTC
Whitehead: more important interesting than true - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:28 am UTC
Martin Gardner; Re: Creationist skeptical - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 03:48 am UTC
Nobody since Newton; Whewell & "consilience", part 1 - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:43 am UTC
Whewell & "consilience", part 2 - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:45 am UTC
Whewell & "consilience", part 3 - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:47 am UTC
Newton: as a monster he was superb - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:01 am UTC
Newton: I recognize the lion by his paw - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:11 am UTC
Bourbaki, re: Newton and geometry as a Weapon - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:03 am UTC
God's Physics Experiment, by Kenneth Silber
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Kenneth Silber is a New York City-based writer focused on science, technology and economics. He weighs in (masses in?) as follows:

God's Physics Experiment, By Kenneth Silber

"Physicist Stephen M. Barr has fired the latest broadside in the contentious debate over what science tells us about the existence of God. His book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith presents a case that developments in physics and related fields give support to the idea of a cosmic designer and indeed fit well with the Judeo-Christian tradition."

"I have long followed the science-and-religion debate, and have been quite critical of arguments similar to Barr's. In particular, a 1999 article of mine in Reason magazine looked skeptically at claims that the laws of physics are 'fine tuned' for human existence. More recently, at TCS, I gave a generally favorable review to physicist Victor Stenger's skeptical book Has Science Found God? (I disagreed, however, with Stenger's view that science provides strong grounds for atheism.)"

"Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (University of Notre Dame Press) is the most impressive statement I have seen of the thesis that science has found indications of the divine. Barr, a professor of physics at the University of Delaware's Bartol Research Institute, presents a thought-provoking discussion that ranges across physics, cosmology and mathematics. He refrains from overblown claims of proof, instead asserting that scientific advances of the past century comport better with the expectations of religious believers than with those of scientific materialists. Barr also shows a willingness to grapple with skeptics' objections. The book can be read profitably for its discussions of various scientific topics, leaving aside whether one agrees with the overall argument."

"That argument, however, has serious flaws and limitations. For one thing, Barr sees evidence of design in the mathematical symmetries that physicists increasingly have discerned in the laws of nature. The special theory of relativity, for example, involves 'space-time rotation symmetry,' meaning the laws of physics and the speed of light look the same to all observers. But such symmetries arise from simplicity and indeed are seen by some physicists (such as Stenger) as signifying a lack of design. A universe that contained nothing but empty space would have perfect 'space rotation symmetry' and 'time translation symmetry.' Would that empty universe be indicative of design?"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Theologian & Mathematician; Re: God's Physics Experiment
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 07:10 am UTC (link)

Theologian: You mathematicians are blind.
Don't you know man is morethan just numbers?

Mathematician: You're right! ...(prolonged pause)... man is sets!

-- Snis Pilbor

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Thomas Jefferson & J. Robert Oppenheimer: algebra - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 08:05 am UTC
Helen Keller on mathematics - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 08:14 am UTC
God to a physicist [Gravity = Love]
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:28 pm UTC (link)
God to a physicist.

"I haven't been flamed yet - indeed had no feedback whatever! I'd be interested to learn of your comments ... Please mail from here ... As a physicist I regard there to be a binding force between all of existence - by binding I mean cooperating, such as the force of gravity."

"God is love! Szekely's translation of St John's Gospel from the original aramaic documents sourced from the Dead Sea Scrolls opens
'In the beginning was the Law and the Law was with God.'"

"Gravity is the fundamental force, a law of physics which binds all matter - it's a cooperating force always. In human terms we call it love."

"Electromagnetism and all the associated sub nuclear forces are different - these are forces which attract and repel. In this 3rd dimensional age*, we concetrate almost exclusively upon electromagnetism for our technology and our lives. We find our present times saturated with the resulting contrasts between the attracting and the repelling.
An examination of belief in God can benefit from analysis in terms of Laws of Physics. All religions lead us to the temptation to the worship of the personification of God, the beings who bring the Gravity/Love/Cooperating message rather than the worship/understanding/living of love itself in life...."

"The love-cooperation force is the father force from which holy spirit force flows. Holy spirit force I regard as a communicative force rather than a binding force - perhaps gravitational waves. So the first force is father force. Concentration upon this results from Buddhist meditation and finding the God father force in us. Even Jesus said 'worship the father, not me....'"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

universal laws; Re: God to a physicist [Gravity = Love]
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 05:11 am UTC (link)
What are the sciences but maps of universal laws;
and universal laws but channels of universal power;
and universal power but the outgoing of a supreme universal mind?

-- E. Thomson

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Love & Math; Re: [Gravity = Love] - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:50 am UTC
Mathematicians are like lovers - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 06:06 am UTC
David Hilbert, infinity, and creation
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:32 pm UTC (link)
Why I Believe God Exists
by William Lane Craig


"... David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” Therefore, since past events are not just ideas but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather, the universe at some point must have begun to exist. This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics...."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

World in a Grain of Sand; Re: Hilbert, infinity, creation
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 04:31 am UTC (link)
To see a World in a Grain of Sand.
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower.
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand.
And Eternity in an hour.

[William Blake's famous lines from his Auguries of Innocence, 1794]

Now, for an Eastern perspective:

Excerpt from:
Eternity in a grain of sand
by Manmohan Melville
Travel section
Deccan Herald

At every turn, Gokul has put up signs for its pilgrims. The signs are all over town – at temple entrances, on the walls and on lamp-posts.

One reads – "Lord Krishna played here." Another says - "Lord Krishna walked down this road."

However, my favourite was - "Lord Krishna ate sand here." Probably, this sign refers to one of the most beautiful (and mystical) stories of the Krishna legends.

The story goes that one day, Yashodara caught her mischievous child eating sand – as some children are known to do. A little vexed at the boy, the mother reprimanded him and tried to get him to spit out the sand. Cradling the child on her lap, she coaxed him to open his mouth. She peered into his mouth looking for the grains of sand. Imagine her surprise when, at that instant, the world around her melted away. Instead, she saw the entire universe spinning serenely -- within the child's open mouth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: David Hilbert, infinity, and creation - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:44 am UTC
David Hilbert: all the germs of generality - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:53 am UTC
Paul R. Halmos: the special case, the concrete example - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:55 am UTC
(a^n + b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists!
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Diderot, the French Encyclopedist, visited the Russian court, invited by the Empress. Amused by his witticisms, she told him that she has a mathematician who has mathematically proved God's existence and would demonstrate this in front of the whole court if desired so. Diderot agreed. So, to make a long story short, the great Euler advanced towards Diderot and in a tone of perfect conviction said:

"Monsieur, (a^n + b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0; Re: (a^n + b^n)/n = x, so God exists!
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Ed Gray corrects the anecdote:

"The mathematician in question is indeed Leonhard Euler, a Swiss mathematician who at the time [was] generally recognized as the world's leading mathematician. In the episode... Euler, tired of the ennui proffered by the atheist, went to the board and wrote":

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0; therefore God exists.

"As pointed out, the object of his ridicule had no clue as to the meaning of the equation(and probably no one else did either), since it was an equation developed by Euler himself."

[and one of my favorites -- JVP]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Song lyrics, Re: (a^n + b^n)/n = x, so God exists! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-10 07:43 pm UTC
Euler's my hero Re: e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0; - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:48 am UTC
great mathematicians such as Euler - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:34 am UTC
Euler: he is our master - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 06:55 am UTC
Fibonacci; Re: (a^n + b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists! - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:43 am UTC
more than Napoleon from the throne - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:35 am UTC
a^2 - b^2 versus p^2 - q^2 - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:51 am UTC
our kings do not know mathematics - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:16 am UTC
Pascal's Wager
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:48 pm UTC (link)
One should also recall Blaise Pascal [1623-1662], the great French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist. He was the inventor of the first mechanical adding machine, and co-developer (with Fermat) of modern probability theory.
He discovered a basic theorem of projective geometry ("Pascal's Theorem") when only 16 years old. He discovered the principle in fluid dynamics ("Pascal's Law") which states that a fluid transmits pressure equally in all directions.

In the context of this thread, he famously used and argument from Probability to support belief in the existence of God. One paraphrase is:

Pascal's Wager

(1) The expected utility of believing in God far outweighs the expected utility of not believing in God.

(2) Therefore, everyone has a good reason to believe in God.

I mean, dude, if you're wrong, what can you lose? Mon Dieu!

In reverse, my son's favorite quotation from Pascal is:

"The more I know about human beings, the more I love my dog."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Whitehead on History of thought & Mathematics
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 06:14 am UTC (link)
I will not go so far as to say that to construct a history of thought without profound study of the mathematical ideas of successive epochs is like omitting Hamlet from the play which is named after him. . . But it is certainly analogous to cutting out the part of Ophelia. This simile is singularly exact. For Ophelia is quite essential to the play, she is very charming-- and a little mad. Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) [English philosopher and mathematician]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Hermann Hesse: History, Math, Glass Bead Game - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 09:15 am UTC
Pascal: There are two types of mind ... - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:11 am UTC
Pascal: The last thing one knows when writing a book - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:03 am UTC
W. H. Auden on Pascal - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:05 am UTC
W. H. Auden book on Pascal - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:06 am UTC
Kurt Godel's Ontological Argument
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:52 pm UTC (link)
Also there is much to enjoy in:

Kurt Godel's Ontological Argument.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Calvin and Hobbes cartoon: math is ... a religion
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 07:38 am UTC (link)

The following is from a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon dated 3/6/91,
written and illustrated by Bill Watterson.

Calvin: You know, I don't think math is a science, I think it's a religion.

Hobbes: A religion?

Calvin: Yeah. All these equations are like miracles. You take two
numbers and when you add them, they magically become one NEW number!
No one can say how it happens. You either believe it or you don't.
[Pointing at his math book] This whole book is full of things that
have to be accepted on faith! It's a religion!

Hobbes: And in the public schools no less. Call a lawyer.

Calvin: [Looking at his homework] As a math atheist, I should be
excused from this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

man's purely logical faculties - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 07:46 am UTC
Pythagorus, and Hypatia
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 07:57 pm UTC (link)
And let's not forget the theomathematical cult of Pythagorus, and the history of Hypatia [370-415 AD], famous female mathematician and Neoplatonist, Librarian of Alexandria. She was murdered by a Christian mob. Now THAT's a severe case of bad reviews by a committee of referees which interferes with publishing one's proof...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Pythagorus, and Hypatia
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 06:02 am UTC (link)

Wasn't she stabbed to death with a stylus?


The mathematician who pursues his studies without clear views of this
matter, must often have the uncomfortable feeling that his paper and pencil
surpass him in intelligence.

- Mach, Ernst (1838-1916), in "The Economy of Science"
in J. R. Newman (ed.) The World of Mathematics

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Hypatia and her father Theon - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 05:24 am UTC
Sufis think that God is a musician
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 08:22 pm UTC (link)
Reality. Issue 63: Choosing Creativity, by Lynne and Steve Taylor

"... The Sufis think that God is a musician. He has the ear that can understand music. Because of that idea Sufis have gone deep into music themselves; because the best prayer can be through music. Music has no words in it -- it is pure sound. Language is a hindrance; pure sound goes without any vehicle. And God cannot understand any other language than the language of pure sound. That's why music can be understood by each and every one...."

The same authors also argue on their web pages:

God: musician and composer

God: designer and dresser

God: architect and builder

God: craftsperson

J.R.R. Tolkien gives a musical Creation Myth in "The Silmarillion" [--JVP]

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Einstein; Re: Sufis think that God is a musician
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 05:00 am UTC (link)
If I were not a physicist,
I would probably be a musician.
I often think in music.
I live my daydreams in music.
I see my life in terms of music. ...
I get most joy in life out of music.

On pg. 113 of ``What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,'' from p. 17 of the October 26, 1929 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. Einstein, Albert (March 14, 1879-April 18, 1955)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Frank Lloyd Wright; Re: God as architect/builder - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 03:50 am UTC
Freeman Dyson: the architecture has to be right - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:00 am UTC
sailors could heave better when singing his songs - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 08:59 am UTC
God is a chemist
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Bible Students Forum: Hell

"God is a chemist and the Universe is his Lab where he runs experiments; the human race is one of these experiments. He runs the Universe on the principle of righteousness. He is proving that his human creation can also live righteously. Even though they are not robots, but are free moral (righteous) agents. Sin is disobedience to God's righteous laws, and he doesn't make any unrighteous laws."

"Everything has a chemical composition and a formula, like H2O. Except "nicotine" which does not exist; the word came from the ambassor [ambassador -- JVP] of France living in Portugal bringing tobacco into France in 1540. His name was Nicot, so in France tobacco became 'nicotine....'"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: God is a chemist
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 08:40 pm UTC (link)
Critical Vision, by Juan Galis-Menendez

"God is a chemist, working in the research and development department of the universe's pharmaceutical section. If you're lucky, she'll give you a lollipop when you stop by."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

George Bernard Shaw; Re: God is a chemist - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 04:00 am UTC
god is a programmer and we are his code
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 08:45 pm UTC (link)
The Creator is a Programmer

"... I don't believe anyone on Earth has a 'personal relationship' with this creator. I don't believe this entity is sitting around watching and judging or tweaking his creations. Much like a watchmaker creates a watch and, when finished, ultimately winds it to let it tick, the Creator has created us, and he's off creating something else now, even though we continue to tick away. I do believe we were created in the form of this Creator, and he or she or it has lent us some of his or her or its tendencies. The primary (and perhaps only) tendency he or she or it has lent us is the ability to use reason. In short, god is a programmer and we are his code.

"Much like there is simple code in the world of Python, and it 'feels good', there is simple code in the 'real world' and it also feels good. I've built up a little repository of this code on my own, and I've been struggling to define it in simple terms. But at the heart of it, you can analyze this "code" using reason without invoking any faith. This code mainly revolves around two 'primitives'":

* Pain is bad.
* Death is worse.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: god is a programmer and we are his code
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 08:51 pm UTC (link)
Important Theosophical issues resolved...

... if God is a programmer.

Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life?
A: He could, if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step through all those variables.

Q: Why does God allow evil to happen?
A: God thought he eliminated evil in one of the earlier revs.

Q: Does God know everything?
A: He likes to think so, but he is often amazed to find out what goes on in the overnite job.

Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs?
A: If a critical error occurs, the system pages him automatically and he logs on from home to try to bring it up. Otherwise things can wait until tomorrow.

[more such jokes on web page]

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: god is a programmer and we are his code - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-02-10 08:54 pm UTC
fast women, fast algorithms; Re: god is a programmer - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:03 am UTC
Mathematics may transcend common sense - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-04 10:04 am UTC
joke about God and Physicists
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 08:48 pm UTC (link)
There's a joke about God and Physicists which begins:

Einstein, Heisenberg, and Tipler
by John Walker
9th August 1995


Einstein, Heisenberg, and Tipler, after equal invariant intervals in purgatory, find themselves before the Throne of God.

As a man, they exclaim, "What did I do to merit an eternity down (brrrrr) there"?

God thought for a moment; when you're omnipresent in spacetime there's no need for haste. He turned first to Einstein.

"Albert," he said, "you showed your species My creation in its most elegant form, law without Law. Then, inflamed by wartime passion, you urged the transformation of your discovery into a weapon of mass destruction."

Einstein shuffled his feet and nodded subtly. He resisted the temptation to stick his tongue out....

[remainder truncated, see web site]

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: joke about God and Physicists
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 04:43 am UTC (link)
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite.

-- Paul Dirac [1902-1984]

(Reply to this) (Parent)

If God is a Programmer, then He is Very Good...
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-10 09:00 pm UTC (link)
[excerpt from the Making Light blog,
April 21, 2004
Open thread 21
Posted by Teresa at 08:44 AM * 250 comments]


My fifteen-year-old son is a double major in Physics and Computer Science at a local university, getting an A average. Yesterday, while driving him from campus (15-year old in a dorm? no way!) he asked what good is Physics for Computer Science and vice versa.

I suggested the following, and wonder if you can comment:

(1) "The Matrix Theory" -- how can Physics experiments determine whether or not we exist in a simulation, instead of in "the real universe"?

(2) How can really good simulations cast light on physics hard or impossible for us to do (i.e. colliding black holes, looking inside quarks and gluons...)?

(3) How can software deal with the oceans of data from Big Science Physics projects, to find rare events in noisy measurements? (i.e. gravity wave detections, particle accelerator collisions in detectors to find new particles like the Higgs Boson)...

(4) How can Phyics develop technologies for future computer hardware (i.e. as Thomas J. Watson center at IBM does; Nanotechnology; Quantum Computing...)

(5) Fundamental Physics meets Fundamental Computer Science: what is the relation between Communications Theory's Entropy and Thermodynamics' Entropy? What happens to the information in an object that falls into a black hole which then evaporates?

He objected to (1): "Physics can't tell if we're in The Matrix."

I replied: "Yes, if the programmers got sloppy"

He suggested (agnostic though he is): "If God is a Programmer, then He is a Very Good Programmer."

(Reply to this)

"quantophrenia" and "metromania"
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-14 08:55 pm UTC (link)
Forrest Bishop comments, via direct email, also commenting on my quoting:
"physicists are notorious for taking history on faith."

And mathematics as well. I see my neologisms are unnecessary.
"Mathism", "mathematicism", and "psychomathology" are already covered by
"quantophrenia" and "metromania." It goes back to the recently
mentioned Pythagoras, the ancestor of special relativity.

1.4 The Pre-Socratics

"Man is prone to error and even folly, and therefore a history of
economic thought cannot confine itself to the growth and development of
economic truths. It must also treat influential error, that is, error
that unfortunately influenced later developments in the discipline. One
such thinker is the Greek philosopher Pythagoras of Samos (c.582–c.507
BC) who, two centuries after Hesiod, developed a school of thought
which held that the only significant reality is number. The world not only is
number, but each number even embodies moral qualities and other
abstractions. Thus justice, to Pythagoras and his followers, is the
number four, and other numbers consisted of various moral qualities. While
Pythagoras undoubtedly contributed to the development of Greek
mathematics, his number-mysticism could well have been characterized by the
twentieth century Harvard sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin as a seminal
example of "quantophrenia" and "metromania." It is scarce1y an
exaggeration to see in Pythagoras the embryo of the burgeoning and
overweeningly arrogant mathematical economics and econometrics of the
present day."

Forrest

I'd emailed him:

Forrest is correct in asserting that Einstein is not
the inventor/discoverer of much of what is attributed
to Einstein. Much credit belongs to William Sutherland,
Louis Bachelier, Wilhelm Wein, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri
Poincare'...

A good summary is:

"Lost in Einstein's Shadow"
Einstein gets the glory, but others were paving the way
Tony Rothman


"...The central fixture of Einstein lore is that the
lowly patent clerk conjured from pure thought not only
his theories but also the questions they answered. Not
quite: Einstein himself helped foster this myth (more
through carelessness than design, one suspects) by
being less than fastidious about providing references
in his papers..."

(Reply to this)

"quantophrenia" -- on vinyl
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-14 08:57 pm UTC (link)
"quantophrenia" -- wasn't that a album by The Who and Art Garfunkle, when Art was still a Math major?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: "quantophrenia" -- on vinyl
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 04:37 am UTC (link)
From Dr. Philip Vos Fellman

"Yes, it was an album by The Who, but Simon and
Garfunkel cut their first LP, Wednesday Morning 3 AM,
in 1964. Sounds of Silence was actually their second
LP."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Cryptic theomathematical verse from Turing
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-15 08:07 pm UTC (link)
Cryptic theomathematical verse from Turing

as quoted in:
CODE-BREAKER
The life and death of Alan Turing.
by JIM HOLT
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-02-06
Posted 2006-01-30

"Science is a Differential Equation.
Religion is a Boundary Condition."

-- Alan Mathison Turing

"Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
Rolling for aye through Space and Time
Harbour those Waves which somehow might
Play out God's wondrous pantomime."

-- Alan Mathison Turing

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Cryptic theomathematical verse from Turing
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 04:41 am UTC (link)

"Science" means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always successful. All the rest is literature.

Paul Valery, Moralities

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Christiaan Huygens on "science my religion" - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 10:01 pm UTC
Baby Got Math
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-20 05:15 pm UTC (link)
Baby Got Math: Seven-month-olds Show An Abstract Numerical Sense Before They Can Even Talk
Source: Duke University
Posted: February 20, 2006

Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that babies have an abstract numerical sense, as demonstrated by their ability to match the number of voices they hear to the number of faces they expect to see. This numerical perception across senses demonstrates that babies have a truly abstract sense of numerical concepts -- and not just one that is a function of a particular sense -- even before they learn to speak. Previous experiments on this topic have yielded conflicting and equivocal results, said the researchers.

The researchers, Kerry Jordan and Elizabeth Brannon of Duke University, published their findings the week of Feb. 13-17, 2006, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Jordan is a graduate student and Brannon is an assistant professor in Duke's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. The research was sponsored by The National Institute of Mental Health, The National Science Foundation and the John Merck Fund.

In their study, Jordan and Brannon used the same basic experimental design that they had previously used to demonstrate that monkeys show numerical perception across senses. In those experiments, the researchers, collaborating with colleagues at the Max Planck Society, presented the monkeys with the sound of two or three animals making a natural "coo" sound. At the same time they gave the monkeys a choice to look at video images of either two or three monkeys cooing. The researchers found that the monkeys overwhelmingly chose to look at video images that matched the number of monkeys they were hearing.

Similarly, in the study with seven-month-old infants, the Duke researchers presented the babies with the voices of two or three women saying "look." Simultaneously, the babies could choose between looking at video images of two or three women saying the word. As they had found with the monkeys, the researchers found that the babies spent significantly more time looking at the video image that matched the number of women talking. According to Brannon, similar experiments by other researchers had not shown definitive results because of problems in their design.

"First of all, they had used arbitrary stimuli such as a number of objects or sounds like drumbeats, rather than ecologically relevant stimuli. We don't know for sure this was a problem but it seems likely" said Brannon. "Also, those experiments presented the sounds successively and so the duration of the sound sequence was a potential problem." Finally, said Brannon, previous experiments used the same subjects for multiple trials, which meant that the subjects could have learned to associate such non-numerical factors as the length of a sequence of drumbeats or the intensity of sound with numerical size. In contrast, Jordan and Brannon gave each baby only a single trial, so that the babies had no opportunity to learn anything about the stimuli.

"As a result of our experiments, we conclude that the babies are showing an internal representation of 'two-ness' or 'three-ness' that is separate from sensory modalities and, thus, reflects an abstract internal process," said Brannon. "These results support the idea that there is a shared system between preverbal infants and nonverbal animals for representing numbers."

The researchers said that further studies will test both babies and monkeys on their perception of larger numbers, to further explore the details of their numerical abilities. They will also explore whether monkeys can explicitly match the number of a sequence of sounds and a number of objects using a touch screen task in which a monkey has to choose between two visual arrays. Such experiments, they said, will help determine the psychological importance of where monkeys and babies look in their numerical matching paradigm.

Such studies have broad implications for understanding the evolutionary origins of numerical ability and how that ability has developed in humans, they said.

(Reply to this)

Why there's no Nobel Prize in Mathematics
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-21 09:48 am UTC (link)
I was in a conversation once about why there was no Nobel prize in Mathematics. I said that Nobel resented Mittag-Leffler (Gosta Mittag-Leffler who founded and gave his name to the famous mathematical research institute in Djursholm, Sweden). I said maybe Mittag-Leffler had an affair with Nobel's wife, or something. The other conversationalist looked down his nose at me and said: "Gotcha! Nobel was never married. QED!"

Well be that as it may, the following is extracted from Torsten Carleman:

"Carleman, giving a memorial address after death of Mittag-Leffler in 1927, told anecdotes about him and the famous benefactor Alfred Nobel [G. Elfving, The history of mathematics in Finland 1828-1918, Helsinki, 1981, p. 81). When the latter [Nobel] was planning his prizes, he is said to have asked some mathematician":-

"'If I would establish a prize for Mathematics, is it likely that Mittag-Leffler would one day have it? - Yes, it is. - Well, then I won't do it.'"

I'll mention that I also heard that Mittag-Leffler was also an amateur astronomer, which is why there's no Nobel prize in Astronomy.

Well, several Nobel prizes are for deeply mathematical work, and several have been given for discoveries in Astronomy. But there has been no Nobel Prize in Literature awarded for blogging.

Yet.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Donald Kingsbury; Re: Why there's no Nobel Prize in Mathematics
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 05:22 am UTC (link)

Mathematics is the Queen of Science but she isn't very Pure;
she keeps having babies by handsome young upstarts and various frog princes.

-- Donald Kingsbury [In "Psychohistorical Crisis", 2001]

(Reply to this) (Parent)

George Carlin joke; Re: Nobel Prize in Mathematics - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:19 am UTC
Re: George Carlin joke; Re: Nobel Prize in Mathematics - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:21 am UTC
Re: George Carlin joke - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:26 am UTC
number pun; Re: George Carlin joke - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 06:28 am UTC
Prime with Shakespearean sonnet rhyme scheme
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-23 04:05 am UTC (link)
FIVE
TWO
FIVE
TWO

NINE
THREE
NINE
THREE

FOUR
SEVEN
FOUR
SEVEN

ONE
ONE!

52529393474711
(another Prime Pages' Curiosity)


The first-known prime with Shakespearean sonnet rhyme scheme
(ababcdcdefefgg).
[Post]

Prime Curios! © 1999-2006 (all rights reserved)

======



(Reply to this) (Thread)

Number poem by Jon Saxton; Re: Prime sonnet rhyme scheme
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 06:36 am UTC (link)

This poem was written by Jon Saxton (an author of math textbooks).

((12 + 144 + 20 + (3 * 4^(1/2))) / 7) + (5 * 11) = 9^2 + 0

Or for those who have trouble with the poem:

A Dozen, a Gross and a Score,
plus three times the square root of four,
divided by seven,
plus five times eleven,
equals nine squared and not a bit more.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Gospel of the Numbers in John
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-24 05:10 pm UTC (link)
GOSEPL OF THE NUMBERS IN JOHN
(Compressed King James Version, numbers less than 2 omitted)
[JOHN 1 through JOHN 5 in this posting; JOHN 6 through JOHN 21 in later postings]]

JOHN 2
On the third [3 is prime] day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there....
Now there were set six [6 is semiprime] waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty [20 is a 3-almost prime] or thirty [30 is a 3-almost prime]gallons apiece....
Jesus answered and said to them "Destroy this temple, and in three [3 is prime] days I will raise it up." Then the Jews said "It has taken forty-six [46 is semiprime] years to build this temple, and You raise it up in three [3 is prime] days?"

JOHN 3
Nicodemus said to him... "Can he enter a second [2 is prime] time into his mother's womb and be born?"

JOHN 4
It was about the sixth [6 is semiprime] hour.... "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' for you have five [5 is prime] husbands...." "Do you not say, 'There are still four [4 is semiprime] months and then comes the harvest?'"... So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay there with them; and he stayed there two [2 is prime] days.... Now after those two [2 is prime] days He departed from there and went to Galilee.... And they said to Him, "Yesterday at the seventh [7 is prime] hour the fever left him.... This again is the second [2 is prime] sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee.

JOHN 5
Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight [38 is semiprime] years.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

science and religion; Re: Gospel of the Numbers in John
[info]magicdragon2
2006-03-03 05:07 am UTC (link)

Those who speak of the incompatibility of science and religion either make science say that which it never said or make religion say that which it never taught.

-- Pope Pius XI

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium" [1941] ch. 13.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.

-- John Paul II, Pope (Karol Wojtyla)
[quoted in James Reston, Galileo, A Life, HarperCollins, NY, 1994, p 461.]

The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Wikipedia article on the Gospel According to John - [info]magicdragon2, 2006-03-03 05:55 pm UTC
Gospel of the Numbers in John, con'd, JOHN 6
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-24 10:41 pm UTC (link)
JOHN 6

Philip answered Him, "Two hundred [200 is 5-almost prime] denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may have a little." One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to Him, "There is a lad here who has five [5 is prime] barley loaves and two [2 is prime] small fish, but what are they among so many?" .... So the men sat down, in number about five thousand [5000 is 9-almost prime].... Therefore they gathered them up, and filled twelve [12 is 3-almost prime] baskets with fragments of the five [5 is prime] barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten.... So when they had rowed about three [3 is prime] or four [4 is semiprime] miles*, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near the boat; and they were afraid.

*Literally, twenty-five [25 is semiprime] or thirty [30 is 3-almost prime] stadia.

Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve [12 is 3-almost prime], and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Jusas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve [12 is 3-almost prime].

(Reply to this)

Gospel of the Numbers in John, con'd, JOHN 8
[info]magicdragon2
2006-02-25 01:20 am UTC (link)
JOHN 8

"It is also written in your law that the testimony of two [2 is prime] men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself...." Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty [50 is 3-almost prime] years old, and You have seen Abraham?"

JOHN 11

So, when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two [2 is prime] more days in the place where He was.... Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve [12 is 3-almost prime] hours in the day?".... So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four [4 is semiprime] days. Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two [2 is prime] miles* away....

*Literally, fifteen [15 is semiprime] stadia.

Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four [4 is semiprime] days...." Then six [6 is semiprime] days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead.... But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, who would betray Him, said, "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred [300 is 5-almost prime] denarii and given to the poor?"

JOHN 19

And Nicodemus, who first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred [100 is 4-almost prime] pounds.

JOHN 20

And she saw two [2 is prime] angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.... Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve [12 is 3-almost prime], was not with them when Jesus came....

JOHN 21

And after eight [8 is 3-almost prime] days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them.... But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from land, but about two hundred cubits [200 is 5-almost prime]), dragging the net with fish.... Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three [153 is 3-almost prime], and although there were so many the net was not broken.... This is now the third [3 is prime] time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.... He said to him the second [2 is prime] time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?".... He said to him the third [3 is prime] time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third [3 is prime] time, "Do you love Me?" ....

This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things, and we know his testimony is true. And there are many other things that Jesus did, which were they written one by one [in linear sequence, or in a 1x1 matrix?], I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written [a Cantor diagonalization proof of higher infinity?]. Amen.

(Reply to this)


(225 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…