Please read the very bottom of this post and then either digest the first page's mathematical content and comment if you like or leave.

1) You haven't shown that any of these coincidences are surprising - only that they exist.
2) You haven't shown any evidence that these coincidences are possible because of any outside communication.
3) You haven't demonstrated that the only or even most likely reason for these coincidences is due to some sort of outside communication.

All you've said so far is that within the infinite set of numbers there are some which are similar to others, particulary when manipulated with math, therefore super-beings from outer space.

Please remove whatever that is from my rectum, Weaver.

Someone wrote:Please remove whatever that is from my rectum, Weaver.

What????

Someone wrote:I've realized I did do an okay job of presenting the mathematics earlier, and so I will be requiring anyone who wishes to engage me on the topic to demonstrate an understanding of the first page of this thread.

I understood the first page of this topic - and I did so by assuming your mathematics was correct.

Someone wrote:This currently does not include Thwoth. On a relevant note, it's recently been discovered that passing electricity through a certain part of the brain in one direction makes people better at math and in the other makes them worse, but please don't take this as an insult (because it's just a thought).

Hold on while I stick a battery in my ear.... I hope I picked the right one....


....ah, that's better, 42, but I think I'm getting Russian short-wave now.

Someone wrote:I made one mistake (in an example of base-conversion arithmetic where I did something in my head, not in any of my reported coincidences) when I said 111 in base 10 is the same as 11111 in base 3.

Never mind, its the phenomena of 'reported coincidences' we're interested in, not the actual numbers themselves. Did you know there are 42 letters in this sentence?

Someone wrote:It's a peculiar error, but not relevant..

Well nobody is perfect are they?

Someone wrote:At any rate, I'm expecting to not find anybody I feel worthy of talking to on this particular topic if I'm to use history as a guide.

In that case you need to address the second paragraph of my post here, and justify that remark.

Someone wrote:I'm inclined to ask a question in human systems theory (the question being whether the time has come to treat the abstract question of optimizing all human behavior as approachable from a scientific perspective) when I re-engage. Ta-ta.

What would 'optimising all human behaviour' actual entail?

Okay. Closed. Unless and until the understanding of the first page is demonstrated in intrinsically mathematical ways by someone, I'm done with this thread. Saying that you assumed they are true is missing the point, in my opinion, and it's my opinion that counts in whether and how I discuss things.

Gibberish, blather, assertion, victory declaration.

OK, I'm convinced - you must be onto something remarkable. See you in Oslo.

OH, almost forgot - here's mathematical proof that I understand what you were saying:

Consider the three following numbers - 573928559827343, 207567356097286 and 230579756382087.

All three are fifteen-digit numbers, and all three have a 5 as the central digit. 3 times 5 equals 15!
I have five fingers on each hand. If I want to count on my toes as well, I can really only use one foot - I have to stand on the other one. Therefore base 15 is an appropriate counting system.
In addition, there are primitive cultures which use base-5 math. Since the primitive people are closer to nature and to their "roots", and shielded from modern electro-magnetic variations, they are more succeptible to weak influences from the Universe.

This is absolutely conclusive evidence that David Icke was right, and we are being controlled by lizards from Vega.


How's that?

Someone wrote:Okay. Closed. Unless and until the understanding of the first page is demonstrated in intrinsically mathematical ways by someone, I'm done with this thread. Saying that you assumed they are true is missing the point, in my opinion, and it's my opinion that counts in whether and how I discuss things.

What you discover is interesting - that I grant you. Demonstrating it coherently is another thing, and linking it to a verifiable set of hypotheses and conclusions is another thing entirely. Please read the second paragraph of that earlier post of mine, and then perhaps in the interests of honest discourse you might respond to the points made in the rest of it?

Please send money first. I'm homeless in a day, because of how I went about my resocialization while living in the house of someone 79-years old who has always preferred to be alone. Otherwise, my getting a place and then moving to where I want to be (See profile) will hinge on my selling a large portion of a collection of books that would list at around $40000 for much less (and doing so gradually while homeless) and I really don't want to part with them. I will PM my name to you in the event you might actually consider it. Please note that I'm quite aware of the difficulties of which you speak. I'm glad you find the material interesting, and I have no qualms about the need to organize and contextualize it reasonably well. However, it has not been my desire to monopolize the whole subject area and place my other interests in the background while doing so. To me, the fundamental issue has been the insistence that my field observations and research have been treated dismissively by people like Weaver and rhetorically by people like yourself. If I were sending the first images ever seen of the geysers at Yellowstone over the internet and all I got back was "Definitely photoshopped" and "Now, you explain the geology your own self" (even if I could), my reaction would be justifiably similar.

On a side note, I was contemplating the significance of the facts that 'sentence' and 'question' and 'letter' and 'symbol' each have the same number of letters. Thanks for giving me something entirely useless to think about while walking back from the store.

Someone,

My own view is that you should prioritise sorting out your personal circumstances. The topic can surely wait until you are in a position to give it a little more head room and then we can get stuck into finding a way to explain ourselves more effectively.

All the best,
THWOTH

I absolutely concur - and apologize for mocking you. I didn't realize the total situation, and what I said was inappropriate.

Take the time you need to get things straight, then if and when you can we can pick this all back up again - if you're still interested.

Someone, any number system is going to have patterns in it that you will call "coincidences". They are not. They are just patterns that can be found in a number system. You are doing the equivalent of saying "atoms have electrons, they fill out orbital shells in a numeric pattern. That's amazing, therefore god."

[edit] And yes, deal with your personal circumstances first. Return to this thread when ready. Cheers [/edit]

When ready IF THERE IS SOMEBODY DEMONSTRATING COMPETENT COMPREHENSION OF THE FiRST PAGE (and I also still feel like it).

DanDare wrote:Someone, any number system is going to have patterns in it that you will call "coincidences". They are not. They are just patterns that can be found in a number system. You are doing the equivalent of saying "atoms have electrons, they fill out orbital shells in a numeric pattern. That's amazing, therefore god."

[edit] And yes, deal with your personal circumstances first. Return to this thread when ready. Cheers [/edit]

I heartily concur!

Someone wrote:Okay. Closed. Unless and until the understanding of the first page is demonstrated in intrinsically mathematical ways by someone, I'm done with this thread. Saying that you assumed they are true is missing the point, in my opinion, and it's my opinion that counts in whether and how I discuss things.

If you didn't understand the first page, why did you make the opening post?

(You're "someone". You inadvertently referred to your own account ID. Now that's either an amazing coincidence, or a Freudian slip.)

When ready IF THERE IS SOMEBODY DEMONSTRATING COMPETENT COMPREHENSION OF THE FiRST PAGE (and I also still feel like it).

That's better.

I understand you are under considerable pressure due to personal circumstances, but that doesn't entitle you to keep up the same condescending attitude in these two referenced posts.

Hahaha.

If I recall correctly, you claim A) to be a mathematician and B) that nothing I've said makes sense. Is it not condescending if you are really a mathematician to give no detail of my being incorrect? Surely you can find an example of mathematical claims I have made that are false (one which I haven't corrected myself). Set aside the interpretation of them until you either do so or agree they're all correct and show some level of comprehension of them.

What I've done in compiling the list I did was provide evidence that I have grounds for regarding the coincidences as surprising, though, granted, the listing is neither organized and presented for maximal comprehension nor backed up by specifying statistical argument for their being 'surprising'. Perhaps it is my responsibility to take these matters on, but if it is I guess I'm just going to be irresponsible until I actually have some evidence I'm communicating with at least one relevantly competent person who is non-dismissive.