So - the fact that we use Base 10 math is "evidence" for god, somehow?

How about all the cultures which use Base 5 math? Many have been shown to exist ...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

How about civilizations which developed using Base 20?

Some sources mention the use of an abacus called a nepohualtzintzin in ancient Mayan culture. This Mesoamerican abacus used a 5-digit base-20 system.[22] The word Nepohualtzintzin comes from the Nahuatl and it is formed by the roots; Ne - personal -; pohual or pohualli - the account -; and tzintzin - small similar elements. And its complete meaning is taken as: counting with small similar elements by somebody.

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

Do they not know god? Is this the real reason why missionaries were sent to Africa and to Central America?

It has been pointed out already that we most likely use Base 10 because of the utility of counting the fingers on both hands - some societies developed only counting on one hand at a time, generating a Base 5 system; others counted fingers and toes, leading to Base 20.

Of course, all your assertions that god is demonstrated via Base 10 are ludicrous in the extreme when you look at the history of one of the longer-running successful math systems; the one which gives us 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, and 360 degrees in a circle.

Sexagesimal (base 60) is a numeral system with sixty as its base. It originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 3rd millennium BC, it was passed down to the ancient Babylonians, and it is still used — in a modified form — for measuring time, angles, and the geographic coordinates that are angles.

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

One more note to continue a subtopic recently dealt with. I have discussed how it's almost organic to find the 13 primes under 42 in the 177719-digit reported PRP of Weisstein obtained by concatenating the numbers from 1 to 37765 in descending order. I had forgotten that also 177719=43*4133. My guess is that it will take a major contortion to draw out the next prime, 47, but we'll see. Incidentally, if anyone wants to check, I'm pretty sure the sum of the digits of the entire long number is 723493, which happens to be prime (This is really no big deal).

To the dude in Afghanistan: I'm not discussing the extra-mathematical context I see for the mathematical coincidences I know of, aside from some note of the timing and means of discovery, at least until I've more carefully laid out what they are. You seem to be having more of a gut reaction to what I'm saying than one that depends on a careful reading. The fact of the matter is that this quest of mine began--at the very beginning 5 years ago--with a coincidence concerning 365.25. Here's a fact you may not know: 361 is 19^2 and the basis for the Baha'i calendar (I am not Baha'i, so please don't anyone make that assumption, not that it would automatically be a bad thing), and the moon's phases occur on the same dates with a (roughly) 19 year period. That much said, I'm going back to first sending Darkchilde a PM and then ONLY concerning myself with compiling and arranging coincidences in an orderly fashion.

Note: I originally had 'day of the week' in place of 'dates'. At any rate, the Hebrew calendar is based upon the 19-year cycle, a fact I actually only just learned myself.

Not to mention the piraha tribe who just have the words, 'one', 'two' and 'many'. Obviously, they missed the memo.

t'intertubez work off 0, 1 and some rules of order. What's special about any other base, i wonder.

newolder wrote:t'intertubez work off 0, 1 and some rules of order. What's special about any other base, i wonder.

Well, you know what they say:

There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

i recall a poster from rdfdays, motherteresa, who elucidated signed binary to increase the scope enormously.

Here's a question that seems to me to address recent detractors: What does a lingua franca do, how does one arise, what's its level of significance as compared to the alternatives (in a given place and at a given time), and how does this question relate the base-10 numeration system to others (in use, in the past or elsewhere, and potential ones)? I'm not ignoring other systems, but they aren't as relevant to the discussion as they seem to some in my opinion. The world is globalized around the base 10 (for those not involved in nitty-gritty computer science, and even these people have to 'go outside' sometimes), and treating base 10 as a choice we've made doesn't change the fact that we have made it. While you can imagine a world in which these coincidences would likely have never come to light, it has no relationship (right now, unless you're writing some kind of plausible fiction about other worlds) to our reality.

base 10 is dull, monkey maths. ask a cephalopod or a reef of coral.

Someone wrote:Here's a question that seems to me to address recent detractors: What does a lingua franca do, how does one arise, what's its level of significance as compared to the alternatives (in a given place and at a given time), and how does this question relate the base-10 numeration system to others (in use, in the past or elsewhere, and potential ones)? I'm not ignoring other systems, but they aren't as relevant to the discussion as they seem to some in my opinion. The world is globalized around the base 10 (for those not involved in nitty-gritty computer science, and even these people have to 'go outside' sometimes), and treating base 10 as a choice we've made doesn't change the fact that we have made it. While you can imagine a world in which these coincidences would likely have never come to light, it has no relationship (right now, unless you're writing some kind of plausible fiction about other worlds) to our reality.

A moment ago it was God's choice to use base 10, and now it's ours? Which is it?

Both, but I'm absolutely not going to continue with this matter of the context of the coincidences on this thread until I've clarified what the coincidences are first; and, if I do after that, I probably won't do it on this particular thread.

Someone wrote:Both, but I'm absolutely not going to continue with this matter of the context of the coincidences on this thread until I've clarified what the coincidences are first; and, if I do after that, I probably won't do it on this particular thread.

Thanks for clarifying.

newolder wrote:i recall a poster from rdfdays, motherteresa, who elucidated signed binary to increase the scope enormously.

When I count on my fingers, I use binary.

One of the many very useful things my father taught me ...

Weaver wrote:

newolder wrote:i recall a poster from rdfdays, motherteresa, who elucidated signed binary to increase the scope enormously.

When I count on my fingers, I use binary.

One of the many very useful things my father taught me ...

Fine, you spend as much time as you like trying to change the global lingua franca. Right now, it is what it is.

Now, since my material has been doubly ghettoized; I'd ask that people get together in PM and work on the question of whether or not the coincidences I will be recapitulating 1) are true, 2) are mathematically significant, and 3) have any larger significance, in that order. Presumably, the content I present is that which you should be trying to debunk and not some sloppy estimate of what that content is or something else altogether.

Who needs to get together in PMs to get a consensus on what we've all been telling you already?

The answers to your questions are
1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

Pretty simple.

Actually, Weaver, you're the first person to tell me my mathematical observations aren't even true (here or elsewhere). You must be a real math whiz to beat out everyone else, but I think I can handle it if you give me ONE EXAMPLE of a mathematical statement I've made that's false and how you know it to be so.

The world is globalized around the base 10 (for those not involved in nitty-gritty computer science, and even these people have to 'go outside' sometimes), and treating base 10 as a choice we've made doesn't change the fact that we have made it.

teh werld iz not like u seem to think it iz like.

I'm asking that you try to build a real argument, to the extent you can, not to simply agree amongst yourselves. If you're approach is to be simply dismissive, you are in effect trolling by the presumable standards of this website.

Someone wrote:

palindnilap wrote:

Occam's Laser wrote:So what? "Therefore, God exists?" Good luck with that.

It makes abundantly clear that God created the digital base 10.

Actually, that's not far off from the truth. Clearly, though, from a mathematical perspective, nobody created the base 10. It would be fair to say that if we define 'God' accurately, then God chose the base ten to relate this part of our reality to us. My estimation of the accurate definition of 'God' is far off from any generally accepted definition; but the confounding nature of the power of whatever entity is responsible for externally manipulating events in our world--plus a desire to be diplomatic toward all people--leads me to argue that if it seems to be a dodo bird, then if we don't know a better word for it call it a dodo for now, but remind people that the real dodo is almost certainly nowhere to be found.

Now you might be able to put your intuitions to test. If you repeated your investigations using a different base, say 14, do you expect that you would find less coincidences, about as many, or more ?

newolder wrote:

The world is globalized around the base 10 (for those not involved in nitty-gritty computer science, and even these people have to 'go outside' sometimes), and treating base 10 as a choice we've made doesn't change the fact that we have made it.

teh werld iz not like u seem to think it iz like.

Please describe how it seems I think the world iz.

What are you even asserting in the first place? That's there's some kind of 'bible code' in large prime numbers?

You keep referring to 'coincidences' - in other words repeating numeric patterns?