I don't doubt
James the Lesser and
e-nonymous are the same person (if I remember correctly James was temporarily banned)...because when
I was temporarily banned, e-nonymous contacted me told me who he was, he is James the lesser, he also told me how to mask your IP address.
Either way, I don't think he needs the "other name anymore"
and his support of your equally flawed theory is annoying.
First things first let's get back on a civilized path and to do that we need to settle grievances.
My grievance with you is you are "discriminatory" against me, you keep saying EVERYONE thinks I'm block-headed and know nothing.
My other grievance is you believe a flawed theory, that you ALSO have not worked. out.
So I propose a final solution.
I've already broken down into steps why MY way is correct.
Now do yours in the same way...why is YOUR way correct?
There are also NOT 59 distinct units in Babylonian.
They compile them like the Romans did, and as you know the Romans only have I,V,X,L,C,D,M and such as their numbers...they don't have II,III,IIII
(Romans only added IV is a medieval innovation).
Now I still can't figure WHAT you are exactly doing, other than adding an extra power (60^2) which is incorrect. That's ALL you have done
incorrectly really.
So now draw out why you think 666 = 6(60^2) + 6(60^1) + 6(60^0) = X
My way seems to be what I'm seeking, which is a decimal representation of 666 (being that 666 is in babylonian).
Your way seems to be taking the 6,6,6 of 666 and attributing a power to them respective to their place in the decimal system...while still using the
babylonian 60^x system.
That's why I feel you are wrong...now do explain how you AREN'T.
If you can't explain it, then your link is wrong too, because I'm going completely off of the acredited college page...which I feel you haven't
looked at much as I've not given your page much look.
Because as you can see....to get 666 in babylonian, you'd have to write out a seires of numbers correct?
Now maybe my labeling THAT as "decimal" is wrong, but my process is not, and that's what matters.
What matters is in babylonian 666 is represented by 11,6.
Not written out 666, understand?
I'll reitterate, I have no clue what you are trying to do.
Because as I see it, to get 666 in our numbers, in babylonian, you'd have to go 11,6...hmmmm so maybe my definition is the only REAL problem (I still
think you're wrong in whatever you're talking about, but it may still be an irrelevant tangent).
Ok...let me try this reworking of definitions...666 is the number of the beast in decimals, but the beast is more or less being associated with
babylon.
So to convert 666 that is in decimals, to 666 as it would be written in babylonian figures. We get 11,6 Where 11 is in the (60^1) place, and 6 is in
the (60^0) place.
that 116, is a very important year (98-117 AD) if you want to be accurate historically because they aren't precisely sure.
So that's why I say you can't overlook this correlation of 116AD and 11,6 Babylonian numbers...get it now?
That's all, the reason I get so frustrated with you, is you are going off on some tangent, that also seems VERY IRRELEVANT.
Because I know I'm not wrong...you may not be either, maybe definition is the only problem stop bashing the math though.
Sincerely,
no signature