Magical sequence in numbers

a reply to: Guyfriday

doesn't show proof that there are twice as many even numbers than odd.

yes, because there aren't.

Add: As soon as you add 3+3 or 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333+33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

doesn't matter for your claim, because as soon as you unmap into infinity, all the other odd numbers pop into existence in between. In fact, the discrepancy between the ratio of odd and even numbers is always alternating by two, not doubling.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

So your saying that there are only two types of numbers; odd and even? Complex numbers are expressed with a built in imaginative segment to it. How can this be since your statement is that there are only two numbers.

So your assertion is that there are:
Odd numbers
Even numbers
Numbers that include an imaginative element to them.

Doesn't that mean that there are in fact three types of numbers, as I stated; odd, even, and odd/even ( or in your system numbers that exist outside of normal reality, or "imaginative")

Just because you don't like what I stated doesn't mean that I'm not right. You don't have to answer that, but if you feel that you must refute my claim then focus on explaining away the existence of complex numbers in the two dimensional mathematics system your talking about when your also accepting the existence of complex numbers?

a reply to: Guyfriday

o your saying that there are only two types of numbers; odd and even?

No I am not saying/writing this !?

Doesn't that mean that there are in fact three types of numbers, as I stated; odd, even, and odd/even ( or in your system numbers that exist outside of normal reality, or "imaginative")

These are your "magical secret" numbers duh! I wrote this yesterday already but you didn't recognize the term even.

Just because you don't like what I stated doesn't mean that I'm not right. You don't have to answer that, but if you feel that you must refute my claim then focus on explaining away the existence of complex numbers in the two dimensional mathematics system your talking about when your also accepting the existence of complex numbers?

It's not about not liking your statements. Do you think a math teacher gives a student bad grades for "not liking the answer" or because it's false?

I challenge you to go at Fermats last sentence if you're so above everyone else in math. Should be a cake walk for you.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You mean this bit; "You forgot imaginary numbers, that make up the third dimension.
Numbers are words and we learn the relationship between them, literally."

It wasn't that I didn't understand them, but rather that the statement came off as being a sarcastic remark. Sorry if I miss understood your intent.

If I understand what Fermat's Last Theory is, the answer is no. If you take a cube and remove any of it, then you no longer have a cube. In Plato's discussions of the forms, a cube is a prefect shape and as such cutting into it will not make a two cubes, but only destroy the shape of the cube. Even if it was possible to cut a cube into two cubes, it would only go to show that the first item cut was never a true cube.

I know you are looking at dividing the cube of a number in half in an attempt to have to cubes (or would that be fourths?) of the original number, but philosophically speaking, which is how I interpret Fermat's statement, you first have to understand Plato's realms of perfect forms.

In other words;
"From the perspective of Plato's forms, if you are able to cut the perfect form, then that form was not perfect in the first place. on the other hand if you are talking about this numerically, then that would also be no, since dividing a number (even a cubed one) would not create more of that thing only smaller pieces of it."

As to your last tid-bits:
Yes sadly sometimes a student will fail if the answer is not to the teachers liking, even if the answer is correct. Personal bias creeps into everything these days. Even College Professors will have a bit of personal bias if their grading.

I never stated that I was better at math then anyone else, but rather only asserted that there is more to mathematics then the typical two dimensional system of odd and even numbers allows for. Even you admit this fact about mathematics.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
As to your last tid-bits:
Yes sadly sometimes a student will fail if the answer is not to the teachers liking, even if the answer is correct. Personal bias creeps into everything these days. Even College Professors will have a bit of personal bias if their grading.

We talk about math. Let's stay on topic and not stray to classes where the correct answer is somehow dependent on a viewpoint. When a math teacher strikes out a wrong answer/result, it's not because he does not like the answer, it's because math rules make it false.

I never stated that I was better at math then anyone else, but rather only asserted that there is more to mathematics then the typical two dimensional system of odd and even numbers allows for. Even you admit this fact about mathematics.

You never stated that, yet you talk about "magic" and "secret" numbers like the rest of the world doesn't understand math. Math is not something that changes it's rules, it's founded on these rules and if you ever discover a discrepancy, like you acted, by all means publish it.

I explained to you that your third dimension you think is "magic" and "secret", spawns from imaginary numbers (2nd) and is the domain of complex numbers. You never used these words before that points towards you being unaware of them.

You stuck on negative and positive and odd and even and the "next" dimension but you never wrote about imaginary or complex numbers. Google fu much?

If I understand what Fermat's Last Theory is, the answer is no. If you take a cube and remove any of it, then you no longer have a cube.

lol quoted for eternity, hilarious. Google some more and then let's talk again who's not understanding Fermat's last sentence/theorem and what it implies.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Never once (until now) did I use the idea of magic in any of my arguments here. I stated that there are three types of numbers. I never said secret I stated 'hidden" numbers.

If you wish to say that I don't know that's fine, but don't toss concepts at me and pretend that I said them. I assert that in order for mathematics to work properly it should be done in a three dimensional space. What we are doing with the notion of odd/even numbers is looking at shadows and discussing the full shape of the object making the shadow.

You discussed the inclusion of complex numbers into this thread, which does exactly as I said; "It's the third set of numbers, the odd/even ones that is missing."

Finally I wasn't the one who had brought in negative integers into this discussion.

I'm glad you like the bit about Fermat's Last Theory.
From: britannica.com

In 1637 the French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in his copy of the Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria (c. 250 CE), “It is impossible for a cube to be a sum of two cubes, a fourth power to be a sum of two fourth powers, or in general for any number that is a power greater than the second to be the sum of two like powers. I have discovered a truly remarkable proof [of this theorem], but this margin is too small to contain it.”

Same source page and article:

The English mathematician Andrew Wiles (who had been interested in the theorem since the age of 10) presented a proof of the Shimura-Taniyama-Weil conjecture in 1993. An error was found in this proof, however, but, with help from his former student Richard Taylor, Wiles finally devised a proof of Fermat’s last theorem, which was published in 1995 in the journal Annals of Mathematics. That centuries had passed without a proof had led many mathematicians to suspect that Fermat was mistaken in thinking he actually had a proof.

So someone had already solved it. This was why I looked at it as a philosophic statement rather than a mathematical one.

a reply to: Guyfriday

Never once (until now) did I use the idea of magic in any of my arguments here.

Indeed this is my shortcoming, I confused the word "mystery" and "magic" from memory about yesterday. I apologize about that.

imaginary and complex number's aren't a mystery though.

So someone had already solved it. This was why I looked at it as a philosophic statement rather than a mathematical one.

I asked YOU to try to prove it, not hit google to see if it has been already. You don't convince me you know a lot about math.

Until I used certain terms, you described them as "mystery" and "secret" numbers. That says it all.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Again I never said secret, and until the imaginary numbers are reveled they stand as a mystery. since an entire class of numbers are missing, those numbers are a mystery.

I also already stated;
"I never stated that I was better at math then anyone else, but rather only asserted that there is more to mathematics then the typical two dimensional system of odd and even numbers allows for."

I will always call the missing number set odd/even numbers since until we know what they are they remain a mystery. You want to call them "Complex Numbers" because that is what the convention uses. Do you feel ok with using numbers that are as flexible in meaning as to say that an imaginary segment exists with the number? Shouldn't you want to find out how these numbers function?

I'm not sure why my understanding of Platonic philosophy confuses you. Here figure this out, the answer is very simple;

"You and another person are standing one meter from each other. Both of you are looking at the perfect shape of a square. You are standing in a position that highlights the square shape of the form, and the other person in looking at it from a 90 degree angle from you. What does the other person see?"

248751
487512
751248
to make something dual you replicate,
double numbers up to make them dual

when you double up any number outside multiples of 3 you get the same sequence appearing.

369 are outside duality, they are three

when the codes are split into three 24/87/51 =6/6/6 or 75/12/48 =3/3/3

the sequences starts on one of six numbers and then the sequence repeats.

3s and 6s govern those numbers, when the sequence is split into 2 the numbers add to 9

all the numbers in the sequence add to 27= 9

now show me where this magical sequence is spoke about, because there is no doubt its there.

im no mathematician so dont know what im looking for.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ahaduahaz

very cool thread btw, im not that into maths, well i never used to be but tend to know every letters numeral value these days. but as i was saying about this sequence which is in your thread but you dont point out significance with it.

875124875124875124 ect get when you double up all numbers outside x3,

six digits repeated constantly when you double up a number

124875 six different ways but always the same order 248751
3/3/3 or 6/6/6

and all tied up with the number 9
3+3+3=9 6+6+6=18=9 1+2+4+8+7+5=27=9 (1+2+4= 7; 8+7+5=20=2 7+2=9)

cheers