Gordon:
Thankyou. I was hoping you'd respond.
Whilst I am in tune with much of what you have to say, I cannot agree
that my claims re 37 'are very much overblown.' - as though I were
basing my thesis on its radix-dependent properties alone. Strangely, you
have failed to comment on the remarkable absolute features of this
number, and its companion, 91. Was this an oversight?
But in respect of what you have addressed, in a denary environment -
which, after all, is the standard for the majority of the world's
citizens - 37 and many of its multiples display features of rare
interest - and to a degree that as far as I am aware is bettered by no
other. These are matters, therefore, that are well within the grasp of
numerate people around the globe.
All things considered, I believe I have established the fact that 37 has
the highest profile of all numbers - with 91, a close second! The
additional fact that both numbers are found associated with triangular
structures in the first eight Hebrew words of Genesis cannot, in my
view, be lightly shrugged off - particularly when 666 (itself a
triangular multiple of 37!) is explicitly given (Rv.13:18) in the
context of, (a) the promise of wisdom, and (b) the application of
gematria.
Gordon, I hope you will now feel inclined to read the whole of what I
have written, and perhaps comment further.
Regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
gordon brown wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > This statement is supported by a comprehensive body of evidence,
> > recently-assembled under the heading, "The Lamp: a role for numerical
> > coincidence in the pursuit of truth." The page address is
> >
> > http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
>
> Vernon,
>
> Your claims for certain properties of the number 37 being special are very
> much overblown. An analysis of why these properties hold shows that many
> of them hold for other numbers as well.
>
> Many of them hold simply because 37 is a divisor of 999 and would also
> hold for any other divisor of 999. (999 has eight divisors in all.) For
> example, one gets a cyclic permutation of the digits of a 3-digit number
> by multiplying it by 10 and then subtracting 999 times the first digit. So
> the resulting number is divisible by whatever factor of 999 divides the
> original number. Adding clusters of three digits is something like
> "casting out nines" except it is casting out 999's (hence casting out any
> divisor of 999). Likewise, your observations on sums of cubes would hold
> for any divisor of 999, not just 37.
>
> Many of your observations about repeating decimals are valid because you
> are computing the reciprocal of a factor of 999,999. If ab=999,999, then
> the repeated sequence in the decimal expansion of 1/a will be b. If a is
> not divisible by 37, then b will be.
>
> Any odd number not divisible by 5 will divide some number all of whose
> digits are 9's. Thus you can get the same sort of properties for these
> numbers but with clusters of some other number of digits and cubes
> replaced by some other powers. As for numbers divisible by 2 or 5, you can
> get the same sort of properties if you are willing to replace base 10 by
> some base that is relatively prime to the number in question.
>
> One should not assume that just because he sees some fascinating
> mathematical property associated with a particular number, it must be a
> special property of that number only. A more general analysis of the
> situation using algebra may reveal other numbers with the same property.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 16:59:09 EST