Gordon:
I find it strange that having quoted the first paragraph proper of my
email of 1 April you then fail to address the matters raised by it! Why
are you finding it so difficult to agree that the threefold geometries
of 37 and 91 are rather special? Am I deluded in believing this to be
so? A clear answer from you must be forthcoming if this exchange is to
make any headway!
But, returning to the radix-dependency issue, I suggest you are missing
the point when you seek to explain the denary properties of these
numbers. What really matters, surely, is that they give rise to some
extremely eye-catching objects! - and it is this feature, allied with
the unique geometries, that represents such a formidable combination!
Can you suggest a better extrabiblical basis on which to build a
self-authenticating text?
Finally, may I suggest that until you have studied all the data, and
assimilated their implications, you are hardly in a position to offer a
balanced view regarding its suitability as a tool of Christian
apologetics.
I look forward to hearing your comments - and, particularly, some
much-needed answers to my questions.
Regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
gordon brown wrote:
>
> Vernon,
>
> If you "cluster" a multiple of 999, you will get a multiple of 999, and so
> it is not surprising that you can find one that is exactly 999. Since 91
> divides 999,999 and is relatively prime to 999, the decimal expansion of
> its reciprocal has as its repeating sequence a multiple of 999 and fits
> the above remark about clustering.
>
> Most of the properties of 37 that you point out concern its relation to
> three-digit numbers and are also true for the other divisors of 999. If
> you look at four-digit numbers, you will find the same amazing properties
> of divisors of 9999. For five-digit numbers look at the divisors of 99999,
> etc. For any number ending in 1, 3, 7, or 9, there will be some n such
> that this number has such relations to n-digit numbers. Thus I don't see
> any advantage in trying to base Christian apologetics on the properties of
> these numbers, and it might be easier to get people to listen to valid
> apologetical arguments if they haven't previously been exposed to these.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > 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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 17:54:49 EDT