PDA

View Full Version : Can you make a sentence which says: pi?

Relmuis
2006-Mar-25, 04:55 PM
This may seem like a thread for Off Topic Babbling, but I have put it in Conspiracy Theories for a reason, which will become apparent later on.

In this first post I will first describe a mathematical game, and then issue a challenge.

1. The mathematical game.

Let every letter of the Roman alphabet be given a numerical value, in the following way:

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=9
J=10, K=20, L=30, M=40, N=50, O=60, P=70, Q=80, R = 90
S=100, T=200, U=300, V=400, W=500, X=600, Y=700, Z=800

Let every word of the English language be given two numerical values, the additive word-number, calculated by adding the values of the letters, and the multiplicative word-number, calculated by multiplying the values of the letters.

(For example, fox has an additive value of 666, and a multiplicative value of 216,000.)

Let every sentence of the English language have a numerical value, which is to be calculated by multiplying all the multiplicative word-numbers together, dividing the result by all the additive word-numbers, multiplying the result with the number of letters and dividing the result by the number of words.

(For example, the sentence I am a fox. has 4 words and 7 letters. To find the numerical value, one must calculate (9*40*1*216,000)/(9*41*1*666) and multiply the result by 7/4.)

The result will likely be a large number. It will not normally be an integer, but it will of course be a rational number. The game consist in finding sentences which yield interesting numbers. To make the number more interesting it is allowed to shift the decimal point of the result.

2. The challenge.

Can you find a sentence which yields the first few decimals of pi? That is: a sentence with a numerical value starting with 314159....., so that you might shift the decimal point to make it 3.14159... The quality of the fit is of course dependent on the first decimal which does not comform to the correponding decimal in pi.

The sentence doesn't have to come from a book, but it must be a "good" sentence. That is: spelling and grammar must be correct, it must have a proper subject and verb, and it must sound like something which someone might actually say or write. Mary had a little lamb. or This is the winter of our discontent. are allowed, but Hi hey find thought. is not allowed. The sentence may be as long as one likes.

If you find such a sentence, I would like to know whether a computer was used in any way to find it.

hhEb09'1
2006-Mar-25, 05:28 PM
That seems like a toughy. I just tried, without a computer, and I got nowhere.

But here's the Bad Astronomy Pi Code (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=405143#post405143), or, at least, that's what I like to call it. :)

dvb
2006-Mar-25, 06:29 PM
Sounds like Theomatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theomatics), aka Bible Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code#Criticism) to me. This is nothing more than pattern recognition using numbers and formulas. I had someone once try to convince me that computers were created by the devil through the use of theomatics, since using his number system, "computer" translated to 666, or the mark of the beast. This is no different. If you look for patterns, eventually you will find them, whether they be in the bible or any other book.

PhantomWolf
2006-Mar-26, 01:42 AM
Sounds like Theomatics, aka Bible Code to me.

Actually Theomatics and the Bible Code are two different things.

01101001
2006-Mar-26, 08:39 AM
2. The challenge.

Lots of people find it challenging to hit a small white ball with a metal or wooden stick, attempting to knock it into a 4-1/4-inch hole hundreds of yards distant off a tee with one stroke. Many try their whole lives, without managing to accomplish it even one time.

Some might even say it's impossible without divine intervention.

2006-Mar-26, 08:45 AM
%\$#@ this is hard!

whats the point of this anyways?

dvb
2006-Mar-26, 09:24 AM
Sounds like Theomatics, aka Bible Code to me.

Actually Theomatics and the Bible Code are two different things.

My mistake. :shhh:

Definately theomatics though. :D

Relmuis
2006-Mar-26, 01:42 PM
If you look for patterns, eventually you will find them, whether they be in the bible or any other book.

Okay. But what if you found this pattern in the very first sentence of the book?

hhEb09'1
2006-Mar-26, 02:04 PM
Okay. But what if you found this pattern in the very first sentence of the book?The BA Pi Code uses the very first digits of pi.

dvb
2006-Mar-26, 07:28 PM
Okay. But what if you found this pattern in the very first sentence of the book?

I suppose it would mean that you found a pattern using a specific formula. Change the letters A=2, B=3, etc, and the pattern isn't there anymore, but you may find other patterns instead. It's not unusual for the human mind to look for patterns, as it's something that we do as early as childhood when learning our first language.

01101001
2006-Mar-26, 09:55 PM
Okay. But what if you found this pattern in the very first sentence of the book?
What if someone hits a hole-in-one on their first attempt?

aurora
2006-Mar-26, 10:47 PM
What if someone hits a hole-in-one on their first attempt?

We all have to run up to them and chant "we're not worthy"! :whistle:

dvb
2006-Mar-27, 12:26 AM
Let me also add the following link which shows how theomatics applies equally well to any text.

On the page http://www.theomatics.com/theomatics/proof.html, the theomatics author anticipates that some skeptical heathens will be critical of his work, so he "puts them to bed" immediately. He says, "The phenomenon only works in the Bible and nowhere else. No other work of literature ever written, never has, and probably never will, be able to consistently demonstrate anything like theomatics." Futher on he mentions this.

Finally, I would like to make note of another very important statement on this last page: "It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics."
This is a straight declaration that theomatics is not falsifiable, which by definition means it is not a science. Not only that, but it has no predictive power. You arbitrarily pick which numbers are important to you, then you crop out phrases that look good, but there's no way to tell ahead of time exactly what phrases you'll find. Therefore, theomatics is completely useless.
Source: http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/theomatics.html

I suggest reading the article in its entirety.

2006-Mar-27, 06:08 AM
(For example, fox has an additive value of 666, and a multiplicative value of 216,000.)

hmm, that kind of makes sense, i guess..
what's CNN come out to?

Roving Philosopher
2006-Mar-27, 05:05 PM
Haven't been able to hit pi yet, but in terms of interesting results, so far "I am" appears to have the lowest numeric value.

ISflotsam
2006-Mar-27, 07:40 PM
Haven't found a solution, yet. But, I think this may help reduce the problem...

If we use the two word sentence:

Babe _ _ _ _ _ _.

Where Babe is the name of an individual and the second word is a valid six letter verb, we get the following...

letters/words = 10/2
"Babe" multiplicative word number = (2x1x2x5) = 20
"Babe" additive word number = (2+1+2+5) = 10
Missing verb multiplicative word number = a
Missing verb additive word number = b

That gives us this equation...

10x(pi) = (10/2)(20a/10b)

10x(pi) = 10(a/b)

10(x-1)pi = (a/b)

Because we're free to move pi's decimal point where-ever necessary, we can effectively reduce this problem to finding a six-letter verb who's multiplicative number-to-additive number ratio is pi -- or 10xpi.

Don't know if that's more or less complex than the original challenge, but it seemed noteworthy enough to post.

--ISF

edit: used those newfangled superscript tags for clarity.

Relmuis
2006-Mar-28, 02:26 PM
Change the letters A=2, B=3, etc, and the pattern isn't there anymore, but you may find other patterns instead.

Of course. But A=1, B=2, etc. seems a rather special choice, because, historically, the alphabet had this order.

By the way: what if this numerical code had been in widespread use to write numbers (and actual numerals like 1, 2, etc. had not yet been invented) when the text was written?

And what if pi itself wasn't supposed to have been discovered or calculated when the text was written?

Fram
2006-Mar-28, 02:59 PM
Best I found in a short search and fast calcs is "We are family", with 3.08. This was done using random short sentences. The system is way too complicated to use for longer sentences (except by using computers of course).

The reverse, using this system to write out numbers, is just plain silly, as countless "words" will yield the same result.

And "the alphabet" didn't always exist in this order and with this number of letters. E.g. the Greek alphabet (http://www.physlink.com/reference/GreekAlphabet.cfm) has 24 letters and another order than the English one. So if the text you are alluding too was written before pi was discovered, then using the English alphabet (and English words) will not show anything about it, as that alphabet and the language didn't exist back then either.

ISflotsam
2006-Mar-28, 03:20 PM
The best I've done is "Babe listed." Maybe "Babe" is the name of a damaged ship or something, I suppose. It yields 310344.

To echo Fram, the currently-ordered 26-letter english alphabet wasn't in its current state until the Middle Ages after evolving through Greek, Etruscan and Latin. This was well after numerals were invented and pi was discovered. So, I'm not quite sure what this code could properly reveal from antiquity.

--ISF

Relmuis
2006-Mar-29, 01:24 PM
Quite so. I only used the English language and the Roman alphabet as an example, to show how difficult it would be.

The actual text was in another alphabet altogether, and this alphabet was in use to write numbers in the way I described. I.e. if I wanted to write the number 666, I would have to write FOX or XFO or FXO or OXF or any other permutation of the three letters F, O and X. And I would not be able to write numbers larger than 900 without repeating some letters: those were primitive times indeed.

But please, try it out with the English language and the Roman alphabet, and imagine coming up with pi without using anything more sophisticated than an abacus.

ISflotsam
2006-Mar-29, 02:11 PM
...if I wanted to write the number 666, I would have to write FOX or XFO or FXO or OXF or any other permutation of the three letters F, O and X.
Or any permutations of these...

OVATE
TITANATE
STRIATING

...but I suppose the shortest combinations would be most acceptable. Of course, that might still be confusing for numbers like 15 (JE, HG, IF).

And I would not be able to write numbers larger than 900 without repeating some letters: those were primitive times indeed.
I presume you meant you would not be able to write numbers larger than 4095 without repeating letters: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ = 4095

Regardless, if numbers were simply represented by adding values assigned letters, why the need for the complicated rigamarole of multiplicative values being divided by additive values, etc. to "encode" the value of pi in a sentence? On the surface, that seems like a contrivance to explain a nifty coincidence.

Anyway, other than a calculator, I haven't used a computer for any of my efforts here and my earlier sentence stands as the best I can do. I willingly concede it would be quite difficult to intentionally encode the value of pi into a sentence without a computer using the formula in the OP.

--ISF

Relmuis
2006-Mar-30, 10:21 AM
I presume you meant you would not be able to write numbers larger than 4095 without repeating letters: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ = 4095

Yes, you are right. I think that it was usual to use as few letters as possible, though, so 4095 would usually be represented by ZZZZZRE.

Regardless, if numbers were simply represented by adding values assigned letters, why the need for the complicated rigamarole of multiplicative values being divided by additive values, etc. to "encode" the value of pi in a sentence? On the surface, that seems like a contrivance to explain a nifty coincidence.

Of course this was not how the numerical values were used for keeping records or other mundane purposes. But if this complicated rigmarole yields pi to a precision of 1 in 100,000 the coincidence is more than nifty. Unless one can think of another complicated (but not much more complicated) rigmarole which will yield pi, to the same precision, from the first sentence of The Hobbit.

Anyway, other than a calculator, I haven't used a computer for any of my efforts here and my earlier sentence stands as the best I can do. I willingly concede it would be quite difficult to intentionally encode the value of pi into a sentence without a computer using the formula in the OP.

Yes. And yet it was intentionally encoded this way before, at least, the time of King Nebucadnezar.

ISflotsam
2006-Mar-30, 01:47 PM
Unless you're implying the actual formula to de-code this value was plainly revealed somewhere, this still seems like nothing more than a coincidence, regardless of the precision.

The formula appears very arbitrary. For example, why are the additive values of each word in a sentence multiplied together? Why aren't they added? Why is the number of letters divided by the number of words instead of the other way around. Why is it that the multiplicative value of a sentence is divided by the additive instead of some other operation?

And finally, in ancient times, what exactly would be the need to, first, calculate pi to 100,000 digits, and second, once done, to encode it within a text using a complicated forumla?

--ISF

Fram
2006-Mar-30, 02:11 PM
And finally, in ancient times, what exactly would be the need to, first, calculate pi to 100,000 digits, and second, once done, to encode it within a text using a complicated forumla?
--ISF
I was confused by his 1 in 100,000 precision (or something like that), but what he (or she, I don't know) means is that it is precise until 4 decimals and only 1 wrong at the fifth decimal.
EDIT: it is actually, if this calculation (http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Pi_File.htm) is correct, 4 wrong at the fifth decimal. Well, and 10^17 as well, but that is allowed by the system...

Tolls
2006-Mar-30, 02:46 PM
I was confused by his 1 in 100,000 precision (or something like that), but what he (or she, I don't know) means is that it is precise until 4 decimals and only 1 wrong at the fifth decimal.
EDIT: it is actually, if this calculation (http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Pi_File.htm) is correct, 4 wrong at the fifth decimal. Well, and 10^17 as well, but that is allowed by the system...

So let me get this straight.
Bloke does an essentially random calculation, at least that's what it looks like to me, and comes up with the first 5 digits of pi?

And this is amazing because??

pghnative
2006-Mar-30, 02:52 PM
"Sixty monkeys ate dogs" gives 3.14.

Got that after about 5 minutes of trying.

ISflotsam
2006-Mar-30, 03:54 PM
EDIT: it is actually, if this calculation (http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Pi_File.htm) is correct, 4 wrong at the fifth decimal. Well, and 10^17 as well, but that is allowed by the system...
Oh good grief.

If that is, in fact, the calculation Relmuis is referring to, and it's considered "more than a coincidence" because it's accurate to 4 decimal places, then I humbly submit that Genesis was NOT, in fact, ecoding the value of pi...

Instead, we will take the actual value calculated from the first sentence of the hebrew Bible (see Fram's link) to 10 digits (3141554567) -- why 10? Because "Genesis" has seven letters and and three syllables (and 7 + 3 = 10), of course.

Now, we convert that number to latitude and longitude coordinates...

Lat: 31° 41min. 55sec.
Lon: 45° 6min. 7sec.

(For those not interested enough to click, those coordinates are smack-dab in the middle of Iraq.)

And thus, encoded in the first sentence of the Bible is not the value of pi, but instead, is the identity of the modern-day country containing what many believe to be the location of the biblical "Garden of Eden".

Taa daa.

In other words, this is nothing more than a coincidence -- a contrived one at that.

--ISF

Relmuis
2006-Mar-31, 10:33 AM
Well, you discovered it before I was ready to reveal it -- but now you see why I put this in Conspiracy Theories rather than Off Topic Babbling.

Because... someone did encode pi in the first sentence of Genesis.

Why is this not a coincidence? Because there is an independent confirmation.

If pi is the most important mathematical constant, which is the second most important one? Most mathematicians, I trust, would say it is e.

So, if e were also to be found in scripture, and to the same precision, and encoded by the same scheme, and not in just any of the zillion sentences, but in a rather special one, that would be an independent confirmation, wouldn't it?

Well, that is exactly what's the case (with one caveat: the scheme is the same, but the alphabet is another one -- Greek rather than Hebrew).

And the sentence is a rather special one; it is the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John, and moreover it begins with the same words as Genesis.

So, here we have someone who encoded pi at least a century before pi was discovered by Archimedes, and someone who encoded e at least a millennium before e was discovered by Napier.

Someone, moreover, who either must have had lots of time and superhuman powers of calculation (not to mention patience), or a computer. Perhaps I should have put this into Life in Space, but Conspiracy Theories seems to fit better.

Because here we have evidence for someone or something meddling with our history.

Tolls
2006-Mar-31, 11:43 AM
Because... someone did encode pi in the first sentence of Genesis.

Juggling numbers doesn't prove anything.
Where in Hebrew numerology (or whatever term I'm looking for) does it say that you have to multiply the letters by the number of them, and divide by the words times the number of them?

If the person who "discovered" this simply made that bit up, then I really don't see the point.

Why is this not a coincidence? Because there is an independent confirmation.

If pi is the most important mathematical constant, which is the second most important one? Most mathematicians, I trust, would say it is e.

So, if e were also to be found in scripture, and to the same precision, and encoded by the same scheme, and not in just any of the zillion sentences, but in a rather special one, that would be an independent confirmation, wouldn't it?

Well, that is exactly what's the case (with one caveat: the scheme is the same, but the alphabet is another one -- Greek rather than Hebrew).

And the sentence is a rather special one; it is the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John, and moreover it begins with the same words as Genesis.

Well, no it doesn't.
One is in Greek and the other is in Hebrew and translations vary. For example I have a version here which opens Genesis with:
"When God began to create heaven and earth..."

Which is not the same as the version John I have, which begins:
"In the beginning the Word already was."

As you can see, they're not terribly similar.

Fram
2006-Mar-31, 12:38 PM
The following calculations are done using the system proposed in the OP.

The first line of Hamlet: "Who's there?", gives me 1.48, which is (for such a short sentence) very close to the square root of 2, 1.41.
Now, the first line of Macbeth, "When shall we three meet again", yields 0.676, which is 1/1.48.
This means that multiplying the value of the first line of Macbeth with the value of the first line of Hamlet gives me almost exactly 1. This can't be a coincidence...

Then, Richard III, first line, "Now is the winter of our discontent", yields 6.9986, which is almost exactly the mythical, holy number 7, and which is as well very close to 1/(square root of 2).

So what bether thing to end than the final line of the quite appropriate "Much ado about nothing": "Strike up, pipers", which has 3 words, 14 letters: Pi!

Relmuis
2006-Mar-31, 01:02 PM
For example I have a version here which opens Genesis with:
"When God began to create heaven and earth..."

Which is not the same as the version John I have, which begins:
"In the beginning the Word already was."

As you can see, they're not terribly similar.

I can't judge the translation from the Hebrew, but this translation from the Greek seems rather odd.

En archei čn ho Logos is literally In the beginning was the Word. There is no "already" in the original.

The full sentence is: En archei čn ho Logos, kai ho Logos čn proos ton Theon, kai Theos čn ho Logos. Which, in a word-by-word translation, yields: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.

Note that this is a somewhat contrived sentence, with God having an article the first time, but not the second time. As if the sentence had some function beyond telling a story.

And this was written down, at the very latest, in the days of the emperor Constantine.

dvb
2006-Mar-31, 03:46 PM
Well, you discovered it before I was ready to reveal it -- but now you see why I put this in Conspiracy Theories rather than Off Topic Babbling.
:clap:
I had a pretty good idea of where you were going right from when you said this.

"But what if you found this pattern in the very first sentence of the book?"

Because... someone did encode pi in the first sentence of Genesis.

Why is this not a coincidence? Because there is an independent confirmation. Right. What does an independant confirmation have to do with anything? From what I've gathered, you haven't listened to a single thing that any one of us posters has mentioned to you. You continue to promote this coincidence as fact, even after we've shown that these patterns can show up in any book. Isn't this one step above trolling.

Well, that is exactly what's the case (with one caveat: the scheme is the same, but the alphabet is another one -- Greek rather than Hebrew).
Wait, so you're saying that 'e' is encoded in Greek, and pi is encoded in Hebrew? And you're trying to get us to find pi in english, even though it was encoded in Hebrew? Why isn't 'e' encoded in Hebrew as well? Don't you think that these encoding people would use some sort of consistency in the language for the very least?

So, here we have someone who encoded pi at least a century before pi was discovered by Archimedes, and someone who encoded e at least a millennium before e was discovered by Napier.

Because here we have evidence for someone or something meddling with our history.
Well, who encoded these things then? Someone who spoke Hebrew thought it'd be nifty to encode pi the first sentence of the bible using your theomatics numbering system. Then along came someone else who spoke Greek, and did the same thing, with the exact same numbering system. This should mean two things. First of all, both would have had to know the numbering system, and apply them to their own alphabets. Secondly, there should be evidence that this numbering system was passed down, and existed when these texts were written.

Finally, I have to ask. What's the motive in doing this? Why the need to encode these numbers?

ISflotsam
2006-Mar-31, 08:29 PM
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that if this "code" was, in fact, "planted", then the encoders are very lucky that humankind generally settled on using Base 10 as our primary notation for mathematical calculations. Especially considering we had a number of options (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system#Bases_used) still available at the time these codes were allegedly planted. And, likewise, if the encoders were from a non-human civilization, we're certainly lucky they chose to use Base 10, otherwise we might have missed this remarkable message altogether.

If we choose octal, for example, our english code would need to be shifted thusly...

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7,
H=10, I=20, J=30, K=40, L=50, M=60, N=70,
O=100, P=200, Q=300, R=400, S=500, T=600, U=700,
V=1000, W=2000, X=3000, Y=4000, Z=5000

Under these circumstances, the same formula, applied to the same sentence will not produce equivalent results if a different base is used. In english, the fragment "IS BAD" works-out to ~24 using the decimal code. Using octal, it works-out to ~538. And, obviously, 538 = 4310 ≠ 2410.

I don't really have the patience or the inclination to attempt a Base 8 calculation using the two biblical sentences in their original languages, but the above example should suffice. And, the point remains, what if humankind had instead settled on Base 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal) (which is really nice for multiplication and division and was once relatively widely used) or any other system?

I suppose the answer to that question is that another startling coincidence would be found using another "inspired" formula.

--ISF

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-01, 02:32 AM
Wait, so you're saying that 'e' is encoded in Greek, and pi is encoded in Hebrew? And you're trying to get us to find pi in english, even though it was encoded in Hebrew? Why isn't 'e' encoded in Hebrew as well? Don't you think that these encoding people would use some sort of consistency in the language for the very least?

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread, but I will point out one thing. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek alphabets all have an internal numbering system. In other words, they used letters for numbers rather than having a seperate numerical system as we do. As such the numerical system that is linked to the words is set in these languages, you just can't just decide to maniplulate it into other bases, etc. It's also why I don't think that it really can be done using English, we don't have a numerical system in our alphabet, so adding one becomes a convolution from the start. As to the findings, they are interesting, but nothing more as far as I can see, I think that there are far more interesting patterns in the Bible such as comparing Moses raising the snake in the desert to the crucifiction, and Psalms 22 to the crucifiction.

2006-Apr-01, 03:12 AM
Finally, I have to ask. What's the motive in doing this? Why the need to encode these numbers?

I suspect that they simply wanted to mess with future reader's heads.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Apr-01, 05:53 AM
How do you encode an irrational number in a finite text?

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-01, 09:17 AM
Personally I think that if God, or ET were encoding such things into the text to show that a greater intelligence was behind the words, then the values wouldn't have been approximately right, they would have been perfect to the number of decimal places the sentance allowed. So unless it's going to be shown that we have pi wrong....

Relmuis
2006-Apr-01, 11:15 AM
I did not assert that God encoded pi in the first line of Genesis. But if He did, one should remember that even God cannot do the impossible (or so I think). If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

However, I don't want to discuss religious issues any more than strictly necessary.

As for the base 10 and the numerical system; these were of course already in use when the encoding took place. (Anyway, we have 10 fingers, so it wouldn't take much imagination to predict that base 10 would be used.)

On behalf of those who comment on my posts without first reading them, I will reiterate here that the English version of the code was only used as an example, to give people a feel of how difficult it would be to encode pi without them having to use Hebrew as well.

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-01, 11:39 AM
I did not assert that God encoded pi in the first line of Genesis.

I never said you diid.

But if He did, one should remember that even God cannot do the impossible (or so I think).

That's interesting, I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent?

If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which give a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

But since assuming that it was done by God and that he did it deliberately, then he would have created the alphabet/numerical system used and thus made sure that the language carried the ability to produce the numbers exactly.

Fram
2006-Apr-01, 02:18 PM
If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

... with the system invented afterwards to get this result. Other systems are possible, and there is no reason to use this system at all except because you get this result.
What if you, e.g. extended the system I gave with the last sentence of Much Ado About Nothing? Take a longer text, where the number of words comes first (e.g. a text of 314159 words), and the number of letters is stick to the back of that (2653589). Voila, a much larger precision of Pi, with an equally possible method. Why is your method the correct one?
And your quoted sentence starts with an "if", but it is a pretty big one.

As I have shown (as did others), even with your method, finding "significant results" in first lines is easy. Check back my Shakespeare post and explain to me why this is a coincidence (mulitplying the first line of Hamlet with the first line of Macbeth gives me almost exactly 1), and finding e and pi isn't.

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-02, 02:05 PM
How do you encode an irrational number in a finite text?Easy :)

Here it is in ASCII:

73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 6F 66 6F 6E 65

Nereid
2006-Apr-02, 03:27 PM
Given a string of symbols (such as English letters, or Chinese characters, or ...), find a coding scheme which 'produces' {insert the object of your favour here}?

But only the first {x} digits, of course.

Or, if you're more ambitious, show that the number of such coding schemes is >{insert a very large number here}.

Grey
2006-Apr-02, 04:28 PM
Easy :)

Here it is in ASCII:

73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 6F 66 6F 6E 65That's rational, though. And why did you put in one of the spaces and leave out the others? :)

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-02, 04:35 PM
That's rational, though. And why did you put in one of the spaces and leave out the others? :)I didn't know you would be reading this thread! :)

Sorry, here it is, fixed up:
73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 20 6F 66 20 74 77 6F

Tolls
2006-Apr-03, 09:28 AM
I can't judge the translation from the Hebrew, but this translation from the Greek seems rather odd.

En archei čn ho Logos is literally In the beginning was the Word. There is no "already" in the original.

The full sentence is: En archei čn ho Logos, kai ho Logos čn proos ton Theon, kai Theos čn ho Logos. Which, in a word-by-word translation, yields: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.

That's not a transliteration (word for word), it is a translation, as is the version I posted above.

This is my point. You have two languages (well, three since they're being translated into English) which function differently, and you are saying a particular sentence is the same. It doesn't work like that. They may have a similar meaning, but that does not make them the same.

Grey
2006-Apr-03, 10:27 AM

Sorry, here it is, fixed up:
73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 20 6F 66 20 74 77 6FMuch better! :)

Relmuis
2006-Apr-03, 02:22 PM
Tolls (post 45):

Anything which can be expressed in Greek can be xpressed in English, and vice versa. It may be more complicated to do so in one language than in the other, and one may occasionally have to coin a new word, or leave a word untranslated, surrounding it with parentheses, but it can always be done.

(For example, some languages may not have a word for computer, so one would use the word "computer" as it stands, when translating from the English. And "logos" may sometimes be translated as "reason" instead of "word".)

Here, however, a sentence was "translated" in such a way as to change what it expresses. The word "already" was interposed, which does not correspond to any word (or shade of meaning) within the original, untranslated sentence.

Nereid (post 42):

I concede that this would very probably be possible, but it would be irrelevant if the scheme for using letters as numerals was already in existence before the text in question was written.

This is quite certain to be the case for the Gospel of St. John, because it cannot have been written before the time of the emperor Tiberius, but somewhat less certain for Genesis, which might have been written as early as the time of the pharao Ramses II. But it is mostly thought that it was written during the reign of king David, and may even been written later, in the days of king Nebucadnezar.

Greek letters were used as numerals in Classical Greece, and Hebrew letters were probably used as numerals as soon as there was need for calculations; that is: as soon as the Israelites had settled in Israel, and had built the paraphernalia of a civilized society.

PhantomWolf (post 39):

In principle God could have caused the Israelites and the Greeks to have adopted a certain system for using letters as numerals, but no lesser being could probably have done the same, so your alternative does not allow for the two texts to have been written by normal humans.

And that is what I primarily want to say: Look, there is something very weird here, and it should be discussed worldwide, because our history has evidently not been free from outside influences. Whether by God, or by aliens, or by something else altogether: it can no longer be truthfully said that humans have played out their own history all by themselves.

Fram
2006-Apr-03, 03:06 PM
Nereid (post 42):

I concede that this would very probably be possible, but it would be irrelevant if the scheme for using letters as numerals was already in existence before the text in question was written.

This is quite certain to be the case for the Gospel of St. John, because it cannot have been written before the time of the emperor Tiberius, but somewhat less certain for Genesis, which might have been written as early as the time of the pharao Ramses II. But it is mostly thought that it was written during the reign of king David, and may even been written later, in the days of king Nebucadnezar.

Greek letters were used as numerals in Classical Greece, and Hebrew letters were probably used as numerals as soon as there was need for calculations; that is: as soon as the Israelites had settled in Israel, and had built the paraphernalia of a civilized society.

But the link I gave earlier (which supports your position) says that the Hebrew numerical system only exists since the 2nd century BC, so clearly later than the writing of Genesis.
Furthermore, the complicated calculations you do on those sentences are not documented anywhere.

And that is what I primarily want to say: Look, there is something very weird here, and it should be discussed worldwide, because our history has evidently not been free from outside influences. Whether by God, or by aliens, or by something else altogether: it can no longer be truthfully said that humans have played out their own history all by themselves.
Evidently? Truthfully? Aren't you jumping to conclusions a bit? It has been shown to you that you can find numerical coincidences in many sentences, even using the same system you gave. It has not been shown in any way that the result you get is unique and unexplainable, and you seem to ignore evidence to the contrary.

Relmuis
2006-Apr-03, 03:33 PM
I assume you refer to your Shakespeare quotes. The precision of these results is somewhat less than the precision of the "pi" and "e" result, and the sentences are somewhat less special. (Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's first play, for example.)

I must ask again: what is the a priori chance of finding e to five decimals in the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John using a scheme which has already yielded pi to the same precision from the first sentence of Genesis? Use Bayesian probability, and do the math.

I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

And we are talking about the two most important constants in mathemathics.

ISflotsam
2006-Apr-03, 04:01 PM
I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

Actually, using your argement above you can only state "we MAY be talking about the first sentences..." By your own statements, you cannot be definitive about that point.

But, more importantly, surely if an "influencing intelligence" can force authors to encode pi and e, they would have prevented the gospels from being "randomly ordered" as you assert.

There is no point in encoding a message if it cannot be decoded and its meaning determined. If the placement of these books in the bible bears any importance to the message itself, then "they" would have seen to it that John was, in fact, the first book of the New Testament. If not, you're simply adding another baseless contrivance to the top of this claim in an attempt to make it seem as though the odds of it being random chance are that much "more astronomical".

--ISF

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-03, 04:23 PM
Much better! :)Next, I'm going to encode the entirety of pi, but it'll take much longer of course.

Here it is:
72 61 74 69 6F 20 6F 66 20 63 69 72 63 75 6C 66 65 72 65 6D 63 65 20 64 6F 20 64 69 61 6C 65 74 65 72

Oops, it looks like I screwed up some digits somewhere

pghnative
2006-Apr-03, 04:57 PM
Next, I'm going to encode the entirety of pi, but it'll take much longer of course.

Here it is:
72 61 74 69 6F 20 6F 66 20 63 69 72 63 75 6C 66 65 72 65 6D 63 65 20 64 6F 20 64 69 61 6C 65 74 65 72

Oops, it looks like I screwed up some digits somewhereI thought it was just:

70 69

??

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-03, 05:01 PM
D'oh

Grey
2006-Apr-03, 06:16 PM
Next, I'm going to encode the entirety of pi, but it'll take much longer of course.

Here it is:
72 61 74 69 6F 20 6F 66 20 63 69 72 63 75 6C 66 65 72 65 6D 63 65 20 64 6F 20 64 69 61 6C 65 74 65 72

Oops, it looks like I screwed up some digits somewhereYou're just making sure I'll take the time to decode it. What the heck is a "circulferemce"? ;)

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-03, 07:06 PM
You've never heard of a circul? :)

Fram
2006-Apr-03, 07:53 PM
I assume you refer to your Shakespeare quotes. The precision of these results is somewhat less than the precision of the "pi" and "e" result, and the sentences are somewhat less special. (Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's first play, for example.)

I must ask again: what is the a priori chance of finding e to five decimals in the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John using a scheme which has already yielded pi to the same precision from the first sentence of Genesis? Use Bayesian probability, and do the math.

I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

And we are talking about the two most important constants in mathemathics.

Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III are arguably the three most important plays by Shakespeare, and you asked for first sentences of books, not of necessarily the first books someone wrote. The Hobbit isn't the first book by Tolkien either. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the gospel of John was the first to be written. And it is also uncertain if Genesis was written first.
And I think "1" is equally important, if not more so, and 7 is clearly a holy number, important in many cultures. The precision to which Richard III yielded 7 was almost as high as your Pi precision, but I had to use a predefined system, while you could use any system (calculations) you wanted to get the result you wanted.

SciFi Chick
2006-Apr-03, 08:05 PM
Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III are arguably the three most important plays by Shakespeare, and you asked for first sentences of books, not of necessarily the first books someone wrote. The Hobbit isn't the first book by Tolkien either. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the gospel of John was the first to be written. And it is also uncertain if Genesis was written first.

In fact, most Biblical scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Old Testament.

I'm pretty sure John wasn't first either. It's not one of the synoptic gospels, but I can't remember if the "Q" document was first or not. Plus, I think maybe Paul's letters came first in terms of things being written down. I'm not as certain of this as I am of Job though. :)

Nereid
2006-Apr-03, 09:06 PM
I assume you refer to your Shakespeare quotes. The precision of these results is somewhat less than the precision of the "pi" and "e" result, and the sentences are somewhat less special. (Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's first play, for example.)

I must ask again: what is the a priori chance of finding e to five decimals in the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John using a scheme which has already yielded pi to the same precision from the first sentence of Genesis? Use Bayesian probability, and do the math.

I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

And we are talking about the two most important constants in mathemathics.(my bold).

Here's (at least part of) the rub: you will have a dickens of a time demonstrating that a priori chance should be taken seriously (and we all know how meaningful a posteriori chances are, don't we? ;) )

Fram
2006-Apr-04, 08:13 AM
I think it is quite clear by now that your objections are invalid, but still, I have tried to find which is actually the first of Shakespeares plays. There is no certainty about that either, but Penguin gives "Two Gentlemen of Verona", which is as good as any other to me. Taking the first sentence of this one, "Cease to persuade, my loving Proteus", and using your numbering system, but instead of dividing the word value by the letter value, I multiply those: this gives me 1.4172, again very close to 1.4142, the square root of 2.
So a random sentence and a simple variation on your scheme again gives a result which comes very close to one of the important basic numbers. It looks to me as if it really isn't that strange that you can find a system which gives an impressive result which almost every sentence, and this one really isn't the result of a long search.
By the way, if you take the square root of 2, multiply it by 7, and take the square root of the result, you end up with ... 3.14!

Relmuis
2006-Apr-05, 02:24 PM
Shakespeare:

It seems that curious numeric approximations can be made somewhat more easily than I expected, at least in the works of Shakespeare. However, the number e has not been found, and the numbers which were found were already known in Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare has a certain notoriety as an author whose work has been supposed by "Shakespearologers" to contain acrostics, secret codes, and such, and I now feel that these "Shakespearologers" may have a point after all.

Shakespeare did not have a computer, I think, so there must be a relatively easy way to encode these numbers, even if I (or anyone else on this forum) cannot think of it.

Order of the gospels:

It has been said that God, if He encoded e in the Gospel of St. John, could also have ensured that this gospel would become the first book of the Bible. Yes, He could have. But if it was aliens who caused e to be thus encoded, or some other advanced beings without omnipotence, these beings might not have been able to do so. For example, it would be more easy for them to have a quiet conversation with St. John, than to influence the proceedings of a church council. They may even have lost interest during the intervening centuries, or have been forced (by circumstance or by other aliens) to leave the Solar System.

Why do I suppose that St. John may have written his Gospel before the other three Because the other three show similarities, which is why they were called the synoptic gospels. And because St. John was present at many of the scenes described.

Order of the Old Testament books:

I have no firm opinion as to the order in which they were actually written, but the subject matter of Genesis precedes the subject matter of the other ones, so it seems reasonable to think of Genesis as "chapter one". Even a contemporary author does not have to write his chapters in the order of their position in the finished work.

Translations:

It is quite clear that en archei in Greek has the same meaning as berezhit in Hebrew. The two books begin with the same phrase.

SciFi Chick
2006-Apr-05, 02:30 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's not the same thing as evidence. :)

Hal5030
2006-Apr-06, 07:25 PM
Apparently the number pi has no pattern

Nereid
2006-Apr-06, 09:42 PM
From the 'discovery' of pi to the 'discovery' of e is how many years?

From the 'discovery' of e to the 'discovery' of {the next deeply significant transcendental number} is how many years?

From the 'discovery' of .... (you get the idea, I'm sure).

From the discovery of the 'code' for pi to the discovery of where, in {insert your favourite literary/religious/whatever work here}, e is similarly encoded is how many years?

(these example could, no doubt, be multiplied as many times as BAUT members have idle time on their hands).

You're all missing the obvious point ... Van Rijn's invisible elves (with help from the deer) and Nereid's invisible pink fairies have been engaged in a millenia-long malicious campaign to mess with your minds. :razz:

Roving Philosopher
2006-Apr-07, 01:09 AM
You're all missing the obvious point ... Van Rijn's invisible elves (with help from the deer) and Nereid's invisible pink fairies have been engaged in a millenia-long malicious campaign to mess with your minds. :razz:
Hmmm.... the first letter of elves is "e" and the first two letters of pink fairies is "pi". Coincidence?

:shhh:

Relmuis
2006-Apr-07, 01:21 PM
What if you, e.g. extended the system I gave with the last sentence of Much Ado About Nothing? Take a longer text, where the number of words comes first (e.g. a text of 314159 words), and the number of letters is stick to the back of that (2653589). Voila, a much larger precision of Pi, with an equally possible method. Why is your method the correct one?

That method would not prove the use of computers or superhuman abilities. Anyone with a lot of time on his hands could do it. Just write and write until you have nearly the required number of words and letters (being careful not to lose count) and then add a few sentences to reach the exact numbers.

As I have shown (as did others), even with your method, finding "significant results" in first lines is easy. Check back my Shakespeare post and explain to me why this is a coincidence (mulitplying the first line of Hamlet with the first line of Macbeth gives me almost exactly 1), and finding e and pi isn't.

Shakespeare wrote 40 plays. Multiplying the first lines of two plays gives 1600 results. It is therefore not very surprising that one of these results will approach an integer to within one part in one thousand.

But actually, you had more latitude than that. You had the choice of using Who's there (two words), Who's there (three words) and Who is there (three words). And instead of the full sentence When shall we three meet again, in thunder lightning or in rain? you used When shall we three meet again?.

Fram
2006-Apr-07, 01:56 PM
That method would not prove the use of computers or superhuman abilities. Anyone with a lot of time on his hands could do it. Just write and write until you have nearly the required number of words and letters (being careful not to lose count) and then add a few sentences to reach the exact numbers.

Circular reasoning. Furthermore, my method was in response to this quote of yours:

If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

Now it looks like you don't claim that they did use the best available possibility, but that you claim that they especially used a system which can only be made by computers or superior brains. This is something completely different, because it changes the claim from 'they encoded pi in it in the best possible way' to 'they encoded pi in it in a cleverly hidden way'.
Both are wrong, but that does not mean that you should just change the theory at will.

Shakespeare wrote 40 plays. Multiplying the first lines of two plays gives 1600 results. It is therefore not very surprising that one of these results will approach an integer to within one part in one thousand.

But actually, you had more latitude than that. You had the choice of using Who's there (two words), Who's there (three words) and Who is there (three words). And instead of the full sentence When shall we three meet again, in thunder lightning or in rain? you used When shall we three meet again?.
So what do you expect, that I tried out every combination of Shakespeare plays until I found something? I tried three of them, the three (IMO) most important ones, and gave the results (Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III), and then I tried Much ado about nothing for its symbolic value. In that one, I used the last line.
Then you said that wasn't good enough because you used the first book of the OT and the NT (which was traditionally wrong in the second case, and probably wrong in both cases when you consider in which order they were written): to humour you, I used the first play of Shakespeare, and again got a significant result. Your claim that it's not surprising that one of the results would give an integer is a futile attempt to diminish the fact that many randomly chosen sentences give interesting results, even with the system you devised (and which is arbitrary). If you want to claim that other Shakespeare plays on their own or combined would not give similar results, then show it.
As for the latitude: I used the normal text, "Who's there", so no "Who is there". That left me with two choices, and I choose three words.
And I choose in every case to use the first line, which is in my view the most significant base unit of these plays. I used the first line in all my examples, so I stay consistent. Furthermore, you can't have your cake and eat it too: either you think that these numbers were put into Shakespeare's plays on purpose (and then you shouldn't complain about words, lines or sentences), or you don't. If you don't, then your previous post (#60) is wrong, as that was your defense there.

As for my position: I don't think Shakespeare (or anyone else) encoded anything in his plays, I have just used them to show that you can find interesting numbers in the first lines of many texts, even using the numbering scheme and calculation method you provided (or with very minor changes to the calculation method). It seems highly improbable that better results could not be gotten by modifying the system, but I can't be bothered.

Relmuis
2006-Apr-07, 02:40 PM
This is something completely different, because it changes the claim from 'they encoded pi in it in the best possible way' to 'they encoded pi in it in a cleverly hidden way'.

My claim is: They encoded pi in a way that human beings of the age could not have used.

And I suspect that this was done to suggest that they were gods, to engender, or bolster up, religion.

I don't understand your accusation of circular reasoning, but I have yet to see, either in your post, or anyone else's an example of equal significance.

As for what I said about Shakespeare in post 60, I have been too hasty, and I tentatively retract it. (Which means, it is not backed up by the evidence I have seen, but I may still find, later on, that it backed up by other evidence, whch I have not yet seen.)

Fram
2006-Apr-07, 07:41 PM
I don't think anyone here is looking for an example of equal significance. If we can find examples of slightly less significance with hardly any sweat and by basically using your method, then it seems clear to me that it can't be too hard too get equal or better significance when looking for it in a more serious way. But to me, it is clear that pi and e in the Bible is nothing more than numerology in the bad sense, the looking for patterns until you find them and then giving them unneccesary importance. I would be much more impressed if it was done by a simpler method.
What if the Bible (or Genesis) was written in this way: First word 3 letter, 2nd word 1 letter, 3rd word 4 letters, ... No one would find this curious until pi was discovered, and then no one would be able to deny that it was put their on purpose. That would bolster up religion and stifle scepticism.
What we have here now, on the other hand, is just too farfetched and looks to much like a coincidence to be impressive.

Hal5030
2006-Apr-10, 07:43 PM
What if someone hits a hole-in-one on their first attempt?

That means we throw our clubs back into the car and head for the clubhouse or nearest bar and he has to buy rounds for everyone in the group for the rest of the day.:dance: If I'm not mistaken, he has to buy a pitcher every 10 minutes until someone passes out then every 15 minutes after that.

An 83 year old woman hit a hole in 1 on the same hole twice in 6 month. This happened at the country club course in Carlsbad,NM
80 something hits hole in one (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/news/2001/02/09/octogenarian_ace_ap/)

Reticuli
2006-Apr-12, 03:54 AM
I'm pretty confused in this thrread but just wanted to mention the Gieco Gecko.. He is always saying "Pi and Chips." or is that "Pie"?
:)

clop
2006-Apr-17, 10:01 AM
OP - I shall write a computer program to find a sentence that gives pi to at least 10 decimal places using your coding protocol.

off-topic - the golden ratio (phi) is an interesting number - it's the fraction of the length of a line such that the ratio (phi)/(the line length) is the same as (the line length - phi)/(phi).

What is phi?

clop

clop
2006-Apr-17, 11:13 AM
OK so far so good.

I've checked every single 16-letter-or-under word in the English language and the best single-word solution so far has been "daddy" with a score of 3.141654979.

Now I'll try couplets.

clop

edit: blinking flip - even with an athlon 64 running factored code this is going to take some time - it's checking every single pair of words that exist in the english language, plurals and verb forms and everything - I'll leave it running overnight and see what it's come up with in the morning - just a few short seconds into the task it has already found "abalienate recipients" - not bad for 3.1415918.

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-17, 11:54 AM
off-topic - the golden ratio (phi) is an interesting number - it's the fraction of the length of a line such that the ratio (phi)/(the line length) is the same as (the line length - phi)/(phi).

What is phi?

clop

Closest I can get for the moment is around 0.618033

edited to add, I them decided to cheat and look it up which gave 0&#183;6180339887, so I guess I didn't do too badly. ;)

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-17, 02:32 PM
it has already found "abalienate recipients" - not bad for 3.1415918.awesome, Clop!

clop
2006-Apr-17, 10:43 PM
awesome, Clop!

Thanks.

Right well I've just got up and the computer has finished.

I can therefore state with confidence that the best possible pi you can get from two 16-or-fewer-letter English words is generated from

Protozoologists' firsts.

(meaning the excellent degrees gained by certain biologists)

yielding a value of

3.141592659

which is correct to 7 decimal places.

For the full list of all (2155) solutions that yield pi to at least 5 decimal places please look here

http://www.bigbutton.com.au/~clop/pi5solutions.txt

In case you're interested, the lexicon I'm using lists 159730 English words with 16 letters or fewer.

I don't know if I can be arsed doing 3 words. I'll think about it.

clop

hhEb09'1
2006-Apr-18, 05:04 PM
Protozoologists' firsts.Pi and protozoology! I think the IDers have something here! :)