Pmarra

THE PERFECT NUMBERS ARE EXTREMELY RARE


The Gen1.1 total is a triangular number =2701= 37 x 73 (an unlikely case of digit symmetry).

2701 is the 73rd triangular number

The number of letters in Gen1.1 is 28 (triangular and 2nd perfect number)

The number of letters of the first word is 6 (triangular and 1st perfect number).

Mersenne primes have a close connection to perfect numbers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersen...Mersenne_primes
Mersenne primes have a close connection to perfect numbers, which are numbers that are equal to the sum of their proper divisors.
Historically, the study of Mersenne primes was motivated by this connection;
in the 4th century BC Euclid demonstrated that if M is a Mersenne prime then M(M+1)/2 is a perfect number.
Two millennia later, in the 18th century, Euler proved that all even perfect numbers have this form.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_number
In mathematics, a perfect number is defined as an integer which is the sum of its proper positive divisors, excluding itself.
Six (6) is the first perfect number,
because 1, 2 and 3 are its proper positive divisors and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6.
The next perfect number is 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14.

reddish

Yes they are - unlike, say, consecutive triangular numbers that add up to a triangular number.

Why don't you just answer my question?

TNorthover

Look at this site again. For small numbers you have to work very hard to find a number that isn't special.

What you're doing is taking lots of marginally unlikely events, combining them into a single event and claiming that this is extremely unlikely. You're completely ignoring the fact that while that one combination is unlilely, the chances are there's a similar sequence of unlikely events anywhere you look. Not identical, but if the number of letters wasn't perfect, it'd probably be prime or square or have some other neat property.

Ceterum censeo you haven't told us what it'd take to convince you it's a coincidence.

Pmarra

inside Gen1.1 there are other very unlikely things

but if you are not convinced of supernatural origin of Gen1.1 yet

you can try to find a different sentence from Gen1.1 with inside the same unlikely things

Cynthia of Syracuse

This is a reminder to keep things civil and focussed on the arguments, not the individuals.

Pmarra

this affirmation of mine could seem exaggerated or wrong

but my affirmation is reported to the numerical language

practically to the connections between the letters and the values

in this sense the number 136 is rarer than a Mersenne prime

also in my post#30 I try to explain the improbability of the number 136 to the readers

reddish

Pmarra,

You are rapidly descending into incomprehensibility here.

I note that you are not answering my question after repeated prodding. This leaves me no choice but to conclude you're not really interested in dialogue.

Pmarra

I think that these affirmations of mine are a suitable answer

reddish

You are wrong.

Whatever these 'affirmations' are supposed to mean, they are in no way an answer to my question.

I must conclude that you have made up your mind about the relevance of your results, and that nothing will get you back on the path of reason.

That's quite ok (we're all entitled to be wrong). But I hope I realize that this essentially means your whole endeavor is the antithesis of science.

Pmarra

I don't agree with you

I have correctly accepted this your result as thing scientific correspondent to my question

but now you don't accept my proof of extreme improbability of Gen1.1

you don't try to find other sentences as Gen1.1 to show that I am wrong