Pmarra

surely

your answers are very reasonable

but to be able to answer in a scientific way I need a lot of sentences

for this reason I point out you 2 websites where you can find the answers that you are looking for
http://biblemaths.com/
http://www.peoplephysics.com/

reddish

There is no science there.

Just confused ramblings.

PoodleLovinPessimist

To his credit, he did. It's around 1 : 5 x 10^6. Of course that number is based on a post hoc determination of probability, and thus completely meaningles.

But the way I read it, that Elohim is the sum of three triangular numbers falls almost directly out of the coding scheme for the hebrew letters. If the coding scheme just used sequential numbers for the letters, Elohim wouldn't have that property.

Any post hoc evaluation of probability will be misleading. Suppose I shuffle and deal a round of bridge and then look at the cards: The probability that I would have dealth that particular round in that particular order is 1 / 52!, which is a very very "improbable" event: Too improbable, seemingly, to have occurred by chance.

Unless Pmarra can demonstrate why we absolutely must code the Hebrew letters in the way he does (and most definitely not just that we can code them that way), and why we expect that the word "Elohim" absolutely must be the triangular sum of three triangular numbers, and show all of these requirements are absolutely a priori and mutually independent, his demonstration is nothing other than the classic post hoc probability fallacy.

Of course, we will always suspect unconcious bias if he attempts to establish these features after he's determined the "triangular" numerological properties of Elohim. He'd be in much better shape if he'd made the predictions before doing the arithmetic, and somehow managed to collect and preserve some evidence that the predictions really did occur before the analysis.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Just to be clear, we are dealing with The Post Hoc* Probability Fallacy

P1: Some event X occurred.
P2: In retrospect, X is extremely unlikely
------
C: X had some particular cause

The problem is that, in retrospect (i.e. post hoc), everything is "unlikely". In retrospect, the probability that each and every particular bridge round will be dealt in that particular order is 1/52!. "Improbability" is meaningful only when there is a consistent and repeatable correlation between two types of events, or when there's a correlation between an event and a prior prediction.


*(Latin): after the fact

Pmarra

What is science ... what is not science?

Mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences
and Number Theory is the Queen of Mathematics. (Gauss)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Carl Friedrich Gauss (April 30, 1777 – February 23, 1855) was a German mathematician and scientist of profound genius who contributed significantly to many fields, including number theory, analysis, differential geometry, geodesy, magnetism, astronomy and optics. Sometimes known as "the prince of mathematicians",

Gauss had a remarkable influence in many fields of mathematics and science and is ranked beside Euler, Newton and Archimedes as one of history's greatest mathematicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

Gauss is reported to have said:
This gives me the impression that Gauss might well have thought your endeavours to be a futile misapplication of mathematics.

Pmarra

This gives me the impression that Gauss didn't know the Hebrew and the Holy Scripture

PoodleLovinPessimist

Yeah, well, Gauss was a mathematician; it's not surprising he would have a high opinion of mathematics. And the quote is 250 years old; both science and mathematics have moved on.

"So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" -- Einstein

PoodleLovinPessimist

You can't invoke Gauss as an authority on one hand and reject him on the other.

everettf

Douglas Adams was right after all. The meaning of life is 42 :rolling: