Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote in message
<6pa9ua$f47@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>> But why *ten* dimensions, huh? What's the significance of that, mkay?
>>What's it all mean? My god, PLil, what's it all supposed to mean??
>
>That's what I'm trying to figure out. There are ten sephirot in the
Qabbalistic
>diagram called the Tree Of Life. Superstrings, which might well explain all
>particle physics, exist in ten dimensions. Most of us have ten fingers. Why
>ten? Why ANY number?
>...[prose ruthlessly culled]...
>Numerology *should* freak people out. It's utterly non-rational, which
means
>you have to be willing to either sacrifice rational thought, discard
>numerology, or play some truly intense games with your head while
>flip-flopping between the two. I aim for the last option, but keep option
#2
>open, just in case.
I had to abandon any idea that your basic 10, 7, 93 and 666-style
numerology was valid when I grapsed the horror of pi. Or e, for that
matter. These numbers represent *basic facts* about the shape of the
universe, and they *don't exist* on the number line -- "Irrational" and
"Transcendental" are truly good descriptors here. You can't *think* about
them, at least, not the way you can think about "7" or "a dozen dozen".
The only thing natural numbers are really useful for is thinking about the
universe in quantitative terms -- how many sides, dimensions, molecules/cc,
etc. When you start thinking qualitatively, any isomorphism to anything in
human experience goes right the hell out the window.
---
schabe "Tricky Gnosis" @mr.net
http://webpages.mr.net/schabe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Are you trying to say that e is the devil's pi?
Just remember that pi are round and cake are square.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "?!" <s-c-h-a-b-e@m-r.n-e-t>
Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote in message
<6pauaq$4vi@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>By the way, neither pi nor e are irrational numbers. Irrational numbers can
>only be expressed algebraically by including the square root of -1 as a
term.
>Typically they're written in terms like 4+3i, where i is the square root
of -1.
>
--
Sorry, wrong number. You're thinking of "imaginary" numbers.
Irrational numbers are those which cannot be expressed except as an
infinite, non-repeating decimal. Transcendental I don't recall off hand,
but I believe it has something to do with not even being able to be
expressed as a finite equation of rational numbers, or somesuch thing. I
could look it up, but my copy of Petr Beckman's "History of Pi" is at home
right now.
Incidentally, is anyone here aware of the exciting new field of
"surreal" numbers? Hardcore mathematicians make Cabalists look like a
buncha pikers, I tell ya.
---
schabe "irrational, transcendental, and largely imaginary as well." @mr.net
http://webpages.mr.net/schabe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: p-lil@ZubJenius.com (Popess Lilith von Fraumench)
In article <35ba0fce.1834596@news.io.com>, gggor@io.com (G. G. Gordon) wrote:
> On 24 Jul 1998 23:24:31 GMT, p-lil@ZubJenius.com (Popess Lilith von
> Fraumench) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Depends on your definitions--some hardcore mathematicians ARE Qabbalists.
> >Besides, as I said before, numerology is bunk.
> >
> I thought is was History that was bunk, you mean the Gang of Four
> was wrong???
Wasn't that the Gang of Ford who said history was bunk? There's a lot of
things which are bunk, of course--there's an infinite bunk capacity at
work.
History is bunk.
Numerology is bunk.
Therefore History is Numerology.
Logic is also bunk.
Therefore Logic is Numerology.
P.Lil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
G. G. Gordon wrote:
>
> You fuckin' whizzo kids wanna take this crap over to alt.sci.math
> where somebody besides you might give a shit. A serious intellectual
> discourse on Maths on alt.slack? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU
> PEOPLE???
Lots.
Let's talk about Heinlein's diagonalization method of producing higher
infinities of pathetic, worthless prose.
--
"I want to write about the philosophy of sitting in chairs because I
have a reputation for lolling." -- Lin Yutang
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: temujin9@mci2000.com (Nathaniel Eliot)
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:14:30 GMT, "?!" <s-c-h-a-b-e@m-r.n-e-t>
wrote:
> I had to abandon any idea that your basic 10, 7, 93 and 666-style
>numerology was valid when I grapsed the horror of pi. Or e, for that
>matter. These numbers represent *basic facts* about the shape of the
>universe, and they *don't exist* on the number line -- "Irrational" and
>"Transcendental" are truly good descriptors here. You can't *think* about
>them, at least, not the way you can think about "7" or "a dozen dozen".
Thank you for saying what I was going to say before I got around
to it. Pi, e, and a healthy dose of infinity and transinfinite*
numbers should be all you need for *quite* a while. Second year
calculus is to numerology as SEX-HURT is to peaking at a girly
mag in the store.
temujin9
* yes, there are numbers bigger than infinity. the concepts
involved really hurt my head after a while.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: friday@subgenius.com (IrRev. Friday Jones)
Subject: New Morlockology Re: New Morology
How many Morlocks can dance on the emptied skull of an Eloi?
And, other deep numerological matters ...
II - III - II = "Bob"!
Original file name: New Morology (was- Re- I goŠ
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.