/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11373721

The numerological equivalent of this post is 7, for example, because 11373721 is 1+1+3+7+3+7+2+1, which equals 2+10+10+3, which (because 0 has no value other than a placeholder) = 2+1+1+3 = 7.

But you could throw as many 9s or 0s in there as you wanted, and it wouldn't make a difference:

1919300079939790291 is the same thing as 11373721, numerologically, because neither 9 nor 0 have any positive value when calculating the sum.

1+9+1+9+3+0+0+0+7+9+9+3+9+7+9+0+2+9+1 = 10+10+3+7+9+9+3+9+7+9+2+10 = 20+10+18+12+16+11+10 = 30+30+27+10 = 87+10 = 97 = 9+7 = 16 = 1+6 = 7.

You can use a calculator for this, and yet every time you add the numerals in this fashion, you will arrive at the same result.

Some numerologists have a lot of mystical beliefs attached to this phenomenon, but I just want to know why it happens, because a number of interesting results occur from studying the pattern suggested by the pic related.

>>11373751

For one, if you start with 10, you find that there is no difference between the leading digit of the multiplicand and the numerological value.

I suppose this makes sense, because 0 is a placeholder, so multiplying something by 10 is as simple as adding a zero to it, so it wouldn't really make a difference.

But when we get to the nines, it starts to get weird - I mean, you could have a string of 9s added to any number that, no matter how long, would result in something that you can completely ignore in terms of the effect it has on the overall numerological value. You can test this theory by adding any number of nines you like to any number and then adding up the numerological sum; it won't affect the outcome in any way.

So then we get to the eights, and we notice that there's a strange countdown pattern that seems to treat 9 and 0 as equivalent: you can continue this pattern in perpetuity and arrive at the same result, too - 8*11 = 88, which is 8+8, which is 16, which is 1+6, which is 7, and 8*12 = 96, or 9+6 = 15 = 1+5 = 6. You can continue this for as long as you want, and you will not be able to elude this pattern.

>>11373797

The sevens count down by twos, ignoring the difference between nine and zero: 7, 5, 3, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 9 (0), 7.

The sixes separate by threes, fives by four, and then fours by alternating fours and fives, strangely.

Threes are threes, but then twos complete the pattern (pic related)

So, why does this happen?

>>11373808

Let's take the number 8 - can we reduce the multiplier to its numerological equivalent before calculating the result?

8 * 651654 = 5213232.

But what if we reduce 651564 to its numerological equivalent, which would be 6+5+1+5+6+4 = 11+6+10 = 27 = 9?

8 * 9 = 72 = 7+2 = 9.

5213232 = 5+2+1+3+2+3+2 = 11+7= 18= 1+8 = 9.

Wow. Is that a fluke?

>>11373830

We should test other values.

Let's try 4 * 2039502.

It comes out to 8158008.

Numerologically, that value is equivalent to 8+1+5+8+0+0+8, which is (9) + 13 + 8 = 4 + 8 = 12 =3.

But what if we derive the numerological value of 2039502 and attempt to match them?

(2 + 3 = 5) + 9 = 14 = 1 + 4 = 5 + 5 = 10 = 1 + 0 = 1 + 0 + 2 = 3.

And 4 * 12 is 48, which comes out to 8 + 4, which is 12, which is 1 + 2, which is 3.

So, how did this much mathematical accord just happen to occur, /sci/?

Is it just some weird fluke, or what?

(protip: it's not just a weird fluke. I want answers).

>>11373797

>But when we get to the nines, it starts to get weird - I mean, you could have a string of 9s added to any number that, no matter how long, would result in something that you can completely ignore in terms of the effect it has on the overall numerological value. You can test this theory by adding any number of nines you like to any number and then adding up the numerological sum; it won't affect the outcome in any way.
>

If you ignore the implications of repeating sum sequences, the explanation for both 0 and 9 are quiet simple:

You are counting in a system of number representation that increments an integer located to the left of the value, every time that value reaches its base maximum.

As you are using base 10, the number on which this base starts is 0 and ends at 9+1.
Therefore, adding 9 to any value, increments the value to the left by one and decreases the number at value by one as well.

When going through the process of calculating the numerological value, you are attempting to decrease the representation of the value to a single digit, whit ignores values larger than the base. Thus, 0 does not increment the value as all, resulting in no change, while 9 increments the value to the left and decreases the value, resulting in a a net of no change to the numerological sum.

If you were using a base 5 system, the numbers that would have this behaviour would be 0 and 4.

>>11373808
>>11373862

As for the pattern in the rest of the digits, you are simply incrementing the value representation in base 10 with uneven numerological sums.

Let's say that the value we are looking at, are between 00 and 99 and will be represented as AB.

We saw that 9, in base 10, is the ceiling number which causes the incrémentation to the A, if added to any other number and a decrease to B, resulting in a net zero.

The number right before it, which is 8, causes an increment on all values that are larger than 1. This increment adds 1 to A but takes 2 from B. This means that the sum of A and B has decreased by 1. Resulting in a pattern of [08,8],[16,7],[24,6],[32,5],[40,4],[48,12,3],[56,11,2],[64,10,1],[72,9],[80,8]...

7 decreases B by 3 and thus results in a pattern of 3's.

6 decreases B by 4, and so on.

These patterns are more of a consequence of the tool choice humans took for counting. Could have easily been a completely different set of numbers, such as 36.

>>11373862

And the maximum sum of those values would be eight.

And that seems to be where our mathematics find closure.

>>11373901
>These patterns are more of a consequence of the tool choice humans took for counting. Could have easily been a completely different set of numbers, such as 36.

What's different about them? 3+6 =9.

But 9 doesn't even count in terms of numerological values. It's as good as nothing, because you could add an infinite amount of 9s and 0s and it would have the same (inconsequential) result in terms of the additive value of whatever number resulted therefrom, in terms of numerology.

Add an infinite number of nines or zeros to any number, and it won't make a difference in terms of the numerological outcome.