|
|
| Author |
Message |
bjorn
|
|
Mystery Numbers
| 
Sep 19 19:54 UTC 1995 |
3, 7 and 9.
These numbers are significant to everyone, but my question is how?
|
| 44 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 44:
|
Sep 19 20:14 UTC 1995 |
Because, without them, you'd be in a peck of trouble.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 2 of 44:
|
Sep 20 02:46 UTC 1995 |
In the pagan religion, they're magickal numbers.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 44:
|
Sep 20 06:00 UTC 1995 |
Are there any nonmagical numbers?
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 44:
|
Sep 20 11:04 UTC 1995 |
I have never heard that 46109 is magical.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 5 of 44:
|
Sep 20 13:54 UTC 1995 |
The rule of threes, the circle of seven, the nine worlds... mayhap?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 44:
|
Sep 20 16:33 UTC 1995 |
What about the sign of the four, and the eightfold paths?
(46109? WOW! Be careful of *that* one during full moons!)
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 44:
|
Sep 21 10:06 UTC 1995 |
Crowley did an entire book of nothing but magickal attributions
of numbers. I should ask my Crowleyite friends, there may well
be some significance to 46109...
Of course, we all know the significance of 24601. >8)
|
bjorn
|
|
response 8 of 44:
|
Sep 21 16:20 UTC 1995 |
realistically the only true numbers are 0-9.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 44:
|
Sep 21 16:51 UTC 1995 |
I submit that 0, 1 are truer.
|
janc
|
|
response 10 of 44:
|
Sep 21 17:13 UTC 1995 |
46109? Wouldn't that be someplace in Indiana? What is the Zip Code of Hell?
|
bjorn
|
|
response 11 of 44:
|
Sep 21 20:15 UTC 1995 |
666 Nameless Street
Dis, Baator 666
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 44:
|
Sep 23 13:22 UTC 1995 |
The only true number is 1. 0 is an artifact.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 13 of 44:
|
Sep 24 18:43 UTC 1995 |
Okay.
Are we dealing with reality or binary here?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 44:
|
Sep 25 04:35 UTC 1995 |
You cannot know you have a 1 unless a 0 is possible, as 1, or "is"
is only a contrast to 0, or "is not".
bjorn, this item started out unconcerned with either reality or binary ;->.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 15 of 44:
|
Sep 25 18:42 UTC 1995 |
True, true...
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 44:
|
Sep 26 09:51 UTC 1995 |
Nonsense. 1 is, it simply is, and that is all there is to it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 44:
|
Sep 26 16:06 UTC 1995 |
Prima facie, huh?
|
bjorn
|
|
response 18 of 44:
|
Sep 26 16:30 UTC 1995 |
Moo.
|
robh
|
|
response 19 of 44:
|
Sep 28 10:18 UTC 1995 |
In the future, great war, millions die. But, great hope of
peace. The One will be a great leader. The One will show us
how to fight, and how to win.
The Zero, no, never heard of The Zero. Math not Zathrus'
specialty.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 20 of 44:
|
Sep 28 20:01 UTC 1995 |
The war of numbers? This is getting out of hand.
|
alfee
|
|
response 21 of 44:
|
Oct 8 02:54 UTC 1995 |
Hey, I just think the numbers 3, 7, and 9 are really cool numbers. What
more do they have to be, than just their own unique selves?
|
bjorn
|
|
response 22 of 44:
|
Oct 8 03:49 UTC 1995 |
The toys of the gods, that's what.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 44:
|
Oct 8 11:04 UTC 1995 |
Does your perception of a number depend on the notation
used to express it? Take "three" for example. In various
notational systems:
decimal: 3
binary: 11
Roman: III
Do you experience it as the same number in those
differing representations?
|
robh
|
|
response 24 of 44:
|
Oct 8 11:15 UTC 1995 |
And let's not forget:
octal 3
hexadecimal 3
base 19 3
base 46109 3
|