Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 76

Thread: Can you make a sentence which says: pi?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Tolls
    For example I have a version here which opens Genesis with:
    "When God began to create heaven and earth..."

    Which is not the same as the version John I have, which begins:
    "In the beginning the Word already was."

    As you can see, they're not terribly similar.
    I can't judge the translation from the Hebrew, but this translation from the Greek seems rather odd.

    En archei čn ho Logos is literally In the beginning was the Word. There is no "already" in the original.

    The full sentence is: En archei čn ho Logos, kai ho Logos čn proos ton Theon, kai Theos čn ho Logos. Which, in a word-by-word translation, yields: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.

    Note that this is a somewhat contrived sentence, with God having an article the first time, but not the second time. As if the sentence had some function beyond telling a story.

    And this was written down, at the very latest, in the days of the emperor Constantine.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    Well, you discovered it before I was ready to reveal it -- but now you see why I put this in Conspiracy Theories rather than Off Topic Babbling.

    I had a pretty good idea of where you were going right from when you said this.
    "But what if you found this pattern in the very first sentence of the book?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    Because... someone did encode pi in the first sentence of Genesis.

    Why is this not a coincidence? Because there is an independent confirmation.
    Right. What does an independant confirmation have to do with anything? From what I've gathered, you haven't listened to a single thing that any one of us posters has mentioned to you. You continue to promote this coincidence as fact, even after we've shown that these patterns can show up in any book. Isn't this one step above trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    Well, that is exactly what's the case (with one caveat: the scheme is the same, but the alphabet is another one -- Greek rather than Hebrew).
    Wait, so you're saying that 'e' is encoded in Greek, and pi is encoded in Hebrew? And you're trying to get us to find pi in english, even though it was encoded in Hebrew? Why isn't 'e' encoded in Hebrew as well? Don't you think that these encoding people would use some sort of consistency in the language for the very least?

    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    So, here we have someone who encoded pi at least a century before pi was discovered by Archimedes, and someone who encoded e at least a millennium before e was discovered by Napier.

    Because here we have evidence for someone or something meddling with our history.
    Well, who encoded these things then? Someone who spoke Hebrew thought it'd be nifty to encode pi the first sentence of the bible using your theomatics numbering system. Then along came someone else who spoke Greek, and did the same thing, with the exact same numbering system. This should mean two things. First of all, both would have had to know the numbering system, and apply them to their own alphabets. Secondly, there should be evidence that this numbering system was passed down, and existed when these texts were written.

    Finally, I have to ask. What's the motive in doing this? Why the need to encode these numbers?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    77
    Also, I think it's worth pointing out that if this "code" was, in fact, "planted", then the encoders are very lucky that humankind generally settled on using Base 10 as our primary notation for mathematical calculations. Especially considering we had a number of options still available at the time these codes were allegedly planted. And, likewise, if the encoders were from a non-human civilization, we're certainly lucky they chose to use Base 10, otherwise we might have missed this remarkable message altogether.

    If we choose octal, for example, our english code would need to be shifted thusly...

    A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7,
    H=10, I=20, J=30, K=40, L=50, M=60, N=70,
    O=100, P=200, Q=300, R=400, S=500, T=600, U=700,
    V=1000, W=2000, X=3000, Y=4000, Z=5000

    Under these circumstances, the same formula, applied to the same sentence will not produce equivalent results if a different base is used. In english, the fragment "IS BAD" works-out to ~24 using the decimal code. Using octal, it works-out to ~538. And, obviously, 538 = 4310 ≠ 2410.

    I don't really have the patience or the inclination to attempt a Base 8 calculation using the two biblical sentences in their original languages, but the above example should suffice. And, the point remains, what if humankind had instead settled on Base 12 (which is really nice for multiplication and division and was once relatively widely used) or any other system?

    I suppose the answer to that question is that another startling coincidence would be found using another "inspired" formula.


    --ISF

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    Wait, so you're saying that 'e' is encoded in Greek, and pi is encoded in Hebrew? And you're trying to get us to find pi in english, even though it was encoded in Hebrew? Why isn't 'e' encoded in Hebrew as well? Don't you think that these encoding people would use some sort of consistency in the language for the very least?

    I've pretty much stayed out of this thread, but I will point out one thing. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek alphabets all have an internal numbering system. In other words, they used letters for numbers rather than having a seperate numerical system as we do. As such the numerical system that is linked to the words is set in these languages, you just can't just decide to maniplulate it into other bases, etc. It's also why I don't think that it really can be done using English, we don't have a numerical system in our alphabet, so adding one becomes a convolution from the start. As to the findings, they are interesting, but nothing more as far as I can see, I think that there are far more interesting patterns in the Bible such as comparing Moses raising the snake in the desert to the crucifiction, and Psalms 22 to the crucifiction.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    513
    Finally, I have to ask. What's the motive in doing this? Why the need to encode these numbers?

    I suspect that they simply wanted to mess with future reader's heads.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    How do you encode an irrational number in a finite text?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    Personally I think that if God, or ET were encoding such things into the text to show that a greater intelligence was behind the words, then the values wouldn't have been approximately right, they would have been perfect to the number of decimal places the sentance allowed. So unless it's going to be shown that we have pi wrong....

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651
    I did not assert that God encoded pi in the first line of Genesis. But if He did, one should remember that even God cannot do the impossible (or so I think). If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

    However, I don't want to discuss religious issues any more than strictly necessary.

    As for the base 10 and the numerical system; these were of course already in use when the encoding took place. (Anyway, we have 10 fingers, so it wouldn't take much imagination to predict that base 10 would be used.)

    On behalf of those who comment on my posts without first reading them, I will reiterate here that the English version of the code was only used as an example, to give people a feel of how difficult it would be to encode pi without them having to use Hebrew as well.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    I did not assert that God encoded pi in the first line of Genesis.

    I never said you diid.

    But if He did, one should remember that even God cannot do the impossible (or so I think).

    That's interesting, I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent?

    If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which give a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

    But since assuming that it was done by God and that he did it deliberately, then he would have created the alphabet/numerical system used and thus made sure that the language carried the ability to produce the numbers exactly.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.
    ... with the system invented afterwards to get this result. Other systems are possible, and there is no reason to use this system at all except because you get this result.
    What if you, e.g. extended the system I gave with the last sentence of Much Ado About Nothing? Take a longer text, where the number of words comes first (e.g. a text of 314159 words), and the number of letters is stick to the back of that (2653589). Voila, a much larger precision of Pi, with an equally possible method. Why is your method the correct one?
    And your quoted sentence starts with an "if", but it is a pretty big one.

    As I have shown (as did others), even with your method, finding "significant results" in first lines is easy. Check back my Shakespeare post and explain to me why this is a coincidence (mulitplying the first line of Hamlet with the first line of Macbeth gives me almost exactly 1), and finding e and pi isn't.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz
    How do you encode an irrational number in a finite text?
    Easy

    Here it is in ASCII:

    73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 6F 66 6F 6E 65

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440

    How about the reverse challenge?

    Given a string of symbols (such as English letters, or Chinese characters, or ...), find a coding scheme which 'produces' {insert the object of your favour here}?

    But only the first {x} digits, of course.

    Or, if you're more ambitious, show that the number of such coding schemes is >{insert a very large number here}.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,073
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    Easy

    Here it is in ASCII:

    73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 6F 66 6F 6E 65
    That's rational, though. And why did you put in one of the spaces and leave out the others?
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    That's rational, though. And why did you put in one of the spaces and leave out the others?
    I didn't know you would be reading this thread!

    Sorry, here it is, fixed up:
    73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 20 6F 66 20 74 77 6F

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    I can't judge the translation from the Hebrew, but this translation from the Greek seems rather odd.

    En archei čn ho Logos is literally In the beginning was the Word. There is no "already" in the original.

    The full sentence is: En archei čn ho Logos, kai ho Logos čn proos ton Theon, kai Theos čn ho Logos. Which, in a word-by-word translation, yields: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.
    That's not a transliteration (word for word), it is a translation, as is the version I posted above.

    This is my point. You have two languages (well, three since they're being translated into English) which function differently, and you are saying a particular sentence is the same. It doesn't work like that. They may have a similar meaning, but that does not make them the same.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,073
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    I didn't know you would be reading this thread!

    Sorry, here it is, fixed up:
    73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 20 6F 66 20 74 77 6F
    Much better!
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651
    Tolls (post 45):

    Anything which can be expressed in Greek can be xpressed in English, and vice versa. It may be more complicated to do so in one language than in the other, and one may occasionally have to coin a new word, or leave a word untranslated, surrounding it with parentheses, but it can always be done.

    (For example, some languages may not have a word for computer, so one would use the word "computer" as it stands, when translating from the English. And "logos" may sometimes be translated as "reason" instead of "word".)

    Here, however, a sentence was "translated" in such a way as to change what it expresses. The word "already" was interposed, which does not correspond to any word (or shade of meaning) within the original, untranslated sentence.

    Nereid (post 42):

    I concede that this would very probably be possible, but it would be irrelevant if the scheme for using letters as numerals was already in existence before the text in question was written.

    This is quite certain to be the case for the Gospel of St. John, because it cannot have been written before the time of the emperor Tiberius, but somewhat less certain for Genesis, which might have been written as early as the time of the pharao Ramses II. But it is mostly thought that it was written during the reign of king David, and may even been written later, in the days of king Nebucadnezar.

    Greek letters were used as numerals in Classical Greece, and Hebrew letters were probably used as numerals as soon as there was need for calculations; that is: as soon as the Israelites had settled in Israel, and had built the paraphernalia of a civilized society.

    PhantomWolf (post 39):

    In principle God could have caused the Israelites and the Greeks to have adopted a certain system for using letters as numerals, but no lesser being could probably have done the same, so your alternative does not allow for the two texts to have been written by normal humans.

    And that is what I primarily want to say: Look, there is something very weird here, and it should be discussed worldwide, because our history has evidently not been free from outside influences. Whether by God, or by aliens, or by something else altogether: it can no longer be truthfully said that humans have played out their own history all by themselves.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    Nereid (post 42):

    I concede that this would very probably be possible, but it would be irrelevant if the scheme for using letters as numerals was already in existence before the text in question was written.

    This is quite certain to be the case for the Gospel of St. John, because it cannot have been written before the time of the emperor Tiberius, but somewhat less certain for Genesis, which might have been written as early as the time of the pharao Ramses II. But it is mostly thought that it was written during the reign of king David, and may even been written later, in the days of king Nebucadnezar.

    Greek letters were used as numerals in Classical Greece, and Hebrew letters were probably used as numerals as soon as there was need for calculations; that is: as soon as the Israelites had settled in Israel, and had built the paraphernalia of a civilized society.
    But the link I gave earlier (which supports your position) says that the Hebrew numerical system only exists since the 2nd century BC, so clearly later than the writing of Genesis.
    Furthermore, the complicated calculations you do on those sentences are not documented anywhere.
    And that is what I primarily want to say: Look, there is something very weird here, and it should be discussed worldwide, because our history has evidently not been free from outside influences. Whether by God, or by aliens, or by something else altogether: it can no longer be truthfully said that humans have played out their own history all by themselves.
    Evidently? Truthfully? Aren't you jumping to conclusions a bit? It has been shown to you that you can find numerical coincidences in many sentences, even using the same system you gave. It has not been shown in any way that the result you get is unique and unexplainable, and you seem to ignore evidence to the contrary.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651
    I assume you refer to your Shakespeare quotes. The precision of these results is somewhat less than the precision of the "pi" and "e" result, and the sentences are somewhat less special. (Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's first play, for example.)

    I must ask again: what is the a priori chance of finding e to five decimals in the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John using a scheme which has already yielded pi to the same precision from the first sentence of Genesis? Use Bayesian probability, and do the math.

    I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

    So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

    And we are talking about the two most important constants in mathemathics.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

    So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.
    Actually, using your argement above you can only state "we MAY be talking about the first sentences..." By your own statements, you cannot be definitive about that point.

    But, more importantly, surely if an "influencing intelligence" can force authors to encode pi and e, they would have prevented the gospels from being "randomly ordered" as you assert.

    There is no point in encoding a message if it cannot be decoded and its meaning determined. If the placement of these books in the bible bears any importance to the message itself, then "they" would have seen to it that John was, in fact, the first book of the New Testament. If not, you're simply adding another baseless contrivance to the top of this claim in an attempt to make it seem as though the odds of it being random chance are that much "more astronomical".


    --ISF

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Much better!
    Next, I'm going to encode the entirety of pi, but it'll take much longer of course.

    Here it is:
    72 61 74 69 6F 20 6F 66 20 63 69 72 63 75 6C 66 65 72 65 6D 63 65 20 64 6F 20 64 69 61 6C 65 74 65 72

    Oops, it looks like I screwed up some digits somewhere

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,440
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    Next, I'm going to encode the entirety of pi, but it'll take much longer of course.

    Here it is:
    72 61 74 69 6F 20 6F 66 20 63 69 72 63 75 6C 66 65 72 65 6D 63 65 20 64 6F 20 64 69 61 6C 65 74 65 72

    Oops, it looks like I screwed up some digits somewhere
    I thought it was just:

    70 69

    ??

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    D'oh

  24. #54
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,073
    Quote Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
    Next, I'm going to encode the entirety of pi, but it'll take much longer of course.

    Here it is:
    72 61 74 69 6F 20 6F 66 20 63 69 72 63 75 6C 66 65 72 65 6D 63 65 20 64 6F 20 64 69 61 6C 65 74 65 72

    Oops, it looks like I screwed up some digits somewhere
    You're just making sure I'll take the time to decode it. What the heck is a "circulferemce"?
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    You've never heard of a circul?

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    I assume you refer to your Shakespeare quotes. The precision of these results is somewhat less than the precision of the "pi" and "e" result, and the sentences are somewhat less special. (Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's first play, for example.)

    I must ask again: what is the a priori chance of finding e to five decimals in the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John using a scheme which has already yielded pi to the same precision from the first sentence of Genesis? Use Bayesian probability, and do the math.

    I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

    So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

    And we are talking about the two most important constants in mathemathics.
    Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III are arguably the three most important plays by Shakespeare, and you asked for first sentences of books, not of necessarily the first books someone wrote. The Hobbit isn't the first book by Tolkien either. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the gospel of John was the first to be written. And it is also uncertain if Genesis was written first.
    And I think "1" is equally important, if not more so, and 7 is clearly a holy number, important in many cultures. The precision to which Richard III yielded 7 was almost as high as your Pi precision, but I had to use a predefined system, while you could use any system (calculations) you wanted to get the result you wanted.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Fram
    Hamlet, Macbeth, and Richard III are arguably the three most important plays by Shakespeare, and you asked for first sentences of books, not of necessarily the first books someone wrote. The Hobbit isn't the first book by Tolkien either. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the gospel of John was the first to be written. And it is also uncertain if Genesis was written first.
    In fact, most Biblical scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Old Testament.

    I'm pretty sure John wasn't first either. It's not one of the synoptic gospels, but I can't remember if the "Q" document was first or not. Plus, I think maybe Paul's letters came first in terms of things being written down. I'm not as certain of this as I am of Job though.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Relmuis
    I assume you refer to your Shakespeare quotes. The precision of these results is somewhat less than the precision of the "pi" and "e" result, and the sentences are somewhat less special. (Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's first play, for example.)

    I must ask again: what is the a priori chance of finding e to five decimals in the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John using a scheme which has already yielded pi to the same precision from the first sentence of Genesis? Use Bayesian probability, and do the math.

    I would like to point out that the four gospels are ordered in an essentially random order, and that the Gospel of St. John may well have been the first one written, which means that it should be the first book of the New Testament, just like Genesis is the first one of the Old Testament.

    So we are talking about the first sentences of the two major divisions of the Bible.

    And we are talking about the two most important constants in mathemathics.
    (my bold).

    Here's (at least part of) the rub: you will have a dickens of a time demonstrating that a priori chance should be taken seriously (and we all know how meaningful a posteriori chances are, don't we? )

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,092
    I think it is quite clear by now that your objections are invalid, but still, I have tried to find which is actually the first of Shakespeares plays. There is no certainty about that either, but Penguin gives "Two Gentlemen of Verona", which is as good as any other to me. Taking the first sentence of this one, "Cease to persuade, my loving Proteus", and using your numbering system, but instead of dividing the word value by the letter value, I multiply those: this gives me 1.4172, again very close to 1.4142, the square root of 2.
    So a random sentence and a simple variation on your scheme again gives a result which comes very close to one of the important basic numbers. It looks to me as if it really isn't that strange that you can find a system which gives an impressive result which almost every sentence, and this one really isn't the result of a long search.
    By the way, if you take the square root of 2, multiply it by 7, and take the square root of the result, you end up with ... 3.14!

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    651
    Shakespeare:

    It seems that curious numeric approximations can be made somewhat more easily than I expected, at least in the works of Shakespeare. However, the number e has not been found, and the numbers which were found were already known in Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare has a certain notoriety as an author whose work has been supposed by "Shakespearologers" to contain acrostics, secret codes, and such, and I now feel that these "Shakespearologers" may have a point after all.

    Shakespeare did not have a computer, I think, so there must be a relatively easy way to encode these numbers, even if I (or anyone else on this forum) cannot think of it.

    Order of the gospels:

    It has been said that God, if He encoded e in the Gospel of St. John, could also have ensured that this gospel would become the first book of the Bible. Yes, He could have. But if it was aliens who caused e to be thus encoded, or some other advanced beings without omnipotence, these beings might not have been able to do so. For example, it would be more easy for them to have a quiet conversation with St. John, than to influence the proceedings of a church council. They may even have lost interest during the intervening centuries, or have been forced (by circumstance or by other aliens) to leave the Solar System.

    Why do I suppose that St. John may have written his Gospel before the other three Because the other three show similarities, which is why they were called the synoptic gospels. And because St. John was present at many of the scenes described.

    Order of the Old Testament books:

    I have no firm opinion as to the order in which they were actually written, but the subject matter of Genesis precedes the subject matter of the other ones, so it seems reasonable to think of Genesis as "chapter one". Even a contemporary author does not have to write his chapters in the order of their position in the finished work.

    Translations:

    It is quite clear that en archei in Greek has the same meaning as berezhit in Hebrew. The two books begin with the same phrase.

Similar Threads

  1. Make a Sentence from 5 letters
    By MrB398 in forum Fun-n-Games
    Replies: 1185
    Last Post: 2010-Dec-03, 08:59 PM
  2. use the last three words to make a sentence game
    By WaxRubiks in forum Fun-n-Games
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-03, 06:58 PM
  3. Spell A Sentence Game
    By LurchGS in forum Fun-n-Games
    Replies: 773
    Last Post: 2007-Dec-16, 07:45 PM
  4. Can you make a sentence which says: pi?
    By Relmuis in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 2006-Apr-18, 05:04 PM
  5. sentence tense trouble
    By aurorae in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2002-Nov-06, 11:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •