Fibonacci numbers - The Fingerprint of God
Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
Fibonacci keeps appearing everywhere, but so does Euler's number.
Is this supposed to be a point against the Fibonacci numbers or for them?
The idea that there is something magical about Fibonacci numbers just because they have been found in more than one context is what makes them horribly overrated in my view. A lot of mathematical things show up in plenty of context. There is nothing very special in that feature.
_________________
.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
Fibonacci keeps appearing everywhere, but so does Euler's number.
Is this supposed to be a point against the Fibonacci numbers or for them?
The idea that there is something magical about Fibonacci numbers just because they have been found in more than one context is what makes them horribly overrated in my view. A lot of mathematical things show up in plenty of context. There is nothing very special in that feature.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDram ... igner.html
ruveyn
Fnord wrote:
What is the value of Pi?
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
Look how easily the Biblical inerrancy lie/nonsense is destroyed but a simple reference to the FACTS.
Thanks Fnord!
Tensu wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What is the value of Pi?
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
Rounding up Pi doesn't make the Bible imperfect.
Rounding exists.
Deal with it.
As f**king if an omniscient goD would round Pi to 3. Rounding to 3 causes errors to occur and would be a deceptive act. So much for the perfect, inerrant goD.
slave wrote:
Tensu wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What is the value of Pi?
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
Rounding up Pi doesn't make the Bible imperfect.
Rounding exists.
Deal with it.
As f**king if an omniscient goD would round Pi to 3. Rounding to 3 causes errors to occur and would be a deceptive act. So much for the perfect, inerrant goD.
Maybe G-d doesn't wanna round it up to 3.0.
And Tensue, IDC what you believe personally! The Bible is a book. A book that was written by MEN who claim it to be the word of G-d. I could write a book that says the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese and claim that it's G-ds word. Does that make it true? I don't think so.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
The Fibonacci numbers are superstition and magic. When a religion deteriorates into magic, that religion needs to be questioned.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
Vexcalibur wrote:
The idea that there is something magical about Fibonacci numbers just because they have been found in more than one context is what makes them horribly overrated in my view. A lot of mathematical things show up in plenty of context. There is nothing very special in that feature.
I think you could define the interestingness of a mathematical concept by how often it shows up in different contexts. Sure, there are plenty of mathematical concepts that do that, but that just means that mathematics is interesting.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
nominalist wrote:
The Fibonacci numbers are superstition and magic. When a religion deteriorates into magic, that religion needs to be questioned.
Wrong. The Fibonacci Numbers is a sequence whose terms are defined recursively.
You sociology professors don't know too much math, do you?
Sociology is the bottom of the intellectual barrel along with politics, theology and psychology.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
nominalist wrote:
The Fibonacci numbers are superstition and magic. When a religion deteriorates into magic, that religion needs to be questioned.
Wrong. The Fibonacci Numbers is a sequence whose terms are defined recursively.
You sociology professors don't know too much math, do you?
Sociology is the bottom of the intellectual barrel along with politics, theology and psychology.
ruveyn
OUCH!! !
slave wrote:
Tensu wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What is the value of Pi?
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
If you say "Exactly 3" then you are wrong, but consider the Bible to be inerrant. Refer to 2nd Chronicles 4:2 and 1st Kings 7:23.
If you say "3.1", "3.14", "3.142", "3.1416", "3.14159", or "3.141593", then your answer becomes more correct with each additional digit, but you don't believe the Bible to be perfect.
Why do I bring this up? Just to show that numbers are not the "Fingerprint of God". They are numbers, data, and facts only.
Rounding up Pi doesn't make the Bible imperfect.
Rounding exists.
Deal with it.
As f**king if an omniscient goD would round Pi to 3. Rounding to 3 causes errors to occur and would be a deceptive act. So much for the perfect, inerrant goD.
You don't need to round pi to 3 to explain the data - pi is never stated in the scriptures, so it would make no sense for that to be rounded.
What would make sense is for the measurements themselves to be rounded, and when you just think about it, they must be!
This was desribing an object, a circular object that somebody had made (even if you don't believe in God, you still believe there's some ruins to this day of a temple in Jerusalem right?), giving the measurements of it's diameter and circumference - so how could they get pi wrong when they weren't even using it or stating it, only making measurements? And they didn't get the measurements wrong, they just rounded them off.
If the circumference was about 30.3 cubits, and the diameter would then be about 9.6 cubits, that would be fully consistent with a circular object and the measurements would be rounded off to 30 and 10 giving the figures in the scriptures.
In the Bible, it is written that God want's us to belive that he exists, and to know is not to believe.
If the Fibonacci sequence is God's fingerprint, then it proves his existence, which means that we will know, and not believe, which would not be possible if the universe was created and controlled by God, which means that he don't exist because the Fibonnaci sequence proofs his existence.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
_________________
Reality is an illusion.
Exploronaut wrote:
If the Fibonacci sequence is God's fingerprint, then it proves his existence,
If we assume that the Fibonacci sequence is God's fingerprint, then we are assuming that a) God exists and b) that the Fibonacci numbers are his fingerprint. So that isn't a proof of his existence, but that if we assume he exists then we assume that he exists, which is a true statement, but it doesn't make your argument work.
You're also assuming that belief and knowledge are mutually incompatible, such that if we know something we cannot believe it. I both know and believe that I am typing on a keyboard right now, so your proof has a hole in it.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Ancalagon wrote:
Exploronaut wrote:
If the Fibonacci sequence is God's fingerprint, then it proves his existence,
If we assume that the Fibonacci sequence is God's fingerprint, then we are assuming that a) God exists and b) that the Fibonacci numbers are his fingerprint. So that isn't a proof of his existence, but that if we assume he exists then we assume that he exists, which is a true statement, but it doesn't make your argument work.
If the Fibonnaci sequense is God's fingerprint!
Ancalagon wrote:
You're also assuming that belief and knowledge are mutually incompatible, such that if we know something we cannot believe it. I both know and believe that I am typing on a keyboard right now, so your proof has a hole in it.
"To believe" depends on faith, "to know" depends on knowledge, which is two different things
(but you have a good point)
_________________
Reality is an illusion.