The Stupidity of Numerology, illustrated by Infinite Sequences

I was glancing at the comments on the post that I linked to about "0.999...=1". And one of them was such a wonderful example of crap numerology, which I enjoy laughing at, that I just had to repost it here:


But there's a couple tricks
you missed.

First, simple pattern
1/9 = .11111---
2/9 = .22222---
3/9 = .33333---
4/9 = .44444---
5/9 = .55555---
6/9 = .66666---
7/9 = .77777---
8/9 = .88888---
and therefore by logical
9/9 = .99999---
but of course, 9/9 = 1.

And then there are the
SPIRITUAL implications

.9 a soul
+ .09
+ .009 adding experience
+ .0009
+ .00009
! infinitely increasing

or the infinitely
repeating process
of growing greater
i.e. life


which EQUALS


the finished, static, unity
characteristic of a single
never-created being

i.e. God

The equations show
(the TRUTH behind all men
are created equal -
soul A = God,
soul B = God
transitive property -
A = God = B therefore A=B)

but .999--- being = 1
and 1 being a rational
number, 1/1 is the ratio
of two integers, as a guy
named Hugh Richmond asked
me, where are the two
integers whose ratio is
I coined an equation to
go with .999--- = 1 which
demonstrates our equality

x/y = .999---
where x and y are integers

THAT equation show the
DIFFERENCE between the
Creator and the Created -
only the Creator can make
it work.

Posted by: Fred Harry Wolnerman | June 17, 2006 at 11:53 PM

The spiritual implications of notational artifacts in decimal numbers. You just have to love it! It's just spectacularly silly, and a perfect example of the kind of gibberish that numerologists always get into, as well as a perfect example of the kind of errors that lead to the whole problem with understanding the difference between syntax and semantics.

More like this

Just saw a nice post at another math blog called Polymathematics about something that bugs me too... The way that people don't understand what repeating decimals mean. In particular, the way that people will insist that 0.9999999... != 1. As a CS geek, I tend to see this as an issue of how people…
Some of the commenters to yesterday's post raised some interesting questions on the subject of dividing by zero. So interesting, in fact, that I felt the subject deserved another post. My SciBling, revere, of Effect Measure: writes the following: OK, I shouldn't jump in here because I'm an…
While taking a break from some puzzling debugging, I decided to hit one of my favorite comedy sites, Answers in Genesis. I can pretty much always find something sufficiently stupid to amuse me on their site. Today, I came across a gem called ["Information, science and biology"][gitt], by the all…
If you look at the history of math, there've been a lot of disappointments for mathematicians. They always start off with an idea of math as a clean, beautiful, elegant thing. And they seem to often wind up disappointed. Which leads us into todays strange numbers: irrational and transcendental…

Ah, the old "1 is perfect, therefore god exist" proof that proves that a god, excuse me, a nut exists. Of course, adding a perfect 1 to a perfect 1 must still be perfect. Iterating gives us an endless supply of nuts. The basic proof form is thus a squirrelly proof. QED.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 18 Jun 2006 #permalink

It's not exactly numerology, but this is from a billboard along US150 here in Kentucky advocating abstinence:

1 + 1 = 3

In other words, sex --> baby.

So base-8 notation is soulless, lacking the numeral "9"? Supporting my early experience with computer programming in the mid-80s.

The numerology of hexadecimal, now... that's the ticket.

There is a wacky preacher named Harold Camping (he believes that the world will end in 2011) who believes that the number of the beast "666", is the number of man, and actually represents .666 or 2/3, signifying the people who are not chosen by God who are going to Hell.

Somehow, I don't think they author of The Revelation new much about decimal fractions.

I am an actual professional mathematician, although my Erdos number is a ho-hum 5.

The crackpot "spiritual implications" is an example of what I call "Theomathematics."


In this case, it is related to the assertion that God has 10 fingers (including thumbs) as portrayed in many classical painting by Blake, Michaelangelo, et al.

Professor Gregory Benford, [Astrophysics, University of California at Irvine], and award-winning science fiction author comments: "Rules of Thumb are okay, so long as you remember that not every intelligent entity has thumbs."


Professor Jonathan Vos Post

All of which goes to illustrate that numerology, like any other type of mystical system, works "only" as metaphor.

Are numerological and other mystical systems'coincidences meaningless because their "meaning" comes from our own minds? One might just as well ask if the images seen in inkblots are meaningless because they're made of mindstuff. The problem isn't with religion or numerology or other forms of mysticism per sec; the problem lies instead with insistence on the literality of such forms.

Numerology is the metaphorical use of math.

I suppose I should have written that numerology is "the extremely poetic and non-literal" metaphorical use of math, since all knowledge - including "good" math and all objective science - is arguably "metaphorical" in SOME sense.

Harry talks about this stuff at work all the time. What I find interesting is how other people react. Some want to pop him in the nose, others have a glazed look. I know he wrote an entire book on the subject. He believes what he is saying. I on the other hand, think we all have too much free time on your hands.