Yes, you’re incredible. But I’m telling you that in my sequence, there’s either a 9 between an 8 and a 1, or a 19 between an 8 and an 11. My sequence was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 11 12 etc., after all. So either you take the 11 as 11, which means you must logically also take the 19 as 19, or you take the 11 as a 1–namely, the new 1–, which means you must logically also take the 19 as a 9–namely, the new 9 or 0.
No, you don’t just believe, you know. You’ve had marvellous revelations from your God, after all.
Which claims in particular are you talking about here?
Anyway, MM made a rather significant call above referring to the decimal system, which is implied by the success of the 9 base system. None of the units in the 9 base system produce derivatives (matrixes) as their are within the limits of the minimal fractal. The decimal system is the first possible tangent, the point where the fractal is doubled to produce a reference, a measure of linear progression.
On second thought, I now think the same goes for the 8 base system. All numbers except 2, 4, 6, and 8 break down into all of the numbers 1 through 8, but 2, 4, 6, and 8 only to 2, 4, 6, and 8. For the 7 base system, all numbers except 7 break down into all of the numbers 1 through 7, because 7 is a prime number. So the smallest numerical system that contains a logic whereby it propagates itself because it is both in- and outwardly reflective is the 4 base system, because 4 is the smallest number that is not a prime.
Jakob, yes we know that 9 and 12 are the keys, when these wheels TURN their product is created as a third “metaphysical” cycle which is simply the fact that turns in one wheel have significance to turns on the other wheel.
Sauw, a couple of things, your numbers patterns arent doing what we are working in here, because the key involves those rotations around the turn as either addition or multiplication (addition squared) based on a number’s self-valuing. This means each number sets the terms for what it means to “spin the wheel”. This was my original insight (after my insight grasping the structure of the Fibonaccsea Wheel of Life) that led me to understanding the supreme significance of base 9.
I looked at nonary, but it is just a perversion. Sustituting 0 for 9 makes no sense, 0 was introduced only as a place holder and really has no meaning in an ontological sense; and the point of all this is to discover the universe’s math.
Go bac and look first at where I describe how the base 9 number circle is traversed, I think it is in my first post. Then look at FC’s table of numbers again with this in mind.
All of the doubling, geometries, systems and self-valuing progressions and everything else down to the essential and transcendent view of numbers themselves starts here. None of this is going to make sense unless one starts at the beginning, puts pride aside, and takes it slowly one insight at a time.
It was you who made a 1 out of my 11. I repeat: my sequence was 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 11 12 etc. You later said about that sequence that “there’s an obnoxious 19 between an 8 and a 1”. Methinks the only way for you to take the 11 as a 1 is by way of the decimal system, in which 11 is the one of the 10s.
No, no. I did not - I was showing you that by doing so, you remove the 9. Hence why I said “19 doesn’t work”. 19 is taking place of both, 1 and 9. It’s sequentially wrong.
When you work with “God’s Numbers”:
You get this mathematical perfection - this formula I created is mathematical genius. This is beyond your nonary system.
Well, what does “base 9” even mean? In your OP you say: “base 9 is the perfection of base 10”. I think you have “perfected” base 10 in the following way: 10 = 1 + 0 = 1, etc. But this simply changes the decimal system into a nonary system, as I’ve tried to explain to you guys. Compare:
You placing a 0 in our sequence proves that you don’t understand what you’re getting yourself into. Sit back and figure out what you’re dealing with before you bite off more than you can chew.
There is no 9 in the nonary system, as I said. The nonary system goes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 etc. Does that make it clearer to you? Or are you now gonna complain there is an obnoxious 10 between an 8 and a 1?
The sequence of |11| is 2, though; not 1. And how is 42 the answer to life? Outside of Asimov’s comic SF, I mean. Anyway, don’t you by “perfection” just mean “logic”? Have you tried the same thing in a different system?
Yes, your sequence is the second one I listed in the post you just quoted: I listed two sequences there. The likeness of the two is surely uncanny. For even greater clarity’s sake, however, I will post a third one:
Sauw you havent gone back and looked through the 9-spoked number wheel and how to transpose values across it. So you cannot really understand the differences between those sequences you just listed. Go back, work through a few examples, think about how cool that is, try going in both directions around the wheel, then look at FC’s table again, then let’s see if you still think you can drop 9 for 0 or sub in 0’s every 9th step and it’s no big deal.
I had gone back and looked through the wheel. The wheel is no different from an infinite line. The three infinite lines I just posted segments of are essentially the same.
Don’t you see? Even the woman’s uterus is mathematically designed! So mathematically designed, that the numbers fit the theory that the moon governs these menstruation cycles!
Never mind, I screwed up - which is a GOOD THING.
It’s 70, not 60.
70
140 ←
→ 210
280 ←
350
– > 420! ←
Look at how the numbers behave.
21+21=42
7+7=14
14+28=42
See it? The numbers are mathematically showing a design in how they are allocated. This gives us 420 being reached on both sides rather than one.
Sauw, 3 6 0 makes no logical sense. You could take any number of the 1-9 and substitute 29384 or -Pi or a duck or anything you want in for it, it would still make no sense and add no value at all. “Zero” does not even exist, ontologically speaking. In terms of logic the zero simply is a place-holder for a relative absence (of something else), so without defining that something else the zero is nonsensical. It was added because it allows place-holding so lazy operations, basically. It is much quicker to go 10 100 1000 1000 than it is to go 9 81 729 6561.
But look at a 1000, it tells you nothing about what is going on there. Compared to 6561. This thing we can use. Each number represents that many turns around the wheel, in this case we would have 6/9 + 5/99 + 6/999 + 1/9999, meaning not that the wheel is getting larger (or smaller, subdivided) but that each x9 value represents another wheel.
This is real mathematics, this is getting to what a number truly is - it is a symbolic-logical representation of the nature of reality as fractional relations of energy-values holding to themselves as standard-value.
Look at 5x4=20
What is this? “20”? What is “20”? The typical response is something like, “well that is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 things grouped together”.
Can you see how shallow that is? Reality is nothing like that. What is really going on is:
5/9 position on the spectrum, three turns forward with each turn moving the equivalent of -4 (+5) so 5 1 6 2. We have “2/9” position having been arrived at three orders of magnitude deep into the substance of mathematical reality. Can you see any of that depth when you use a zero? What the fuck does a zero add to anything? The beauty is in the 1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9 proportions, “0” is meaningless.
So I must wonder what your purpose is in my topic here, either you do not see that 0 is worthless and adds nothing of value, or you do see this and you are trying to fuck with me.
