"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And I thought we were calling Rodin's math base 10. Thus, my question.

This question?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is it accurate to be talking about base 10 and its attributes vs. other bases when base 10 has 10 digits but Rodin's math only uses 9?

That question makes it sound like you thought Rodin's math was something other than base 10, but now you're saying Rodin's math is base 10, so obviously I didn't understand your question. Maybe you can clarify what you're asking?

Also, don't forget to count zero...it's a digit also. I know Rodin likes to just drop the zero from 10 and call it 1, but trust me, 10 and 1 are different, so you need the 0. But if you want to ignore it like Rodin, I'll gladly give you a $1 bill in exchange for a $10 bill if we are ignoring zeroes!

Why is base 9 not in your chart:

Since Rodin is using base 10, that is the reason base 10 is on the chart. Why would base 9 be on the chart? You quoted something from Rodin about his "math" and I use the term loosely, related to doubling. The reasons bases 2, 8 and 16 were chosen for comparison is because they have been used by engineers in computer applications, partly because of the way they handle doubling, which is better than the way base 10 handles doubling as far as computer engineering is concerned.

The chart also doesn't include bases 3,4,5,6 and 7, because why would it? Base 4 would handle doubling efficiently, but it's not really used in computer engineering to my knowledge, and even base 8 was mostly used during the early days of small computers, so now it's mostly base 2 and 16.

But you could add bases 3,4,5,6,7 and 9 if you want, and see what happens. If you don't have Excel you can use the free excel equivalent in the Open Office suite. You don't even need the calculation ability but the excel-style matrix layout might be easier than setting it up a table in Word, though you could use that too.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Also, don't forget to count zero...it's a digit also. I know Rodin likes to just drop the zero from 10 and call it 1, but trust me, 10 and 1 are different, so you need the 0.

This is the crux of the matter.

I remember Rodin talking about zero.

Yes, 10 and 1 are different.

However, Rodin is using "casting out nines," which is also called "decimal parity." Rodin didn't invent that.

Regarding doubling:

When a computer application engineer uses base 10, (which is not preferred - I understand), there are 10 digits being used, correct?

Rodin doesn't use 3, 6, or 9, so his math only uses only 6 digits for the doubling.

So if you compare base 10 being used by the engineer to Rodin's math it would be 10 digits vs. 6. Do you agree with that?

reply to post by Mary Rose

If we are still talking about doubling and how Rodin comes up with the 124875 sequence, note that's derived from 1,2,4,8,16,32

So, 32 has the digit 3 in it.

Therefore the claim that Rodin isn't using 3 is false.

the 5 in 124875 is the sum of that 3 and the 2 in 32.

So no, I don't agree Rodin doesn't use 3.

And what comes next after 32 in the doubling, and what digit does that start with?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, you might be forgetting about "emanations". I have no idea what they are, but apparently they have to do with some "spirit".

Are you sure you want to talk about "math", given that it's all about God-inspired sudoku and some strange stuff "emanating" from it?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm referring to what he starts with.

He starts out with 6 digits when he doubles but the engineer would start with 10.

Is that correct?

reply to post by buddhasystem

It's probably a hopeless cause.
However I still don't understand why anybody sees anything in Rodin's stuff so my thought was, if I could understand better what they see in it, then I might be able to explain better why there's nothing to it, and as you pointed out that base 10 which Rodin happened to use is nothing special.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I'm referring to what he starts with.

He starts out with 6 digits when he doubles but the engineer would start with 10.

Is that correct?

Mary, a computer engineer would often start with a binary code, or octal, or hexadecimal. I've used all three.

If you mean a mechanical engineer, they'd probably handle structural calculations with the decimal system, then again they wouldn't care about Rodin's "math", because it ain't it, and you'd have to show them some magic coming out of, which is doesn't, or the ability of the torus to calculate some of the difficult functions they have to deal with, which it doesn't either.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It's probably a hopeless cause.
However I still don't understand why anybody sees anything in Rodin's stuff so my thought was, if I could understand better what they see in it, then I might be able to explain better why there's nothing to it

Well you've been on ATS long enough to see that people would believe most anything... So it's moot. There is some whacky stuff there, and it's OK by many, many people w/o application of any sort of critical thinking. And I'm not even talking about people who are likely just insane.

and as you pointed out that base 10 which Rodin happened to use is nothing special.

but according to Rodin it's God-given. Just like that.

Oh well.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, a computer engineer would often start with a binary code, or octal, or hexadecimal. I've used all three.

That begs the question, does it not?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, a computer engineer would often start with a binary code, or octal, or hexadecimal. I've used all three.

That begs the question, does it not?

"Does it not" does not seem to correlate with the rest of your sentence, so I don't know.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You didn't answer my question, which was:

Regarding doubling:

When a computer application engineer uses base 10, (which is not preferred - I understand), there are 10 digits being used, correct?

Rodin doesn't use 3, 6, or 9, so his math ... uses only 6 digits for the doubling.

So if you compare base 10 being used by the engineer to Rodin's math it would be 10 digits vs. 6. Do you agree with that?

Modified by this in response to Arbitrageur's comment:

I'm referring to what he starts with.

He starts out with 6 digits when he doubles but the engineer would start with 10.

Is that correct?

Let's keep this focused on the computer application engineer - not a mechanical engineer for now.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Part of this discussion is trying to make sense out of nonsense so as buddhasystem suggests it's pointless anyway.

But I still don't see how you can say Rodin isn't using the digits 3 or 6 when he doubles 16 to 32. I see the 3 in 32 and the 6 in 16, so how can you say he's not using them? That's what he's starting with.

Then he uses then again when he says 1+6=7 and 3+2=5

9 doesn't appear until the twelfth doubling, at 4096, then that is used also.

So 3, 6 and 9 are used in the beginning and in the middle of his calculations. They don't appear in the end, but he can't arrive there without using them in the beginning and middle. Right?

He can't get to his result of 5 without adding 3+2 in 32. How can you not see he can't do this without 3?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Part of this discussion is trying to make sense out of nonsense so as buddhasystem suggests it's pointless anyway.

Part of this discussion? What part?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Part of this discussion is trying to make sense out of nonsense so as buddhasystem suggests it's pointless anyway.

Part of this discussion? What part?

The part about why anybody wants to add the 3 and the 2 in 32 in the first place.

You keep taking about casting out nines, which had a logical purpose. There's no logical purpose in Rodin's application of this like there is with casting out nines. From that wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

Casting out nines is a sanity check to ensure that hand computations of sums, differences, products, and quotients of integers are correct.

That's logical, but that's not what Rodin does with his results; he tries to use the result for some nonsense instead of for a sanity check. So, Rodin doesn't pass the sanity check.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's logical, but that's not what Rodin does with his results; he tries to use the result for some nonsense instead of for a sanity check.

Why can't Rodin apply a new application?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I can take the square root of the first 1000 prime numbers and paint them on my car and claim that makes it a time machine. That's a new application of prime numbers. The burden of proof is on me to show my claim is true. I don't think I have any more chance of proving that claim than Rodin has of proving his claims.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I can take the square root of the first 1000 prime numbers and paint them on my car and claim that makes it a time machine. That's a new application of prime numbers.

No. I tried that a few years ago. It didn't work.
I think the body of the car has to be stainless steel. I haven't gotten the money together for a Delorean yet though.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Okay. So, you concede that you don't have an argument based on the logic of the math used.

Just that there's no coil yet demonstrating the validity of his claims.

This conversation started with Russell's intuition about the math that he had in 2001.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Okay. So, you concede that you don't have an argument based on the logic of the math used.

I don't concede that.

There is no logic in taking the number 32, and adding the 3 and the 2, that I can see. There's not even any casting out nines in that operation. It's not math. It's just nonsense.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Now, you're just stomping your foot, I think.

You sound alot like you did earlier in the thread when you went on and on and on about the word "equals" after the context had been clearly delineated.

But thanks again for the time you've spent on my questions about base 10. That was helpful to me.