In Re: We

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Everything is being done.
There is nothing you can do as you are being done.

You are dumb!

In the OP, I said:

"There is kNOw dew, there's only re-dew."

In your case:

"There is kNOw tard, there's only re-tard!

You are a retard.

Ribbit

Don't call your brother fool or tard, stop being a knowitall and judging others, for all you know the other guy might be more enlightened than you.

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

Time is absurd. and you can't put a spin on it. There is no such thing.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Everything is being done.
There is nothing you can do as you are being done.

You are dumb!

In the OP, I said:

"There is kNOw dew, there's only re-dew."

In your case:

"There is kNOw tard, there's only re-tard!

You are a retard.

Ribbit

Don't call your brother fool or tard, stop being a knowitall and judging others, for all you know the other guy might be more enlightened than you.

Dew you judge that the sky iz blue?

Dew you judge that the water iz wet?

Dew you judge that the wind iz blow'n?

Did I judge when I called a fool a fool or a tard a tard?

The answer is kNOw on all of those, for I did kNot judge HIM, I gave an honest assessment of his stupidity.

kNOW, if I had made a racial slur, or sexist remark or told him he was going to hell for being so stupid, then I would have judged him but I have repeatedly told him that even stupid peeps don't lose. So if he isn't going to lose, why would I judge him? I love him like a sister and I'm from Arkansas!

"Stupid iz whut Stupid does."

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

I've found his awareness to be quite extraordinary, I guess you see something else.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

I've found his awareness to be quite extraordinary, I guess you see something else.

He is physically stuck in Time.

I even talk about it in one of my quotes, but it is speaking about how everything exists in the Now, but the werd "exists" is present tense, so of course it only means Now but he cannot decern simple english to realize a Past & Future tense also occurs and that to become One, isn't to go from a Duality to One, it's going from a Trinality and combining all three to become the Neutral One and the math is simple when it comes to Time:

-1 = Past
0 = Present
+1 = Future

-1 + 0 + 1 = Zero

So by combining all three as One, true Oneality happens and when it comes to Time, that is the kNOW but the kNOW isn't the only piece.

Ribbit

Ps: The math werks with most everything else too.

Positive + Neutral + Negative = Neutral = Zero
Right + Neutral + Wrong = Neutral = Zero
Good + Neutral + Bad = Neutral = Zero
Handsome + Me + Ugly = Fugly

So while he has sum merit, he's only got one piece of three so the math there is simple also:

1/1 - 1/3 = 2/3 = 66.6% = 666

So you think he makes sense?

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

I've found his awareness to be quite extraordinary, I guess you see something else.

He is physically stuck in Time.

I even talk about it in one of my quotes, but it is speaking about how everything exists in the Now, but the werd "exists" is present tense, so of course it only means Now but he cannot discern simple english to realize a Past & Future tense also occurs and that to become One, isn't to go from a Duality to One, it's going from a Trinality and combining all three to become the Neutral One and the math is simple when it comes to Time:

-1 = Past
0 = Present
+1 = Future

-1 + 0 + 1 = Zero

So by combining all three as One, true Oneality happens and when it comes to Time, that is the kNOW but the kNOW isn't the only piece.

Ribbit

Ps: The math werks with most everything else too.

Positive + Neutral + Negative = Neutral = Zero
Right + Neutral + Wrong = Neutral = Zero
Good + Neutral + Bad = Neutral = Zero
Handsome + Me + Ugly = Fugly

So while he has sum merit, he's only got one piece of three so the math there is simple also:

1/1 - 1/3 = 2/3 = 66.6% = 666

So you think he makes sense?

"The birth of a question is what begins the Circle of Life and the answer completes the circle, for another question to be born from, to continue the circle forever." - Old Toad Proverb

Ever notice what a Circle looks like?

Answer = Zero

Zero is kNot kNOwTHING, it is much more than that.

"The old saying, "I think, therefore I am" can be converted into, God/Source thinks, therefore Time is." - Old Toad Proverb

Ribbit

Ps: Here's the quote I was referring to earlier:

God is always inside WE and WE are always inside God, for God is ONE and the Center of the Universe and Everything is God and WE are ONE with God, so WE are also at the Center of the Universe, no matter where WE are and including the fact WE are stuck in the Middle of time forever, then . . . .

"WE are Inside Everything and Everything is Inside WE, all the while being stuck in the Middle of Time at the Center of the Universe for an Eternity." - Old Toad Proverb"

One is kNot Zero so the real question is, how dew you go from Zero to One? I've already answered that question but see if you can "get" it?

Can 1 + 1 + 1 = 1?

reply to post by mirrormaker326


So before I get to the others, I feel that I still did not answer your question about the 8 by 2 by 9. Upon re-reading, it seems I explained some characteristics, but never fully answered the original question. Working on that now on google docs, as it is word and these posts evaporate with slightest browser glitch.

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
reply to post by mirrormaker326

 

So before I get to the others, I feel that I still did not answer your question about the 8 by 2 by 9. Upon re-reading, it seems I explained some characteristics, but never fully answered the original question. Working on that now on google docs, as it is word and these posts evaporate with slightest browser glitch.

You actually got it but kNot finitely.

It has to dew with the relationship of Base-8 (Octal) and Base-9 mathematics. That's why there was an order to the ending decimal portion, plus the fact that 0,3,6, and 9 were kNot possible decimal endings. If you look closely, you will see that 8 & 9 have a unique relationship, that's why the decimal ending is a constant pattern to infinity.

Another interesting thing is in Base-9 there is kNOw Zero but in my puzzle, there is because 9 is wholly divisible by 9, which would create a Zero but because the base number is a square of 2, there won't be any 3's so there won't be any 9's, so that problem is solved by the base number.

Have fun poking around in it and I look forward to your observations on the puzzle and hearing your thoughts on possible/probable necessities required for an Eternal Universe and your answers to the riddles, plus, any remarks you may have about the other things I've said.

Ribbit

Ps: You already caught one main thing, the numerology of the base number, which was a base-8 number. That's one of the relationships between 8 & 9, but 9 has a unique relationship with the other numbers as well.

9 is a very interesting number and why I call it the Number of Assimilation/Assumption.

Resistance is futile!

8 by 2 by 9

Despite the length of my last response to eponymous puzzle, I did not answer the question in a way that I feel was sufficient. This is a result of a couple of factors (pun intended): 1. For reasons that having absolutely nothing to do with the puzzle and everything to do with the puzzle simultaneously, I was distracted and while in this distracted state, I was working the day job and writing my “answer” during breaks and lunch. I also get very excited talking about these things and sometimes I need to slow down and explain my reasoning a little better and make sure I am confronting what has really been asked.. Anyway, I did not answer sufficiently so here goes.

116/9 = 9 goes into 16 by 1 then (1/8 = 0 with a remainder of 1) then (8 – 1 = 7) = 1.7 with the 7 to infinity
32/9 = 9 goes into 32 by 3 then (3/8 = 0 with a remainder of 3) then (8 – 3 = 5) = 3.5 with the 5 to infinity
64/9 = 9 goes into 64 by 7 then (7/8 = 0 with a remainder of 7) then (8 – 7 = 1) = 7.1 with the 1 to infinity
128/9 = 9 goes into 128 by 14 (14/8 = 1 with a remainder of 6) then (8 – 6 = 2) = 14.2 with the 2 to infinity
256/9 = 9 goes into 256 by 28 (28/8 = 3 with a remainder of 4) then (8 – 4 = 4) = 28.4 with the 4 to infinity
512/9 = 9 goes into 512 by 56 (56/8 = 7 with a remainder of 0) then (8 – 0 = 8) = 56.8 with the 8 to infinity
1024/9 = 9 goes into 1028 by 113 (113/8 = 13 with a remainder of 1) then (8 – 1 = 7) = 113.7 with the 7 to infinity
Etc….

I’ll start with 16/9, when evaluating this operation, we first have to ask what it is we are trying to express. In “16/9”, we are asking how many iterations of the number 9 are in numerical existence below the number 16. In this case there is one iteration of 9 in 16. So when dividing by any integer, the range of possible remainders from division is 1 less than that integer. Division by 9 has the range of possible remainders,1-8.

I kind of view remainders as the numerical increase to the “nth” iteration of the divisor required to reach equality with the numerator, thus reducing to 1, and and finally eradicating the existential crisis of never being whole.


Using 1 ( 1 iteration of 9 is present in 16), The remainder is 7, which is the repeating decimal

Now we divide the whole number iteration of 9, in this case 1, by 8. In doing so, we convert the whole number iteration of 9 to base 8. This is the case because the whole number component of the result is ignored, we are only concerned with the remainder. We have 1 mod 8 now in continuation with the operations on 16/9. The remainder is 1, and this means that the difference between 1 and the next iteration of 8 is 7. Why is the difference between the remainder and 8 the same as the remainder in 16/9? By subtracting 1 from 8, we show that this it is 7 away from the next iteration of 8. Since we are also striving for whole number iterations of 8 in order to reduce the original fraction/division by 9 to 1, we must also add 7 to the 9n in the denominator to reach the iteration of 8 that will reduce the fraction. As 1 is the remainder when dividing the whole number iteration of 9 by 8, we know this number has to increase by 7 to reach 8. The number 9 needs to increase by 7 to reach 16.


Even though we are dividing by 9 in the original expression, we are also searching for the next iteration of 8. As the “Double 8 to Infinity” system will always be partitioned by 8, when we add the remainder to the value of the nth iteration of 9, we get a number that will always be divisible by 8.


Lets try 32/9, so we have (3 X 9) with a remainder 5: in a mixed fraction this is 3 5/9 or 3.55555...

So converting the 3rd iteration of 9 to base 8, we have 3 mod 8. In order to reach the next iteration of 8, we need the to know the difference so 8-3=5. Adding 5 to 3 will result in the next instance of 8. Adding 5 to 27 will also equal a whole number iteration of 8 (32).

You can determine a numbers base 9 equivalent by adding its constitute digits until you arrive at a single digit. Whole number iterations (n) of 9 are converted to base 8. Even though we are dividing by 9 initially, were are also dependent on the 8 system due to the series characteristics of the numerators. The difference between the remainder when dividing n by 8 and 8 itself is identical to the base 9 remainder that is necessary to reach the next iteration of 8 in the original expression. In each result, its form is such that it is equal to an iteration of 8. However, as was shown prior, there is always going to be a remainder, with the fraction never reducing to a whole number.

8 by 2 by 9 Part II

As was shown above, the remainders when dividing base 8 numbers by 9, cannot be equal to 3,6,9 due to the largest prime factor of 2 in the numerator. This correlates into 9x + 1,2,4,5,7,8 = y, where y is divisible by 8. By then dividing “x” by 8 and ignoring the whole number iterations, the remainder is x’s value in a base 8 system. We then subtract this x from 8 yielding the required numerical increase (k) so ( x+k)/8 = 1 . Why do we determine the whole number iterations of 9’s value in base 8? Because in the first operation (2^n)/9, we are converting the base 8 system to base 9. By converting this whole number result to base 8, we determine how far it is away from the previous iteration of 8. As the series is circular, we subtract to determine what increase is necessary to reach the next successive iteration of 8 . This number is the same as the remainder in the division by 9 because in both instances, we are searching for the next iteration of 8. By determining how far away the nth iteration of 9 is away from the next successive iteration of 8, you are also determining the remainder when 2^4+k is divided by 9.

In the prior division of the 2^n system, the remainder is added to the nth iteration of 9 to make this ratio equal 1. We are increasing the value of 9n so that 9n + x is also divisible by 8, which given the base 8 system being divided, implies that if 9n + x is divisible by 8, then 2^n (n=>4) /9k +x will result in a whole number solution. Converting from base 9 to base 8, we know that the difference between the next full iteration of 8 and its remainder is equal to the increase required to the nth iteration of 9 to yield 1 when dividing the 2^n (n=>3) system. Since getting the denominator to divide by 8 is the ultimate, albeit impossible goal, we divide the whole number solution by 8, to find outs value in base 8, or the remainder. The remainder subtracted from 8 yields the difference between the nth iteration of 9 (which is what we divided by 8) and the next iteration of 8. With 16/9, the amount of times 9 goes into 16 a is with a remainder of 7. In order for 9n to reach the next iteration of 8 you must add 7. As this 1 is actual a meta-representation of base 9, we express it in base 8, also as 1. We must add 7 to this number as well to reach the next iteration of 8. The reason that the decimal values can be derived in this way is because even though we are dividing by/converting to base 9, we are also bound to the base 8 system. Seven (7) is the necessary increase to arrive at the next iteration of 8 in both.

The remainders when dividing the base 8 system by 9 are equivalent to the difference between 8 and the remainder when dividing the nth iteration of 9 by 8. In order to reach the next “8” we must add 7 to any remainder with a value of 1, in the base 8 system.

Since we are also trying to reach the next iteration of 8 to make the initial expression = 1, we add 7 to 9, resulting in 16/16.

The reason that this connection is present is because of the perfect base 8 system in the numerator. By dividing the whole number iterations of 9 by 8, you convert it to base 8. The remainder subtracted from 8 gives the value of the numerical increase required to reach 8 again. This number when added to 9(n) in the original issue results in a fraction that reduces to 1, and becomes whole.

This may be a bit rambling at spots, but I think it covers the original question better than the original response.

You got it but you went the hard way. Here it is in a kNut.

8 and 9 hold a special relationship with one another, they are inverted exponential opposites:

8 = 2³
9 = 3²

When dividing Base-2 (includes Base-8) numbers by 9, the resulting whole number portion has a direct numerical relationship with the fraction portion via Base-8, which is what the Numbers Puzzle shows. The reason for it is because of 9's assimilation/assumption properties with Base-9 Mathematics (Numerology) and because the factor is to divide Base-2 numbers by 9, the division by 9 is the initial controlling factor, then Base-8 takes over and as you pointed out, there are only 8 possible partial fractions when dividing by 9, so all potential conflicts are averted.

So while mixing apples and oranges makes fruit punch, in mathematics it makes Math Soup.

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad

I have a question for you. For the Universe to have always been and always be (aka: exist an eternity), what would be required?

Here's a list of possible requirements;

1. Universe would have to be an Open System (aka: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would kNot apply)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics was first postulated to describe the excitation and behavior of molecules (heat) in closed systems, and how entropy increases as a function of time. Entropy can be viewed as disorder within the system. As the 2nd law states that the entropy of a system will either increase or stay the same over time, measuring the entropy of a system can also show the direction (arrow) of time. Physicists use this as evidence for the irreversibility of time, because if reversing the process would result in less entropy, this would violate the 2nd law. But what started as a description of of heat with engineering applications, evolved into statistical mechanics, and then applied to the Universe as a whole. Physicists use “data” from the cosmic background radiation to infer that since the Universe’s temperature has dropped since the Big Bang, then the entropy of the entire Universe has been increasing, therefore implying that the Universe itself is at the least an “isolated system” and assumed to be be closed. However, Poincare Recurrence states that given a sufficiently long time, a closed system will eventually return to a state that is nearly identical to its original state, which would violate the 2nd law, and Poincare showed this is mathematically/statistically possible in a closed system. Physicists sort of cop-out of Poincare’s apparent paradox, by stating that the amount of time it takes for the system to return to state nearly identical to its initial conditions is so large, that we can ignore it. But in an eternal Universe, even if it were closed, via Poincare, it will return to a state qualitatively indistinguishable from its original state, thus violating the Second Law, even in a closed system. So even though I believe that the Universe is an Open System (more on that below), if it is in fact eternal, it can still be “closed” and violate the 2nd Law.



2. kNew matter (virgin matter/energy) would have to be created at all times (aka: Perpetual Motion)
3. All matter would have to be recyclable (byproduct of an Open System)

In the current state of orthodox “science”, it is accepted that a fundamental law of the Universe is that Matter/Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The non-destructibility of matter/energy is consistent with #3 in both open and closed systems, but #2 is interesting. For new energy to enter the system, by definition this means it is open. In order for 2 to be true, there would have to be an inexhaustible source of “energy”. As Cantor so eloquently proved a coupled hundred years ago, there are varying sizes of infinities. The set of integers is infinite, but the set of all even integers is also infinite even though it only constitutes half of the set of all integers. By transfinite mathematics, it is possible for an infinite system to contain within in it “smaller” infinities, so in the metaphysical sense, it is entirely possible for an infinite source to perpetually supply our Universe with virgin energy/matter. But even though I am intrigued by #2 and it certainly might be closer to the truth, it is not necessary for an eternal Universe if #3 is true. It is completely possible to imagine an eternal Universe that only recycles its matter/energy, rendering #2 a contingent property to an Eternal Universe, not a necessary property.

4. At least two spatial dimensions would have to exist, with both being:
a. polarity opposites of one another
b. above & below one another

I kind of view “existence” as kind of the “0th” dimension, as its instantiation from the form to the physical lays the ground work for spatiality and the other dimensions. I think there is a certain inevitablity to higher spatial dimensions, but the idea of a “Universe” is not really possible without at least two spatial dimensions, so I am in agreement with #4.

5. Doorways would have to be able to be created between the spatial dimensions to create pathways for:
a. an Open System to exist
b. matter to be recycled
c. virgin matter to be introduced

I am not so sure that the dimensions that need the pathways are the spatial, but more like the “0th” dimension that is the sub-structure of spatiality and the Source of the virgin energy, that was discussed above.

reply to post by mirrormaker326


Continued...

6. Time would have to be a constant and linked to all spatial dimensions

In an eternal Universe, “time” is only relevant to the workings within the physical manifestation, not the Source or Creator. But, it must exist within the spatial dimensions as its is linked and bound to it. Causality and distance are both time dependent, and these are necessary components to the physical Universe and spatial dimensions.

7. Space would have to be Infinite and capable of growth (aka: Expanding Universe Theory)

Assuming that virgin energy/matter is being constantly introduced and matter is recylced, this statement must be true. If the Universe were finite and incapable of expansion there would be major issues if there was an inexhaustible Source.

8. Galaxies would have to be birthed from recycled matter (including virgin matter)

Yes, a necessary component of an eternal Universe.

9. kNOw lifeform would be capable and/or allowed to disrupt and/or harm the equilibrium of the Universe.

I guess we have to define at what scale. If the Universe were designed to be self correcting, so as to “produce” its own adjustments or calibrations if lifeforms were heading in that direction, it would allow free will but also the impossibility of truly disrupting the equilibrium. There might be slight deviations from time to time, but the necessary self correcting mechanisms keep the scales balanced.

Which of those would apply and what other requirements would possibly be necessary?

I also think that the Universe must be rotating as well as expanding. This rotation, I think, explains the forces behind the expansion, and might account for some of the loose ends in Gravitation, which is also necessary component of a the 3 Dimensional existence of this Universe, though not so much at lower spatial dimensions. I kind of view the self correcting mechanisms as necessary as the physical laws, as it makes sense for the Universe to adjust itself, more so than direct intervention from the Source.

I will post my answers to the riddles shortly.

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

I have a question for you. For the Universe to have always been and always be (aka: exist an eternity), what would be required?

Here's a list of possible requirements;

1. Universe would have to be an Open System (aka: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would kNot apply)

Physicists use “data” from the cosmic background radiation to infer that since the Universe’s temperature has dropped since the Big Bang, then the entropy of the entire Universe has been increasing, therefore implying that the Universe itself is at the least an “isolated system” and assumed to be be closed.

The Big Bang didn't happen, the Little Bang did.

What science hasn't figured out yet is Matter has DNA, via Sub-atomic Genetic Coding (SaGC) and when they peer out into the Universe with their Radio Telescopes, the telescope is only picking up on the CMBR's our galaxy's light bubble left behind, as it traveled away from our birth place.

So the Big Bang Theory is inadvertently based on our galaxy's birth, a Little Bang, but all galaxies are born one at a time and science has even found a weird black hole (kNot at the center of our galaxy, in our galaxy) they define as a type of Old Faithful, because it reverts back and forth from drawing matter in and ejecting matter, but that's dew to it's location in the Eye of God (the formation of black holes into two 'eyes' in the dimension below this one). When a black hole ends up on the edge within the eye (between pupil & iris), when a galaxy is born from the recycled matter, the evacuation of the twin orbs of anti-matter cause the virgin matter (converted and inverted electromagnetic energy that floods the 1st Dimension) to 'overflow' the iris (iris is comrpised of the massive dual black holes from the center of all spiral galaxies and the pupil is comprised of the small black holes that open up from stars collapsing to recycle the matter around it)and the virgin matter is pushed out the black holes on the outside edge of the pupil, which are normally drawing matter in to recycle it.

I'm in the process of writing up the entire scenario that explains the truth about the Universe and how it is Perpetual Motion. I'll post it on a new thread as soon as I'm finished.

Ribbit

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
reply to post by mirrormaker326

 

Continued...

6. Time would have to be a constant and linked to all spatial dimensions

In an eternal Universe, “time” is only relevant to the workings within the physical manifestation, not the Source or Creator. But, it must exist within the spatial dimensions as its is linked and bound to it. Causality and distance are both time dependent, and these are necessary components to the physical Universe and spatial dimensions.

Time is the creation of God/Source, via Thought of the Collective Consciousness.

"The old saying, "I think, therefore I am" can be converted into, God/Source thinks, therefore Time is." - Old Toad Proverb

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


If that's the case, i guess there's no point then only to forget when reborn to just remember that kinda sucks.

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


Riddle We This:

1. What comes from 2 and can exist as 3 or even 2 but Never as ONE, yet ultimately it is ONE regardless?

Maybe I’m still thinking about spatiality, but this seems like you are hinting at spatial dimensions. You can’t really define the 1st without the 2nd. (It comes from 2) But the 1st dimension’s abstract existence (it is ONE), is necessary for the higher spatial dimensions. It is a dimension without actually being one. Originally, I thought we were talking about the number 6, as it is even and can exists as 2 groups of 3 or 3 groups of 2, and the fact that it is a perfect number and reduces to 1 when divided by the sum of its factors. But the switch in the numerical representation of 2 and 3 to the word representation of ONE, lead me to the dimensional answer, which is the “official” one.

2. If 1 + 2 equals 4 and 2 + 3 equals 8 and 3 - 2 equals 6 and 2 - 1 equals 4 then what does 2 - 3 equal and WHY?

1+2=4
2+3=8
3-2=6
2-1=4

So in this little puzzle, the initial integers in the statements do no reflect their actual value. However, the numbers after the operation signs (+,-) do in fact represent their real value. The first numbers are the position of the actual integer values in a sequence of numbers. So what values of [1,2,3] make the expressions true and can also be connected? We know that 2+2=4, so we assume a value of 2 for [1] in the first statement. For the second, we know that 5+3=8, so we assume a value of 5 for [2] in the sequence. In the third 8-6=2, so we have 8 for [3]. So we find a function that expresses these three integers in spots 1,2, and 3 in the sequence. 3x-1 fits this description. This also correlates to all integers congruent to 2 mod 3.

2-3= 2



3. I can BOUNCE but I'm kNot Tigger and you may COUNT on me yet I vary in DEGREE and sometimes I don't even AMOUNT to much and you can even do it BEHIND yourself at TIMES but many TIMES you FORGET to do it at ALL. Who/What am I?

This one I am less sure about, I know that it needs to be something that is both a verb and noun. My checks have been know to bounce from time to time, even though they don’t amount to much. I forget to “check” things all the time. But, my confidence in this answer is wavering as I type.

Originally posted by mirrormaker326
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Riddle We This:

1. What comes from 2 and can exist as 3 or even 2 but Never as ONE, yet ultimately it is ONE regardless?

Maybe I’m still thinking about spatiality, but this seems like you are hinting at spatial dimensions. You can’t really define the 1st without the 2nd. (It comes from 2) But the 1st dimension’s abstract existence (it is ONE), is necessary for the higher spatial dimensions. It is a dimension without actually being one. Originally, I thought we were talking about the number 6, as it is even and can exists as 2 groups of 3 or 3 groups of 2, and the fact that it is a perfect number and reduces to 1 when divided by the sum of its factors. But the switch in the numerical representation of 2 and 3 to the word representation of ONE, lead me to the dimensional answer, which is the “official” one.

2. If 1 + 2 equals 4 and 2 + 3 equals 8 and 3 - 2 equals 6 and 2 - 1 equals 4 then what does 2 - 3 equal and WHY?

1+2=4
2+3=8
3-2=6
2-1=4

So in this little puzzle, the initial integers in the statements do no reflect their actual value. However, the numbers after the operation signs (+,-) do in fact represent their real value. The first numbers are the position of the actual integer values in a sequence of numbers. So what values of [1,2,3] make the expressions true and can also be connected? We know that 2+2=4, so we assume a value of 2 for [1] in the first statement. For the second, we know that 5+3=5, so we assume a value of 5 for [2] in the sequence. In the third 8-6=2, so we have 8 for [3]. So we find a function that expresses these three integers in spots 1,2, and 3 in the sequence. 3x-1 fits this description. This also correlates to all integers congruent to 2 mod 3.

2-3= 2



3. I can BOUNCE but I'm kNot Tigger and you may COUNT on me yet I vary in DEGREE and sometimes I don't even AMOUNT to much and you can even do it BEHIND yourself at TIMES but many TIMES you FORGET to do it at ALL. Who/What am I?

This one I am less sure about, I know that it needs to be something that is both a verb and noun. My checks have been know to bounce from time to time, even though they don’t amount to much. I forget to “check” things all the time. But, my confidence in this answer is wavering as I type.

You got the last two correct!

On the first one, you got off on this thread, when it applies to us (people) instead.

Excellent job! The 2nd one is one that most peeps are incapable of figuring out. I have a simple one that is a 3 part riddle, that I wrote to explain how 'they" deciphered the Matrix Trilogy and I posted part one and no one ever figured it out. You wouldn't have a problem figuring it out but most peeps really dew suck at math.

Ribbit