Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Numerology Can't Beat The Bases

A lot of new age creeps pay a lot of attention to numbers and their positioning, as if they have a mystical significance. For example, a mathematician pays attention to numbers like 256 and 3.14159265... because they have some significance when compared to and utilized with other numbers.

A numerologist, on the contrary, looks for numbers that are pretty, such as 777, 666, 494949494, or 3003003. In the end though, these numbers are insignificant for one singular reason--base changes.

We currently use a base 10 system, which means you could up to nine, and for the next number, you add "1" to the next place, and the fundamental place is reset, there by making 9+1=10. However, there are other base systems, such as the well-known binary system used in computers. In binary, 1+1=10. After counting to 1, if one more is added, "1" is added to the next place, and the fundamental place is reset.

Therefore, if you wanted to count to decimal (normal) 10 in binary, you would go:
1
10
11
100
101
110
111
1000
1001
1010
1011

HOWEVER, this is not read as "one, ten, eleven, one-hundred" because those spoken numbers imply the use of decimal, and this is binary. If you read them that way, you are a fool.

Back to point, let's take the "special" numbers I mentioned above and change the base a bit.

777
In hexidecimal (base 16): 309
In octal (base 8): 1 411
In binary (base 2): 11 0000 1001

666 (oooh, scary)
In hexidecimal (base 16): 29A
In octal (base 8): 1 232
In binary (base 2): 10 1001 1010

494949494
In hexidecimal (base 16): 1D80 5476
In octal (base 8): 3 540 052 166
In binary (base 2): 1 1101 1000 0000 0101 0100 0111 0110

So, see, all of these little patterns lose their significance, completely, when their bases are changed. Numerology is crap. Math rules.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

-->