Bullshit. You are ignoring all my counterexamples of civilisations that use other bases, like 8, 12, 20 or 60. And you are turning the causal link on its head: We do not have B (whatever B might be) fingers because B is most convenient, but base B is dominant because we have B fingers. If we had had 8 or 12 fingers/toes, the most convenient bases would be 8, 12, 16, and 24. There’s absolutely nothing magical about 10.
An assertion that you pull out of your arse does not prove shit. If this is your idea of a proof, then I can disprove god like this: I assert that god does not exist, which proves that she doesn’t.
If I could attach the files here, I would. Click the link, review the proof, then highlight whatever blemishes you spotted here and I will clear them for you. That is, If you are unafraid of The Truth.
Assertion made without any valid argumentation, what tells you that they are going to choose the base 10? There have been other numeral system in history.
Subjective statement.
Jumping to conclusions without evidences: “man uses base 10 numeral system, therefore he must have been created by an omnipotent being”. There’s no logical link between the two.
Even more jumping to conclusions: let’s just say, hypothetically and for the sake of the argument, that you are right and a god designed human beings, what tells you that this god is the christian one? There have been more than 4000 religions in the world and more are to come, but only your god is real?
I do not see “base 10” as being “most convenient.”
Define “convenience.”
If a civilization depends upon computers, then base 2 would probably be most convienent.
If orcas, dolphins, and whales were running the show, then I would guess–because of certain philosophical arguments–that base 4 would be convienent.
Octopi seem like a near miss on the intelligence scale, so if they evolve and build a civilization, then I would assume that their number system would be predicated on base 8.
If anyone here disagrees with me, then please call me on this. Many of you guys have more education than I do in mathematics.
Numerology that aligns with the Word of God is The Truth. Mathematics is the fabric with which The Universe was fashion. The Proof in the link above demonstrates this.
I clearly stated “and when it’s all said and done, the civilizations will settle with the base 10 numeral system”. Now, tell me, what numeral system do they use now?
Bullshit. First of all, there exists precisely ZERO evidence for the imaginary cartoon magic man from your favourite sad little Bronze Age mythology.
Second, the idea that a fantastically gifted magic entity played any part in the concoction of said farcical Bronze Age mythology, is cretinous bilge. Oh wait, the Bronze Age mythology in question contains within its pages, the excrementally palsied assertion that genetics is controlled by coloured sticks, a piece of garbage that was utterly destroyed by a 19th century monk, when he launched modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
The wank fantasy you’re peddling here, that made up shit concocted to prop up this foetid mythology and its numerous banalities purportedly constitutes “truth”, is beneath deserving of a point of view.
Actual mathematicians tend not to share your simpleton view of the subject.
You don’t have a “proof”, you have made up shit with which you’re wanking your ego in public. Now get back in your crate.
Well, depends on what you use them for. For implementation in electronics, base 2 is the most convenient because the electronics design is much simpler, each bit requires less supporting electronics (giving us denser packing), and the electronics will use less power (with binary - on/off - most current is drawn while switching between states, but is very low when held static at 0 or 1.
For presentation, the most convenient base is the one that fits the application or the usage best and/or is most familiar to the user. For programming hardware close stuff, base 16 - and in some cases base 8 - are very convenient. Binary numbers are usually quite hard to read, because it only uses two symbols, and the number of digits quickly “explode” as the magnitude increases. The only reason I can come up with that makes base 10 convenient is that it is the most familiar for most people.
You now assume the existence of the god you are trying to prove, and you are using the existence of this god as a premise. This is a begging the question fallacy.
That is a fallacy called Retrospective determinism. It is an informal fallacy that assumes that something happening is proof that it was bound to happen.
Still don’t see anything of substance in what you are writing.
No thanks, if you can’t post it here then offer citations for peer review, otherwise why would I care.
You mean like the Imperial system, which is what the US uses, and what the UK used until I was about 6 years old. You are funny…Now how many inches in a foot, it’s not ten is it?
Humans were not designed, they evolved, and that is an objective fact, supported by overwhelming objective evidence.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate any deity exists, or is even possible? Mysticism like numerology won’t do it for me, nor will your hilarious random capital letters.
I was under the impression that there was something very specific about Base 2 (binary) that automatically lends itself to information storage and/or manipulation in computer technology. I didn’t realize that there were other possibilities that were practical.
Like I hinted at, it is possible to use other bases, but with current technology, binary is easier and more economical to implement. On the one side, with a base larger than 2, you can pack more information into each cell of information (“bit”), but on the flip side it would require more components to control the different states and levels and to distinguish them from each other. Base 2 is particularly simple, as it’s just “on” or “off”, and you in principle don’t care much about the absolute levels as long as you are within tolerances.
A God revealed himself to be The Beginning and The End - (Revelation 22:13).
The same God revealed himself to be One(1) and a Trinity(333) - 1 John 5:7
I employed the trinity of numbers to show that God to be the One True God(OTG) -
1 2345678 9(333)
God is The beginning(1) and He is The End 9(3 3 3)The Holy Trinity.
It should be noted that The Holy Trinity(333) was derived from The Trinity of Numbers(111, 222, 333, etc.).(see first segment of the proof for full illustration)
The Proof also demonstrates how the 3 members of The Trinity are represented by 9 and God is represented by 3
The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = 9
God = 3
9 is comprised of three 3s:
implying that there are three members who are God inside 9: 3 3 3
Your opening postulate is a bare unevidenced claim, it requires sufficient objective evidence to support it, otherwise it is meaningless. At the very least it should have an “If” in front of it.
Same as above…
Same as above…
Sigh, same as above…
You have offered no proof, and it ought to be peer reviewed, even if you can do so. Do you rally imagine such news would break her first? Imagine how absurd that idea appears.
There is no proof.
( being divisible by 3 is not a mathematical proof, and to assert this evidences any deity is risible.
Nope, Superman Spiderman Batman = 3, what does this say about them? Thi is woeful nonsense, I can only hope you’re taking the piss.
There is no proof.
Dear oh dear, again I can only hope this is a sad attempt at levity and trolling, or I would have to feel a little sad for you…
He clearly doesn’t know what a proof is, or how they are validated, but diving 9 by 3 and linking this to a string of biblical claims involving the number 3 is not a proof, it is risible nonsense.
Nine is also comprised of ones, halves, and millionths. So what?
I noticed you also used the word implying. Do you understand that imply is not a synonym of prove? Similarly, as I pointed out in a previous post, you used the words, hence the assertion. An assertion is not a synonym of proof.
In order for his syllogism to be a valid logical proof, all his postulates would need to be true, all he has offered are bare claims. Some of the postulates don’t have any relevance to others, and some read like conclusions. He needs to number the postulates, and his conclusion, so it’s clear it follows from the postulates.
