Science Forums

# The Hidden Patterns on a Dial Pad and Numerical Values as Such.

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Take an everyday calculator and add up some numbers in this fashion:

111+333=444

Then Divide the result by two and you will get the value that is between the two chosen numbers which is:

222

It doesn't matter if you add 1+3=4/2=2 or even 111,111,111+333,333,333=444,444,444/2=222,222,222

How many numbers does not change the fact that the way in which we have numerical value aligned on a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Grid makes all sorts of interesting patterns show up..

For example you can also go cross ways.

777+333=1,110/2=555 which diagonally is the middle number

Or Outside Barrier of values such as 777+111=888/2=444 which exteriorly is the middle number.

You can play with this to find out more values I am sure but isn't it interesting that this might be some form of numerical Matrix' of sorts which is a type of mathematics I do not understand very well but what I do understand is that it is loaded with pattens this formula here.

<#> (spaced by 1 relative to dimension) + <#> = <#> /2 = <#> Number inbetween chosen dimesional value.

Edited by TriggerGrimm
##### Share on other sites

What you seem to have discovered  is that the "mean" of two numbers, or the mean of n equally spaced numbers, is equal to the "midrange"!

##### Share on other sites

I feeling very middle aged thank you

##### Share on other sites

just a youngster then.

##### Share on other sites
• 3 weeks later...

You can find all sorts of weird patterns in numbers. We'll, I suppose these patterns have some order, they just appear weird. I've found some myself over the years.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

these patterns have some order,

🤣 ya mean the order given by purposely adding and dividing them? Ya kook

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
##### Share on other sites

Your insults run off my back like water, you weirdo.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Statistically speaking, a coincidence is more of a fluke. You don't want to find hidden patterns, something I used to make something out of pure randomness as if there was any more to it, you want logic and true maths and order.

Example of good math:

"A line segment is one dimensional, but composed infinite points in the zeroth dimension. So two a round planar object in the second dimension is composed of infinite line segments that converge at the center or (0,0) of that plane."

An example of kookery;

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
##### Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 9:25 PM, Dubbelosix said:

You can find all sorts of weird patterns in numbers. We'll, I suppose these patterns have some order, they just appear weird. I've found some myself over the years.

What do you think the reason Gabriel's horn has finite volume but infinite surface area when you run differential lim0->♾️?

I'll give you a hint, when dealing with metrics we don't reduce a fraction.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing the thoughts of an alleged "expert". 🙄

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Come now, a mathematician will always tell you that limits can run to infinity. But a physicist will always tell you they are not actually real, even though they try and use them by deducting infinities from infinities in renormalization from field theory. To tell you straight, and without misleading, it's still a very misunderstood issue this whole business because infinities aren't even numbers, as you would find in number theory, they are in fact, Ill-defined concepts which hold no observable importance.

Edited by Dubbelosix
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In fact, physicists, the proper kind, not kooks, hate infinities arising in a theory because it should be taken as a breakdown of the theory. Nothing in this universe is infinite, even if you created a machine capable of counting indefinitely, any time you measure it, you will never find it at infinity... Infinity is yet another buzzword that is often abused.

Edited by Dubbelosix
##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Come now, a mathematician will always tell you that limits can run to infinity. But a physicist will always tell you they are not actually real, even though they try and use them by deducting infinities from infinities in renormalization from field theory. To tell you straight, and without misleading, it's still a very misunderstood issue this whole business because infinities aren't even numbers, as you would find in number theory, they are in fact, I'll defined concepts which hold no observable importance.

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

In fact, physicists, the proper kind, not kooks, hate infinities arising in a theory because it should be taken as a breakdown of the theory. Nothing in this universe is infinite, even if you created a machine capable of counting indefinitely, any time you measure it, you will never find it at infinity... Infinity is yet another buzzword that is often abused.

Not quite 🤣. Nice try though.

It's really just that you simply don't reduce 22(♾️)/7(♾️)!

That goes with any limit you set, as the ratio of reduction in the volume will always be pi, however 22(💯)/7(💯) meters, is actually left at 💯π meters cubed instead of π meters. You could say ♾️π cubic meters too, which is just ♾️ cubic meters!

Ya kook! 😛

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dirac was a notable voice against renormalization, and in the quiet halls of the various minds of physicists, it still remains an objective annoyance because the whole idea of them having a physical interpretation leads to ad hoc applications like taking infinities from infinities. It's just not math that can be applied to a reasonable world where we take abstract knowledge from finite regions. In fact, this is the whole problem, renormalization as an issue as taking infinities from each other in hope of finding finite values. And it's not acceptable to a rational, theoretical mind.

Edited by Dubbelosix
##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Dirac was a notable voice against renormalization, and in the quiet halls of the various minds of physicists, it still remains an objective annoyance because the whole idea of them having a physical interpretation leads to ad hoc applications like taking infinities from infinities. It's just not math that can be applied to a reasonable world where we take abstract knowledge from finite regions. In fact, this is the while problem, renoalization is an issue offering infinities from each other in hope of finding finite values. And it's not acceptable to a rational, theoretical mind.

##### Share on other sites

I haven't idea what the last spell of a post is meant to mean, but I can actually link you to various top minds who share these sentiments... Though I do not like her much, the only video Sabine Hossenfelder has ever produced which is right on the nose about this subject, I saw the other day, is infinities. I'll find it for you, ya twat.

##### Share on other sites

Now, listen closely ignoramus little fool

##### Share on other sites

Alright next question

How would you go about solving the Beal Conjecture?

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.