Building & Object Oriented Bible.

C

CoreyWhite

Here is the algorithm I am planning.

1) Sort all of the words in the old testament alphabetically.
2) Sort all of the words in the new testament alphabetically
backwards.
3)Use the two new books as consistent keys to unlock the third book,
which is complete but inconsistent.
4) We create a fourth book that references the first 3, and looks at
the first 2 ordered, alphabetic sets, as being mathematically
consistent, and looks at the third book as being a complete set of the
other two books.

So because the fourth book keeps everything together in an object
oriented set by itself, it can be complete and consistent without
letting the objects it contains contradict themselves.
 
D

davidsands

Here is the algorithm I am planning.

1) Sort all of the words in the old testament alphabetically.
2) Sort all of the words in the new testament alphabetically
backwards. Capitalize!
3)Use the two new books as consistent keys to unlock the third book,
which is complete but inconsistent.
4) We create a fourth book that references the first 3, and looks at
the first 2 ordered, alphabetic sets, as being mathematically
consistent, and looks at the third book as being a complete set of the
other two books.

So because the fourth book keeps everything together in an object
oriented set by itself, it can be complete and consistent without
letting the objects it contains contradict themselves.

Nice to know insanity is alive and well in the Christian faith.
 
C

CoreyWhite

Nice to know insanity is alive and well in the Christian faith.


I've rethought the design again.
I would just need to keep two sorted lists. One list being the
alphabetized list of words in the bible, and the other list being the
ordered placement of each coresponding word in the first list. So
that when you combine the two consistent lists by reording the first
list acording to the second; you get the origonal bible.
 
P

PerfectReign

Here is the algorithm I am planning.

1) Sort all of the words in the old testament alphabetically.
2) Sort all of the words in the new testament alphabetically
backwards.
3)Use the two new books as consistent keys to unlock the third book,
which is complete but inconsistent.
4) We create a fourth book that references the first 3, and looks at
the first 2 ordered, alphabetic sets, as being mathematically
consistent, and looks at the third book as being a complete set of the
other two books.

So because the fourth book keeps everything together in an object
oriented set by itself, it can be complete and consistent without
letting the objects it contains contradict themselves.

You know, you are beginning to sound like my senile grandfather a few
years before he died.

He kept rattling on about how he discovered a new math method he'd call,
"casting out nines."
 
C

CoreyWhite

You know, you are beginning to sound like my senile grandfather a few
years before he died.

He kept rattling on about how he discovered a new math method he'd call,
"casting out nines."


That makes good since to me. You just cast out the "nay" sayers, and
accumulate power from withinside of numbers. One old man on his death
bead? But combine it with the youth and grandchildren, and you have a
force more powerful.

What do you suppose he may have meant when he talked to you about
these things?
 
C

CoreyWhite

That makes good since to me. You just cast out the "nay" sayers, and
accumulate power from withinside of numbers. One old man on his death
bead? But combine it with the youth and grandchildren, and you have a
force more powerful.

What do you suppose he may have meant when he talked to you about
these things?

Come to think of it, the theory reminds me of the TV show Deal or No
Deal.

Let say you take all the numbers from 0-9 and arranged them randomly
in 10 cases.

Like this:

6 3 1 8
0 2 7 9

Now this sorting may not be perfectly random, but they are all 9
numbers which we have casted out at random.
If we didn't know where the cases were, now how would we find them?

Well if you pick one at random, you have an idea where the rest of
them have landed.

How?

Because the ordering is random! That means you can eliminate all of
the logical patters. And as long as you have a sense of the patterns
the cases could be in which are most random. Then you have a much
better guess of knowing where they will be.

Random algorithms will almost never generate this order:

12345
67890

Because they are trying to be random. And only a human could do it!
 
J

Jerry Stuckle

CoreyWhite said:
Because the ordering is random! That means you can eliminate all of
the logical patters. And as long as you have a sense of the patterns
the cases could be in which are most random. Then you have a much
better guess of knowing where they will be.

Random algorithms will almost never generate this order:

12345
67890

Because they are trying to be random. And only a human could do it!

Actually, of the order is truly random (impossible on a computer - but
let's say it is), then this combination has *exactly* the same odds of
coming up as any other combination - 1 in 3,628,000.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================
 
C

CoreyWhite

Come to think of it, the theory reminds me of the TV show Deal or No
Deal.

Let say you take all the numbers from 0-9 and arranged them randomly
in 10 cases.

Like this:

6 3 1 8
0 2 7 9

Now this sorting may not be perfectly random, but they are all 9
numbers which we have casted out at random.
If we didn't know where the cases were, now how would we find them?

Well if you pick one at random, you have an idea where the rest of
them have landed.

How?

Because the ordering is random! That means you can eliminate all of
the logical patters. And as long as you have a sense of the patterns
the cases could be in which are most random. Then you have a much
better guess of knowing where they will be.

Random algorithms will almost never generate this order:

12345
67890

Because they are trying to be random. And only a human could do it!

Furthermore we can say that if we had 6 sided dice, that were all
universally labeled with 9's the dice would be 100x more random and
this principal would operate even more abundantly.

When you roll a 6 sided die, the odds seem 1 in 6 of which way you
roll it. But because of the fact that you are casting them out
randomly you can usually eleminate all of the simple patterns.

But when you have changed all sides of your dice to be 9's then
depending on how you roll the dice they will be either a 6 or a 9.
See? So you have a new metalevel of randomness. And now when you
roll the dice you can eleminate even more complicated logic. So you
can be sure when rolling a set of dice they will all be perfectly fair
and sort in truly random orders and patterns. Instead of sometimes
falling so they are all 6's or all are 9's.

Try the experiment and you will be surprised. But you need custom all
6's dice or all 9's. And you need a good number of them, say 5.
 
C

CoreyWhite

Furthermore we can say that if we had 6 sided dice, that were all
universally labeled with 9's the dice would be 100x more random and
this principal would operate even more abundantly.

When you roll a 6 sided die, the odds seem 1 in 6 of which way you
roll it. But because of the fact that you are casting them out
randomly you can usually eleminate all of the simple patterns.

But when you have changed all sides of your dice to be 9's then
depending on how you roll the dice they will be either a 6 or a 9.
See? So you have a new metalevel of randomness. And now when you
roll the dice you can eleminate even more complicated logic. So you
can be sure when rolling a set of dice they will all be perfectly fair
and sort in truly random orders and patterns. Instead of sometimes
falling so they are all 6's or all are 9's.

Try the experiment and you will be surprised. But you need custom all
6's dice or all 9's. And you need a good number of them, say 5.


also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_out_nines
 
P

PerfectReign

That makes good since to me. You just cast out the "nay" sayers, and
accumulate power from withinside of numbers. One old man on his death
bead? But combine it with the youth and grandchildren, and you have a
force more powerful.

What do you suppose he may have meant when he talked to you about
these things?

Um, between the Alzheimers, the stroke, and the fact that he was in his
80's....

....not much.

--
kai
www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com
www.filesite.org || www.donutmonster.com

closing the doors that surround me
so no one will ever penetrate
complete my retreat just to wait for the day
that never comes so i will laugh alone
 
G

Graceland Sugir

Jerry Stuckle said:
Actually, of the order is truly random (impossible on a computer - but let's say it is), then this combination has *exactly* the
same odds of coming up as any other combination - 1 in 3,628,000.

I love random humans. When you whisper to them: "RND"
you never know what you will get.
 
D

Dennis M. Hammes

CoreyWhite said:
I've rethought the design again.
I would just need to keep two sorted lists. One list being the
alphabetized list of words in the bible, and the other list being the
ordered placement of each coresponding word in the first list. So
that when you combine the two consistent lists by reording the first
list acording to the second; you get the origonal bible.

OOOooo... James Strong /lives/!
 
D

Dennis M. Hammes

PerfectReign said:
You know, you are beginning to sound like my senile grandfather a few
years before he died.

He kept rattling on about how he discovered a new math method he'd call,
"casting out nines."

Why he could multiply three-digit numbers in his head in fourth
grade, and you couldn't.
 
J

Jerry Coffin

[ ... ]
I've rethought the design again.
I would just need to keep two sorted lists. One list being the
alphabetized list of words in the bible, and the other list being the
ordered placement of each coresponding word in the first list.

Congratulations, you've just reinvented the wheel^H^H^H^H^H concordance.
 
J

Jerry Coffin

[ ... ]
Actually, of the order is truly random (impossible on a computer - but
let's say it is), then this combination has *exactly* the same odds of
coming up as any other combination - 1 in 3,628,000.

Minor typo -- you meant 3,628,800.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top