# Building & Object Oriented Bible.

Discussion in 'C++' started by CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007.

1. ### CoreyWhiteGuest

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.

CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007

2. ### Guest

On Feb 20, 9:51 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
> 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.

, Feb 20, 2007

3. ### CoreyWhiteGuest

On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, "" <>
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:51 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.

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.

CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007
4. ### PerfectReignGuest

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:

> 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."

--
k

PerfectReign, Feb 20, 2007
5. ### CoreyWhiteGuest

On Feb 20, 2:45 pm, PerfectReign <> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
> CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:
>
> > 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."
>
> --
> k

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?

CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007
6. ### CoreyWhiteGuest

On Feb 20, 4:11 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:45 pm, PerfectReign <> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
> > CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:

>
> > > 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."

>
> > --
> > k

>
> 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!

CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007
7. ### Jerry StuckleGuest

CoreyWhite wrote:
>
> 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.

==================

Jerry Stuckle, Feb 20, 2007
8. ### CoreyWhiteGuest

On Feb 20, 4:25 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:11 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2:45 pm, PerfectReign <> wrote:

>
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
> > > CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:

>
> > > > 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."

>
> > > --
> > > k

>
> > 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!

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.

CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007
9. ### CoreyWhiteGuest

On Feb 20, 4:59 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:25 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:11 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 20, 2:45 pm, PerfectReign <> wrote:

>
> > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
> > > > CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:

>
> > > > > 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."

>
> > > > --
> > > > k

>
> > > 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!

>
> 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

CoreyWhite, Feb 20, 2007
10. ### PerfectReignGuest

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:11:38 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:

>>
>> > 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."

> 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.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

PerfectReign, Feb 20, 2007
11. ### Graceland SugirGuest

<> wrote in message news:...
> On Feb 20, 9:51 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
>> 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.
>

--
-------------------------------------------
AJ - http://ClitIns.Com e In.
(800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE,
Usenet Porn.)

Graceland Sugir, Feb 21, 2007
12. ### Graceland SugirGuest

"Jerry Stuckle" <> wrote in message news:...
> CoreyWhite wrote:
>>
>> 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.

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

--
-------------------------------------------
AJ - http://ClitIns.Com e In.
(800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE,
Usenet Porn.)
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
>
> ==================

Graceland Sugir, Feb 21, 2007
13. ### Dennis M. HammesGuest

CoreyWhite wrote:

> On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, "" <>
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 20, 9:51 pm, "CoreyWhite" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.

>
>
>
> 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/!

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org

Dennis M. Hammes, Feb 21, 2007
14. ### Dennis M. HammesGuest

PerfectReign wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0800, a rock fell the sky, hitting
> CoreyWhite on the head, and inspiring the following:
>
>
>>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."
>

Why he could multiply three-digit numbers in his head in fourth

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon.
http://scrawlmark.org

Dennis M. Hammes, Feb 21, 2007
15. ### Jerry CoffinGuest

In article <>,
says...

[ ... ]

> 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.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Jerry Coffin, Feb 21, 2007
16. ### Jerry CoffinGuest

In article <>,
says...

[ ... ]

> 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.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Jerry Coffin, Feb 21, 2007