Anglion....
>>Re: Anglion
But this number is a complex. It houses another number which we call prime, or 89. This is the smallest prime number possible from 1573965, its forerunner.
Unfortunately not true. 1573965 factors as 3 x 3 x 3 x 5 x 89 x 131. 89 is not the "smallest prime number". That is 3.
If this is going to be about "demonstration" rather than "rhetoric" wouldn't it be best to start out by being mathematically accurate in one's statements? >>
Bill:
I had the same discussion with Dean. It's all a matter of one's perspective for I, too, was not receiving it in synch with what I, logically, have understood using words and equations and applying the math.
If you were to ask Dean about this directly he'd tell you that the lower primes were really only "factors" and this not, truly the prime of this number.
You have to start with the "lowest prime" and work your way up the prime ladder. With each step higher the prime numbers you leave behind, by definition, become simply-merely factors, etc.
I agree with you, however. For to the layman confronting this for the first time it has the markings of "turn upside down and chew bubble gum while singing" - all of which I don't have a problem doing so perhaps I'm not a good candidate to filter and suggest things.
But Dean is really a heck of a nice, open and loving soul! He never laid hands on a PC until late this past summer. And the way stumbled into him was by no means anything that I lay claim to controlling, setting up to take any credit for. The science is a mind-bendingly revelatory matrix, but I know it's really quite strange for most individuals. And, alas, so AM I in this great I AM reality we are all sharing on this thread.
So might I suggest sitting back, pulling up a chair, crack open a can of Dean's favorite - Budweiser - and give him a word directly - dean@anglion.net
119293!! |
