| Author | Message | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi, Lee. In the Roman numeric system: I = 1 II = 2 III = 3 IV = 4 or 5-1=4 V = 5 VI = 6 or 5+1=6 VII = 7 VIII = 8 IX = 9 or 10-1=9 X = 10 XI = 11 XII = 12 XIII = 13 XIV = 14 or 10+(5-1)=14 XV = 15 or 10+5=15 XVI = 16 or 10+5+1=16 XVII = 17 XVIII = 18 XIX = 14 or 10+(10-1)=14 XX = 20 or 10+10=20 And so on.... So you see how subtraction is involved. A pretty cool system, till you understand that there are no negative numbers and no zero. These omissions are systematic weaknesses that lead to all sorts of difficulties. Such as, you can't easily invent a temperature scale that goes on down past zero. Why not? Say the temperature along Hadrian's Wall is +III degrees Fahrenheit. If it goes down one degree your thermometer measures +II degrees. If it goes down another degree, it measures +I degree. If it goes down another degree you can't measure it, because your system has no zero. If you decide to substitute "Duh!" for zero and include negative coiunting numbers you can start measuring again, but you will still have problems. Let's go down the thermometer scale equating Arabic numerals with Roman: 3 = III 2 = II 1 = I 0 = "Duh" -1 = -I -2 = -II -3 = -III. So far so good. -4 = -IV. Oops! Here's where the trouble begins. Because in the Roman system the positive IV (+IV) already involves subtraction as we have seen above. And the Romans would have had trouble, as anybody would, keeping track of TWO DIFFERENT methods of subtraction in the SAME computation or counting sequence. Luckily for the science and techology we enjoy today, though, the India Indians invented the numeral zero as the counting number "0". And the Arabs, who had been keeping Greek science alive anyway, picked up that puppy (no offence to dog-lovers intended) and included it in their system. And so bingo! more complicated arithmetic computations, including temperature scales that go down past zero by including negative numbers, became possible. Nuf sed? I don't think I could reply at this time to your other remark concerning EGW, other than to say I don't personally equate her with antichrist. God bless, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Oops! Embarrassing correction to be made in my last post here. XIX = 14 or 10+(10-1)=14 should be XIX = 19 or 10+(10-1)=19 While I'm here I found this interesting post on Jim Loy's mathematical website. It was interesting enough to me that I thought I'd import it here. Enjoy! *** BEGIN JIM LOY'S POST *** BEGIN JIM LOY'S POST *** BEGIN JIM LOY'S POST *** BEGIN JIM LOY'S POST *** BEGIN JIM LOY'S POST *** Roman Numerals Defined © Copyright MCMXCVII, Jim Loy 1999=MCMXCIX. Is MIM acceptable? See below. In Roman numerals, I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, D=500, M=1000. Bigger numbers were sometimes made with a bar over the letter, to indicate "multiply by 1000". Two examples: I=1, II=2, III=3, IV=4, V=5, VI=6, VII=7, VIII=8, IX=9, X=10, XI=11, XII=12, etc. Here we see (for IV=4) that I, before V, is -1, not +1. Also IX=9, XC=90, CD=400, etc. A lesser number before a greater number is negative. Here I originally spelled out a bunch of rules. This was because some people seem to spend their lives looking for loop holes. They are going to try weird Roman numerals like IXV or IXIX or VVI or IIX. And then they are going to send me email about it. Well, Roman numerals are written more simply and straighforward than that. But it only complicates the situation to make up a bunch of rules about it. I read, many years ago, that IC (as well as ID and IM and XM and things like that) was illegal. Apparently such numbers were sometimes used in ancient times. I don't know if they were commonly used. So, from what I have gathered, 1999 is MCMXCIX. Is MIM acceptable? Maybe, maybe not. There is no Roman numeral zero (see below). IIII (IV in Roman numerals) is traditional on clocks; who knows why? Comment: How did they survive without a zero? How could they tell when all of their money was gone? That should be obvious. Their pockets were empty. They had words for that kind of situation: "My pockets are empty" (translate to Latin). This concept is obviously related to numbers (no coins, when one coin was a slightly better situation). But, you don't need an actual number zero, when it is not part of your counting system. They obviously had words for "none" or "nothing," but there was no Roman numeral for zero. Similarly, in most cases, you can do without negative numbers (nowadays). You need them to describe the situation in which you owe money (or other things), or when you measure temperatures in Montana. Otherwise, you can ignore negative numbers, just as the Romans had no use for a number zero. *** END JIM LOY'S POST *** END JIM LOY'S POST *** END JIM LOY'S POST *** END JIM LOY'S POST *** END JIM LOY'S POST *** END JIM LOY'S POST *** I think you can see from the above that trying to use the name Ellen Gould White to represent 666 is just as silly as trying to do so with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Or VICARIUS FILII DEI ("Vicar of the Son of God"), for that matter. NB: Just so you'll know I'm NOT trying to pull an EGW, I'm including the following caveat: Dear Friends, I DID NOT create or write the above. Jim Loy, a "real mathematician," did. Just your humble reporter, Jude | ||
| Lee |
Can you show a reference to that system of Roman numerals? I have studied this, and NEVER came across anything even remotely like what you show us. Go to ANY encyclopedia, and look for what you claim as the correct way to attach a value. I doubt you will find it. Let us know! | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Lee, thanks, but I'll pass. I've said enough on this topic. Be well and happy, Jude | ||
| Lee |
Jude: To teach as one having authority is better if you can help explain your positions. To beat the air and then run, leaves a feeling of shallowness. I would hope you could explain further your theory from other viable reference material. You also stated, I believe, that several peopleís names added up to 666. What are the names of these people? Do they also fit the earmarks of a false prophet as EGW does? Do they have 10ís of millions of followers as EGW does over a period of 150 years or more? | ||
| Bruce H |
Lee I to have a chiped tooth, and need to lose a little weight. Lee you have been out of the Church some 20 years, that is more than most of us. What happened 20 years ago that made you take a stand like you did? Bruce H BH | ||
| Lee |
I discovered the SDA teachings that Christ raised himself from the grave. I reasoned that if Jesus raised himself, and He is my example, I had to raise myself, and that made no sense. I futher learned from the Bible that Christ came in the flesh, and had no more powers to work upon himself than we do. There are over 30 verses in the bible that says God the Father raised Jesus. Ellen White says Jesus raised himself, and that is an error. The Bible says a person that does not proclaim Jesus as comming in the flesh is of the antichrist. When I learned these things, I bolted. |
