Alex wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 5:41 pm
[quote
FLW = FIrst & Last Words
I can't see why that would be a valid system. You can certainly add the first and last words of any verse, yes, but formalizing it this way isn't justified unless there is evidence and I haven't seen any. But I see there's some below.
397 "Jesus" עושוהי = FLW of Vs(401 "Aleph Tav" את) = FLW of Vs(801 "Alpha Omega" ΑΩ) = FLW of rs Vs(373 "Word" λογος)
= 3 CW of Vs(3509 = Comp-o(4070 = TriHepta(37))) = 8 CL of Vs(Tri(37) + Tri(73))
Well, you almost had me convinced there, but then you switched to reverse standard. What is 3 CW? The three central words? What if there are an even number of words in the verse?
Notice that reverse standard is related to 373 that is 37 merged with its mirror so the rs system is again connected to the concept of reverse only using mirrors instead of upsidedown digit this time.
One swallow does not a summer make. There have to be repeated instances. But the reverse standard method, although Kabbalists use it, is on shaky ground here. I'm not saying it's valueless, just that it is unproven. Like the combined method, it has to prove its worth through repeated instances of encoded material. Genesis 1.1 is a good verse to try it on. What comes up there?
The upside-down method isn't a system.
When you are exploring new territory, which is what we are all doing, you have to stick to solid ground and thoroughly explore that before moving on. That is why Genesis 1.1 has been so thoroughly investigated. It's the beachhead of scripture. It's best to thoroughly establish ourselves there instead of moving inland and getting lost.
Keeping on solid ground includes using as few enumeration systems as possible at first and the primary system has to be standard values. Reverse standard may have value, but there is more to be found using standard values. I found a huge amount just since November for my book. Even after I finished it I was (frustratingly) finding more. Applying other systems is okay, but it should be done gradually and carefully, so we are always on solid ground.
Do you use ro and rr systems? What about rc? You see how they can proliferate like gender identities and like the entire ridiculous trans ideology, it creates nothing but confusion.
32 verses has a std FLW of 397
23 verses has a rs FLW of 397
23 & 32 are mirrors
23 = "Aleph Tav" את (o) which is the first & last letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, while Alpha Omega is the first & last letters of Greek.
Probability of this is then (31102/32)*(31102/32)*(31102/23) = 1 out of 1,277,430,138
No., this calculation is wrong again, for the same reason as before. Use the binomial formula. Try a few different values and see how likely it is that there are 23 verses. Try 21, 7, 42, etc. You can get a rough idea of the distribution curve that way. 23 verses with FLW 397 may be improbable, but not unusual. If the median value is around 23, it's what we would expect and not encoded.
In fact I just did it. If we take a maximum FLW of 1500 (in other words nearly all the values being less than this, maybe about 2 standard deviations either side of the mean), which seems reasonable, we have a modal value (not the mean but close to it) of about 24, so there is nothing there. For an average of 2000, the mode was about 14, so 23 would be slightly unusual. For 1000 the mode is 31.
For the first five verses of Genesis, the average FLW was about 422. So 1000 seems a reasonable maximum spread. Greek values are higher, which would increase it a bit, but 1000 seems reasonable. This is back-of-an-envelope maths, of course, but it gives a rough idea.
In other words, there is nothing unusual about having 23 FLW out of 31102 summing to 397. It's perfectly normal, to be expected and not encoded.
Did you make this terminology up yourself? Or was it John or Leo?
I've been working on these fractal snowflakes since 2002 and use the Koch snowflake as the basis for my terminology. So your megaflake is a 2nd-iteration Koch anti snowflake and your gigaflake is a 3rd-iteration Koch snowflake. I think that's more precise.
I also use terminology based on the 6+1 day Creation week, which is good when you want to create internal structure. I call it the Creation function. The first iteration is 6 x 19 for the six-day ring and 37 for the seventh-day figure, giving anti snowflake 151. 6 x 37 is the ring of the next iteration, giving snowflake 373. Then anti snowflake 1279, then snowflake 3517, antisnowflake 11191, etc. So each iteration replicates the Creation week, which is a nice way to do it, and which gives the entire internal structure of hexagons and hexagrams.
A third way to do it is to self intersect for each iteration. That only works when the starting figure is a triangle, but it also gives internal structure.
I wasn't too keen on the rhombic triangles and 2nd pentagons you got from John and Leo. They seem a little too exotic and I haven't seen any evidence they are used in the code, although that may be because I wasn't looking for them. Those 2nd pentagons, especially, seem like the geometric equivalent of some of the more exotic enumeration systems you employ. Again, the Principle of Parsimony needs to be borne in mind.