untitled
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:08:11 -0400
From: Mike Ryder
Subject: Re: From the files - questions and comments
To: [Family member B]
Cc: [Family member A]
Hi again family
[Family member B],
I wanted to thank you for sharing your work on numerics. As I
would expect from you, it shows considerable research and diligence. I
congratulate you on your efforts.
I do have a couple of questions an d comments if you would indulge me.
1. What numbers are considered significant and to what source(s)
are each significant number attributed? I have read that 7 is
considered a significant number, I think 6 (666) is also, your research
attributes 8,5, and 13 as significant.
2. I note that your number (7215) is also divisible by 3 (2405)
and 15 (481). I wonder why no discussion of these numbers? (
5+5+5 is 15 and 481 is divisible by 13 (37)). I thought that
5+5+5 would be more compelling than 555 as an intensification.
3. A quick search on the life of Dr Panin (as pasted below) shows
that Panin was an agnostic rather than an atheist before converting to
Christianity.
4. Although his date of conversion is not explicitly stated, it's
implied that it occurred shortly after 1882. If we accept this
(and that's a big if) and that his discovery occurred in 1890, then it
seems unlikely that the latter inspired the former.
**********************************************
Ivan Panin was born in Russia on December 12, 1855. Having participated
in plots against the Czar at an early age, he was exiled and, after
spending some years studying in Germany, he came to the United States
and entered Harvard University. After graduation in 1882, he converted
from agnosticism to Christianity.
In 1890 he discovered some of the phenomenal mathematical designs
underlying both the Greek text of the New Testament and the Hebrew text
of the Old Testament.
**********************************************
5. Dr Panin's profession was as a literary critic. As far
as I can tell he never published an academic publication in the area of
mathematics, nor did he have anything but a basic formal mathematical
training. He was neither a professional mathematician nor a
'noted mathematician'. One might term him an amateur mathematician as
he certainly did produce vast amounts of computationally intensive work.
Cheers, Mike
bravenet.com