I dont know if my maths is correct but I've just had a Muslim on the ropes, who was trying to use the long number divisible by 19 miracle, by pointing out that the odds of the miracle happening are 19 to one because every 19th whole number is a multiple if 19. I reasoned this by saying that the odds of any whole number being divisible by 1 is 1 (or evens? I dont know, I'm not a gambler) because every number is divisible by 1, likewise the odds for 2 are 2 to 1 because every second number is a multiple of two, the odds for 3 are three to one because every 3rd number is divisible by three.

He came back at me with a number which is divisible by 7 when read forwards or backwards (for example 1234567 and 7654321) and smugly asked me what the probability of that was. So I Informed we work out that probability by multiplying both numbers together, and since both numbers had odds of 7 to 1 the odds of both numbers were 49 to 1. Which is hardly miraculous.

After this he informed me that it was up to me if I believed in these miracles but he still does because he's analysed the numbers himself. So I pointed out that people see better miracles down the bookies every time a long shot comes in.

So, presuming my maths is correct, it's been over 20 years since I did this at school, i think we may have a good way to debunk the numeric "miracles" and prove the person using them doesn't understand maths.

BTW, can anyone confirm if my maths is correct? I've tried googling but it's too confusing for my brain on a Sunday morning.

jesus_wept- Interesting, not sure about the math but there could be something to it. What Muslim/site were you debating with so I could possibly see their arguments or contact them?

I think your calculation of the odds of a number which reads the same backwards as forwards is wrong, but your first point is quite powerful. (The odds of a number which reads forward and backwards being divisible by a number would be the number of such numbers which are divisible divided by the number which have a common divisor. If you exclude primes and only focus on large numbers, this ratio is going to be large as it includes all numbers with a large factor in common, as that common factor is likely to have a common divisor less than 10 as that's just the way factoring numbers works. So.... I guess it comes down to [total of all large forward-backward pairs] - [total number that don't have a common divisor(?)] / [total of all large forward-backward pairs]. I think..... )

(?) Is that the same as relatively prime?

I needed B 11 and I got it... what a miracle. .. BINGO!! I WON!!

You just sank my battleship!

The Three Little Pigs

There are three pigs and three houses. 3x3=9.

There is one wolf. 1 and 9 combine to make 19.

Christopher Walken read 'The Three Little Pigs' on 'Saturday Zoo' on 31/3/93. 3+1+3+9+3=19.

Walken won an Academy Award for 'The Deer Hunter'. Wolves eat deer as well as little pigs.

Walken has been married to his wife, Georgiana, for 45 years. 4+5=9.

Walken has played a character named Max in three different films. 3 letters in 'Max' x 3 films = 9.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

Boru

(February 16, 2014 at 5:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Three Little Pigs

There are three pigs and three houses. 3x3=9.

There is one wolf. 1 and 9 combine to make 19.

Christopher Walken read 'The Three Little Pigs' on 'Saturday Zoo' on 31/3/93. 3+1+3+9+3=19.

Walken won an Academy Award for 'The Deer Hunter'. Wolves eat deer as well as little pigs.

Walken has been married to his wife, Georgiana, for 45 years. 4+5=9.

Walken has played a character named Max in three different films. 3 letters in 'Max' x 3 films = 9.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

Boru

Yeah and didnt Christopher walken ask for more cow bells on SNL?? I think 3 then 3 then 3= 9..

(February 16, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Ziggy Wrote: jesus_wept- Interesting, not sure about the math but there could be something to it. What Muslim/site were you debating with so I could possibly see their arguments or contact them?

The thread's been deleted.

(February 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

I think your calculation of the odds of a number which reads the same backwards as forwards is wrong, but your first point is quite powerful. (The odds of a number which reads forward and backwards being divisible by a number would be the number of such numbers which are divisible divided by the number which have a common divisor. If you exclude primes and only focus on large numbers, this ratio is going to be large as it includes all numbers with a large factor in common, as that common factor is likely to have a common divisor less than 10 as that's just the way factoring numbers works. So.... I guess it comes down to [total of all large forward-backward pairs] - [total number that don't have a common divisor(?)] / [total of all large forward-backward pairs]. I think..... )

(?) Is that the same as relatively prime?

I have no idea what this means tbh.

I was simply going on any number has a one in seven chance of being a multiple of seven and if you reverse it so does that number. It seems logical to me and I think you may be overcomplicating things but I'm no mathematician.

Perhaps someone more qualified could answer?

One two buckle my shoe... its easy

The only thing miraculous about numerology is that the people who came up with this shit could count to ten.