Carborendum

Yes, I know. You said that. But I was pointing out that the fact we're talking about only 10 people and one of the numbers of each of the 10 people is a dependent variable as a function of the other two, then we're only talking about 20 numbers. And with a sample size of 10 people, the rarity argument is invalid. IOW, the patterns you mentioned are not at all surprising.

Here is the document. McClellan, 2019, As Far as It Is Translated Correctly.pdf

Doubling Down? I guess you don't feel like you have a choice. If you just set up another sock puppet, we'll be able to tell within just a few posts. Your voice is the same with each one. So, just how many will you set up? Do you want some help deceiving us into thinking your next one is someone else? 1) You ask a question as if you're misunderstanding something. But it is really just your intentional misreading of it. Find something with more substance which is "actually" confusing. We'd be happy to discuss it with you. 2) You don't actually participate in conversation. Oh, sure you may give a one or two word answer or a simple phrase. But you don't actually answer any questions in a discussion format. Part of an online forum is for people to get to know you and understand where you're coming from. If we don't really get to know YOU, we can't really answer your questions, because we don't know what YOU'RE getting at. It's just meaningless words on a screen for some zombie out to get quick answers and never really do any thinking or pondering on your own. And your personal pondering and praying is where you'll get the answers, not from strangers on the internet. The conversation is supposed to help you think outside the box. The actual understanding comes from your pondering and praying. You want us to take you seriously? You want us to not believe you're just a sock puppet? Then think about these things. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we're more than HAPPY to discuss things with you if you actually participate in a discussion as well as take the time to think about things on your own, ponder them, and pray about them. The way you've been doing it by just dropping a question with neither participation in the overall conversation nor sincere searching doesn't help anyone.

Actually, there are 10 people mentioned. Their ages at two points (siring a son and their deaths). The third number was the difference between those numbers. Two of the numbers (whichever of the three) are independent. The third is dependent. Thus the analysis of that third number in the "randomness" question isn't of much weight. I have no idea. They could be literal, but for some reason we don't know about. They could be figurative. Again, I'd have no idea why. I do believe it is simply too clean to have the begetting age, the difference, and death age, all having a 0 at the end. Yet this happened with three people out of the 10. And two others have a zero with the difference between begetting and death -- one being Enoch. I tend to think this is more attributable to rounding than with symbolic meaning. With that many years, I don't know how easy it would have been to remember, really. I don't know how accurate Methuselah's age was after so many years. How did they know? What calendar were they using? Because of rounding (looking only at their age at death, as an example) we have 7 people who represent 4 out of 9 numbers. I don't know how you got one in a million. I get around 1/300 (hardly infinitesimal for the sample size). If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000. Out of a sample of 10 people? Yes, that's very possible. The fact that not a single one of the ages were not semi-years is interesting. i.e. there had to be the chance of someone having a birthday at such a time of the year compared to their begetting vs. their deaths that ONE of them at least should have not added up evenly. Chances are. But they all do. Again, attributable to rounding. As for the other four, that's four out of 9. I don't know how you got one in a million. I get around one in 3000. If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000. Out of a sample of 10 people? Yes, that's very possible. Again, where are your calculations for the probabilities? I'm not seeing the numbers you're getting. What months? What days? What combinations? Multiplying? Adding? What? And if you add up all the gifts in 12 days of Christmas you get 364 which is just one shy of the 365 for a year. So what? Where are your calculations? I hope you realize that when you do this with two prime numbers in this manner, it actually tends to cover MANY numbers in the number line. For a set of numbers from 1 to 1000, this pattern can be met by 972 of the numbers. And if you forget the first 100 years, the only number that does not meet this criterion is 995. Hardly conclusive. I'm not sure how you saw this as "so infinitesimally small." I see a bunch of numbers all grouped together except for Enoch, and possibly Noah. But we know they were outliers. Even Lamech was a partial outlier because he didn't make into the ark. In summary, the first two patterns are well within statistical variation for a sample size of 10 people. (see below for the third pattern) The fourth can be considered a fluke. It's interesting. But I don't see why this is supposed to mean anything. And in light of the others amounting to nothing, I'm not inclined to believe this one criterion means anything. The fifth criterion, as I've demonstrated is smoke and mirrors. I went through the exercise for the fifth pattern, I expect that since 50 is a multiple of 5 that we'd get very similar results for the third pattern.

I'm hearing what you're saying. And I am somewhat coming along with you. (And thank you for the correction to 2 Nephi rather than 1 Nephi.) I have formed a theological theory. As a "just now formed" idea, it needs some kinks worked out. But here goes. Because we do believe in the separation of the Trinity into members of the Godhead, there are some understandings that we can have about the nature of Grace and the Atonement. Jesus is our mediator with the Father. He gained this role and right by virtue of the Atonement. We are reconciled to the Son through our Works (again, not ironed out yet). We are reconciled to the Father through the Son. The ability to reconcile at all is through grace. I want to note for everyone that we're now no longer really talking about the verbiage of the translation anymore. We've gone into the theological/doctrinal meaning of the verse in question. This is natural -- as opposed to the mathematical thread jack which is running parallel to the thread.

Excellent. It may be undefined by some criteria. But we can also define it in terms of limits. And when we take the limit of X^X as X---> 0 (from the positive side) is 1. It starts to turn around as X=0.37 or so. But the thing is that the grammar rules tell us two separate things that are well defined. But your answer is that it is undefined. Remember your original comment was about the mathematical rules of grammar and how perfectly exact the language of math is. I recall a huge proof that a physics professor once did where he showed why something in the vacuum of space was the way it was. However, it hinged upon a variable (I forget which one -- you may remember) = 1. He went through the entire proof. I was wondering why he was going through it so fast that it was hard to keep up with him. At the end he said. "But there's just one problem. This variable isn't anywhere near equal 1. Yet by choosing it to be one, we get the solution that is found to correctly predict much of what we know about the vacuum of space." If math is so precise and exact and accurate, how did it correctly predict reality when an incorrect assumption was made as the input? Linguistics is not much different. Sometimes a translation turns out to be the best way to express the overall intent even though the exact wording of the translation is not what anyone would consider accurate. (This happens most with idiomatic expressions). Don't get caught up so much with mathematical certitude with its precision and exactness and accuracy, so that you lose sight of the reality behind the numbers.

Is the document small enough to post on the forum. When I go to the download site, it wants access to my contacts. And I've had bad experiences with spam being sent to my contacts (in my name) when I did that before.

What would be your comment on multiple alternate translators preferring the following translation. show compassion upon those who are doubting. For my part, I believe this would mean "making a difference" would refer to "those who separate themselves from the church" / going inactive. (I'm using "church" in the ancient sense).

The useful case would be that 0! would include a case where we have 0*X = 0. But I did a bit of googling while we've been posting. I found something fairly interesting. It is close, but not quite the same as your example. And it is a consistent pattern. n!/n=(n-1)! for all positive whole numbers.

Now I think you've possibly misworded this. There is no question that works "play a role" in our obtaining Christ's grace. (OK, I just read @Vort's post. Yes, I agree with him). I would reword your comment as "all we can do" does NOT EQUAL grace. It is, however, a prerequisite to obtaining the grace which grants us salvation. This does include the idea that for some, "all we can do" is often very little or even none. But what can be done should be done. If not, what do you make of 2 Nephi 31?

With 0/0 we see the numbers approaching from both direction indicating a divergence where there cannot be a definition. With 0^0 we see two patterns that are in conflict with each other. Not divergent patterns, but still mutually exclusive patterns. Therefore, a third pattern is called into the mix to tip the balance. And the third pattern is a pattern more consistent than the first two that indicate a definition which happens to agree with one of the other two. Here is my weakness in math. I don't "know math" like a well trained human calculator. I even have a tough time seeing a lot of engineered solutions that are brought before me. I see patterns. I only use the language of math to express the patterns I see. So, I have to have someone walk through the patterns with me. Then I figure how I would express those patterns in mathematical grammar. The proof you've given actually generates patterns where there are just as many conflicts that don't really answer the question. Yes, if you just assume 0!=1, then it solves it. But it could just as easily be undefined. If it is more clear in one direction, I'm not seeing it. Hence, I thought it was circular logic.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=change&facet=general-conference&highlight=true&page=1

That's not circular logic?

While true, I haven't seen the proof. I know the line of reasoning (I can't call it a proof) that shows 0^0 = 1. But I don't know how 0! = 1. I have read the reasoning. But it doesn't seem consistent to me.

Well, what grammatical rules are being broken to come to this conundrum: X^0 = 1 0^x = 0 What is 0^0?

I believe Elder Uchtdorf supports what you're trying to say here.

Ah. That makes sense. I didn't even notice the audio was available. The icon looks more like an ad than a "press here to play the audio" button.

I need your help. At the top of the page it gave the disclaimer that it was an auto-generated transcript, so there are going to be some errors. That's understandable. But I was not able to figure out what this was: I'm having trouble taking this literally. And I'm unaware of any other meaning. So, you either meant this figuratively (which I've never heard in such a context). Or this was a computer generated mistake. Help me out with this?

Actually, this is even worse. Before, it merely said that gay rights were more important than religious rights. Now you're saying (or the argument is saying) that gay rights are SO important, that it takes ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS COMBINED to justify overruling gay rights. No, methinks I like it not.

Oh my gosh! You're really bad at math, aren't you?

Watch the video and find out.

I really don't like the argument about an artist's rights. What it's really saying is that religious freedom is less important than gay rights. But artist's rights is greater still than that. I don't buy into it. Yes, I'm thankful for a minor win. But the fact is that by getting that minor win in courts, we've found that religion is simply being pushed to the bottom of the barrel as far as rights. This has nothing to do with "artistic expression." It has everything to do with Religious Freedom and Freedom of conscience.

Here's what I got: Solar light = powerful effect on the virus. Heat, humid, (either one or both) less favorable. Indoors & dry = virus survives longer. Does not survive well in saliva or respiratory fluid (this is odd since it is a respiratory disease). Direct sunlight is very bad for the virus. Bleach will kill the virus in 5 minutes. Alcohol: 30 seconds. I didn't hear anything about porous surfaces being better or worse.

I'd actually heard most of this already. But it was not from "official" sources. I find a couple of things to be counter-intuitive: Wet and porous are worse for the virus? Their converses are better? I'm not going to claim expertise in epidemiology. But that's just not what I was at all familiar with.