Ralph
>I find it interesting that the following relationship is true:
>1 cubed = 1 squared
>1 cubed + 2 cubed = (1 + 2) squared i.e. 9=9
>1 cubed + 2 cubed + 3 cubed = (1+2+3) squared i.e. 36=36
>Anyone who wants to carry this out farther will find that it
>continues in this vein. Now many people would (and do)
>see design in this. They regard this as the mathematical
>equivalent of Paley's watch. Numerology is very popular.>
>But we have a pretty complete picture of the history of
>mathematics. It was not designed so that this pattern,
>and others like it, would work out. These patterns are
>in there by chance. The number system was not
>designed with them in mind.
Bertvan:
You seem confident that numerical relationships were not designed. Do you
consider this particular relationship more due to chance than others? In
any case, numerical relationships always existed, didn't they? Even before
there were human minds to understand them? Do mathematical systems exist
independtly of the human mind or were they created by human intellignece?
Complex biological systems, on the other hand, came into exisence. At one
time, they did not exist on earth. I don't know if we could claim
mathematical relationships "created" in the same way.
bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 26 2000 - 20:04:40 EDT