okay, you keep mentioning that you found the metastar...so I'm going to tell you what my math teacher always told me: show your work.marcege wrote: ↑Mon 23 Jul 2018, 02:27Definitely! That's very much what I thought. For every example of Gematria I would figure out how to replicate the symbolism in English. I love puns, anagrams, palindromes, pangrams, etc. So my first thoughts were, the author of the Torah is doing these very well. But then the specific pattern of the meta-star depicted in the Gematria of the first verse of Genesis, a pattern that is repeated in the second verse, was just too much to do.
YOUGo try to write two sentences in English that when coded as numbers both define the same figure with multiple axes of symmetry.
English doesn't do number-letters like some languages do. and if its been coded into the Torah, why should we believe that, after 1400 years, you miraculously managed to find that coded message?
what sort of book? you'd use different words for something along the lines of Seuss or "twas brillig and slithy tothes" or whatever, than you would for explaining the physics of singularities.The sentences need to be a reasonable start for a book.
why does it have to be coded?You can use any numerical coding system you want, but it has to be used consistently to "decode" each sentence.
meaningful, in what way? to make a shape? I can use words to literally make a shape out of the words.But show me a few meaningful English "2701" sentences, in which case I'll be impressed with your wordplay and change my mind about how necessary it is for the author of those verses to have controlled the meanings of the words.
and of course the author of the verses controlled the meaning of the words...as did the editors who assembled the verses and the two starts of the Torah into a coherent whole...as did the 70 who picked and chose chapters and such to translate...etc.
WTF? if it gets intense enough? you're dismissive of an entire novel that does something you claim only conlangs do...and yet you keep shouting to the heavens that two verses in the Torah is sufficient to prove conlangness.marcege wrote: ↑Mon 23 Jul 2018, 02:14Perec's book without the e is a great example. There is a level of letter-play where it is apparent the author is taking care wrt the letters. True that's not a constructed language, just careful language. But then if the letter play gets intense enough, with words that don't appear in earlier sources, one might wonder if the author achieved the letter play by making up - constructing - certain of the words. That's what the link in the OP describes, in particular the words that constitute the first and last part of the book.