No, that sign is your's, you earned it. I had already figured out well before that it was 10^4 well before anybody bothered pointing that out. that one was too easy, it was more letting people know that "104" was totally the wrong way to represent 10^4. Do you get it now?

It is kind of like making a "statement of fact" but insisting that the reader prove or disprove the "statement of fact" for themselves. If one chooses to make a "statement of fact" they should provide the evidence to support that "statement of facts", not expect others to do that for them. Same goes for mathematical statements, one should be clear and concise when writing out their equation, not write an illegible equation and force the reader to "work out" what the equation IS. In short, 104 != 10^4, if you have ever written ANY coding, obviously you would know that "!=" means "not equal to". When I see "104", I, as ANY thinking person would, typically assume it to mean four more than a hundred or one hundred and four. You can call it mathematical literacy.

Again, keep your sign, you clearly earned it.

The "challenge" as you put it should be in going through the numbers working the problems out and seeing if they in fact actually prove what they say they think it proves, not in trying to decipher their methodology, decipher what they are actually postulating. the best way to remove that "mystery" is to articulate your equation in an easy to read format so you don't have to do endless cycles of redundant mathematical equations just to come up with the basis for the theory. When mathematical equations require math to figure out if the base numbers are even logical, that is where I "walk off". The way in which to engage the "mathematician" is to again, articulate your mathematical theory in a legible manner so as to save the reader from having to run tests to see what the equation actually is then one must run tests on those numbers and see if the poster's theory is even valid.

Basically what I am saying is they should post the theory concisely so that the reader can follow their work better. Math is a language all it's own and IF the grammar isn't correct, it makes it harder to understand what the equation is truly saying and not everyone is willing to work so hard only to then work at validating the theory's conclusion. As a programmer might say, "kiss" your work where "kiss" means, "Keep It Simple Stupid". Of course then there is the OTHER issue. Unless we know the PRECISE time down to the very second of the "big bang", how can we determine the PRECISE number of seconds that have t***spired since that event? That IS part of that mathematical theory, how many seconds have come and gone SINCE the "big bang". What's a billion years give or take between friends? Furthermore, how many seconds are in that billion or so years by which we could be off by? Questions crucial in determining the validity of that mathematical theory.

There are so many crackpot theories based in math. People try to use math to say this politician or that one is "the anti-Christ". Don't even get me started on numerology and it's attempted application in predicting future events as well as what person was/is/will be "the anti-Christ". Math and numbers can be manipulated to claim or "prove" anything one wishes to claim or "prove" if one takes the time to properly manipulate the base numbers or the algorithm used to "arrive" at the "proper" conclusion.

I guess what I am saying is that not everyone is cracked up to be a conspiracy theorist. I don't look to math or numerology to "divine the future" or prove past, current or future events have/are/will happened/happening/happen. For the past, history, the present, news and as for the future, just wait and see. Gotta love a "surprise ending".



As for the rest of your reply, Given the limited number of human beings in the beginning, population growth rates over this planet's history, the relatively short term of man's existence on this planet and the fact that overall, Earth's population is still only registered in the 10s of billions, we should have some time before the biblical prophecies come to pass. Good news, WE will all be dead before "judgement day" comes.

The image you posted, begs a joke I just recently read. I have heard/read it before but just came across it yet again today and it is quite apropos...



A pirate walked into a bar and the bartender said
'Hey, I haven't seen you in a while. What happened? You look terrible.'

What do you mean?' said the pirate, 'I feel fine.'

Bartender: What about the wooden leg? You didn't have that before.'

Pirate: 'Well, we were in a battle and I got hit with a cannonball, but I'm fine now.'

Bartender: Well, ok, but what about that hook? What happened to your hand?'

Pirate: 'We were in another battle. I boarded a ship and got into a sword fight. My hand was cut off. I got fitted with a hook. I'm fine, really...'

Bartender: What about that eye patch?'

Pirate: 'Oh, one day we were at sea and a flock of birds flew over. I looked up and one of them s**t in my eye.'

Bartender: 'You're kidding, you lost an eye just from bird s**t?'

Pirate: 'It was my first day with the hook.



Perhaps THAT pirate was the one the bartender was speaking with...

IF the "creator" or the "poster" of the theory wants people to lend credence to the theory, they should take pains to make the theory legible, it isn't that hard to do.

As for someone NOT being capable of "superscript", as IS a possibility, there ARE ways to make it legible still as you have shown in your reply, "10 to the 4th power actually does equal 10,000.", or as I have shown more than once already with "10^4". Again, not that hard to do. You would think that if they are capable of "creating" an equation that proves the existence of god, that they would be capable of writing their theoretic proof in such a way that it can be passed along legibly. If a poster can understand the theory sufficiently to find that they agree with the theory, they should be able to make any necessary corrections to make it more legible. Is that objection too hard to comprehend? I may need to find myself a liaison to type my messages here on OPP if people have too hard of a time comprehending what seems so simple to me.

It shouldn't be incumbent upon the reader to "solve the mystery", it should be incumbent upon to creator or the poster to leave no mystery for the reader to solve, unless it is a murder mystery novel of course. THAT is the point I am trying to make. "1017" and "1018" follows with my "222" example, is it 101 to the 7th or 10 to the 17th? Is it 101 to the 8th or 10 to the 18th? a truly legible equation does not leave it to interpretation or the hope that if it was written with "superscript" that it will always be read in "superscript", well... Unless it is stated that it is NOT to be C/Ped elsewhere by ANYBODY, EVER, in which case the poster here has committed a grave faux pas in posting it here. Legibility is key in fomenting proper understanding of ANY equation.

If you say so.

I have no clue what you mean? Is PennyLynn no longer around? Remember, I have been busy and haven't been around lately, I am "out of the loop" so to speak...

The only "Penny" I can think of here on OPP is "PennyLynn" or however they stylized it, I think they were supposed to be female, of course that could have just been my assumption and they, if I recall correctly were a Trumplican. Was there other "Penny"s that I was unaware of?

If you say so, I have no personal experience to base such an assumption on. I applaud your courage in coming out though. Just be you.

Obviously, please forgive my mistake.

To ALL of you insisting that "104" is equal to "10,000". I thought you people were AGAINST "participation trophies". Accepting that "104" is equal to "10,000" is equivalent to saying, "You TRIED to write a valid mathematical equation, here's your trophy.". Congratulations on ACCEPTING "participation trophies" as LEGITIMATE awards, pardon me for being such a grouch and a stickler and refusing to "award" the fool for participating. Wow, such a "lefty" as myself (you people's words, not mine), being MORE "conservative" than the alt right? That is just unheard of.

Surely you can accept my skepticism, if you truly are so "learned" as you claim to be.



No, it is illegible. IF I am to accept "104" as "10⁴", then what am I to do about "222"? Is that 2 to the 22nd power or 22 to the second power? The former equaling 484, the latter, 4,194,304. Do you see how asinine it is to EXPECT someone to accept "104" as equaling "10,000"? Could someone NOT just as easily choose to write it out as "10^4"? Could someone NOT choose to write it out as "10 to the power of 4" or "10 raised to the power of 4" or either of the latter two options as "to the 4th power"? ALL of which are far more legible than "104" being equal to "10,000".

Oh, I assure you, I am calm. In fact, there isn't anything any of you people could do to rile me up. See, I have this unheard of ability. I can get up and go off and do something other than read comments on some random message board IF I feel even remotely "triggered". That keeps me centered and ensures that you people CAN'T "trigger" me. Have fun trying though.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what's with the "Pennykittykitty" thing? My name isn't "Penny" anything and that would be an awfully strange name to give to a male child, "Penny". THAT might "trigger" the boy and perhaps cause a double homicide in that child's future. A terrible thing to do to a boy.

Then how did the illegibility of the equation escape your notice? You can talk all you like as to your "credentials", I ignore those so-called credentials because ANYBODY can falsely accredit themselves with any "credentials" they like on the internet. Hence the reason I refuse to accredit myself with ANY credentials whatsoever on the internet. Talk is cheap on the internet, how did you fail to notice the illegibility of the equation if you are so "learned" in mathematics?

Am I wrong? does "104" equal "10,000"? I know that "10⁴" DOES equal "10,000", "10^4" DOES equal "10,000" and "10 raised to the 4th power" DOES equal "10,000", I just can't see how "104" equals "10,000", there is a 9,896 difference between the two.

Damn my curiosity. What brings someone, ostensibly an adult, to the brink of childish word games? Have you not grown up? Are you stuck in an adolescent mindset? I so wanted to completely ignore your pre-pubescent taunt, not reward your immature "call out", but curiosity got the better of me. Please, enlighten me as to why you seem to be "stuck on the playground", so to speak.

You know nothing about "triggered" if you think that you are any of these Trumplicans have ever succeeded in "triggering" me. I am not so easily "triggered" as that. I am not so "snowflakish" as that. No, I leave being "snowflakes" to you and your ilk. I will remain reasonable, just not to the point to where I will follow you Trumplicans down your "rabbit holes".




Edit: Oh, and in case you thought that your attempt to "misg****r" me into "a fit of rage"... Nice try but FAIL, lol. I do find it interesting that YOU, ostensibly a female, would consider being labeled a female insulting. Why? Why should being labeled a female be insulting, even if falsely? Just asking, "for a friend", lol.