i had this idea since my secondary school days, because being a slight sufferer of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, i have a thing for numbers and patterns.
when i was reading on maths and logic, i came across some other scholars or matheticians beliefs that coincided with mine, in that patterns in a cycle does not necessarily have to be regular.
for example, take a look at this trend.
1, 3, 6, 10, 20, 25, 30, 33, 36, 39, 40, 43, 46, 50.
a weak yet certain pattern is observed in this set of numbers, if you follow the trend you should come up with the next number as 100 or 60. because of the irregularities of the number formed, the next event is "highly predictable", yet not with a high "significance level". also, there isnt an explanation on how the number 40 came up instead of 42, making it harder to comprehend the cycle itself. but essentially, it's a big cycle.
just my thoughts on this issue. any similar or opposing views? would love some serious insights on this issue
2007-07-01
01:29:47
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous