What are the odds?

waaaaaaaa......

wow ur smart

I'm confused. What is so important about the number 19? 7UR7L3M4N☢🐢☣

How small is the chance, that the number should be divisible by 19?

Well DJ, I’ll give you my opinion, for what it’s worth.  I don’t have the skill to do advanced statistical analysis on this, but I can tell you, by starting with number one, 19 divides every nineteenth number evenly. It does so indefinitely.  So, there are infinite numbers evenly divisible by 19. That is many numbers from which to choose. 

It easy to tell that any random integer number has the odds of 1 in 19 (about 5.2631%) of being divisible by 19 (Wow! What a coincidence!)

Let’s say you took a number like the first million digits of Pi 3.14159… and multiplied it by 10^1000000 = 314159…. That means the converted Pi sequence will divide every 10^1000000 numbers evenly. With any finite amount of numbers, this Pi sequence is more rare than 19. However, if all numbers are considered, there are an infinite number of them, and because there are an infinite number of each they both have the same frequency.  Yep, a one-million-digit integer will divide the same number of numbers as 19.

To explain more clearly, consider this. Let’s say you have two boxes. In one box are all integer numbers from zero to infinity. In the other box are all odd numbers one to infinity. It seems the box with all numbers has more numbers than the box with only odd integers, but they both have the same amount. 

Assuming there is no introduced bias in the analysis or the assignment of values to letters, it might be statistically significant if 19 occurred well above chance. A Chi squared statistic is one method that will find unusual occurrences, used in conjunction with other texts, may confirm significant deviations.

One thing to keep in mind is that unusual events happen all the time.  There are lottery winners all the time. Some of these lotteries have odds approaching 1 in 300,000,000, and there are multiple winners every year. It is the nature of humans, and we genetically enhanced chimps, to see patterns in anything and everything. We see human faces and animals in the clouds, all the time. We see Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the devil everywhere, from burnt toast to the dust on a window.   One time I saw a dog and cat in the clouds. I showed my dog and cat what I saw. They were decidedly unimpressed; probably because they see dogs and cats in the clouds all the time.

Most major religions have associated numerology, that is numbers or numerical sequences that are important to the belief are full of them.  3, 7, 8, 12 are all important numbers in Judeo-Christian religions. Don’t forget 666.

You might be interested in this: http://www.biblecodesplus.com/theory.html

I play with this program. It’s an entertaining pass time. I introduced it to my father a few years ago, and he still plays with it.  One day, about two years ago,  I suggested he search for Colm (his name) and Satan. He told me he already had (I don’t know if that was true.) I suggested he use 666 as the starting index. He did and a few minutes later, he slammed his computer shut with a “Blŏŏdy hẹll!”

After a while, he finally showed me. In a neat, semi orderly crisscross grids, like a daily crossword puzzle, were these words:  Colm will play poker in hẹll with his friends  He will win every game always beating the devil.

When I offered that that is not too bad of a hẹll. He said if he wins every game, his friends wouldn’t be his friends for long.  Of course, my father is no fool; he knew I had something to do with that unique presentation. He didn’t say anything.  We rarely do. I grew up in a home where April 1^st is celebrated with the same energy and sacred rites as Christmas and Easter.  

Let’s return to finite numbers.

Here is a list of divisors for most of the numbers you used in your post

. 

A quick review: Divisors are a list of integers that divide a number (evenly-no remainder).

All numbers have at least two –one (1) and itself. If the number only has two, then it’s a prime number. Composite numbers have three or more.

1327313419 [4 divisors: 1 19 69858601 1327313419]

1102216834974786 [6 divisors:  1 2 3 6 19 38 57 114 9668568727849 19337137455698 29005706183547 58011412367094 183702805829131 367405611658262 551108417487393 1102216834974786]

110527033354295 [32 divisors: 1 5 19 95 491 2455 9329 37963 46645 62417 189815 312085 721297 1185923 3606485 5929615 18639833 30646747 93199165 153233735 354156827 582288193 1770784135 2369536571

310226040466130305632913020084050628913020081040]

310226040 [48 divisors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 15 18 20 24 30 36 40 45 60 72 90 120 180 360 861739 1723478 2585217 3446956 4308695 5170434 6893912 7755651 8617390 10340868 12926085 15511302 17234780 20681736 25852170 31022604 34469560 38778255 51704340 62045208 77556510 103408680 155113020 310226040]

466130305 [16 divisors: 1 5 23 115 347 1735 7981 11681 39905 58405 268663 1343315 4053307 20266535 93226061 466130305]

Do you see a pattern here?

Let me know if you do.   

@GingerAle

I looked through the numbers you chose. 5 of them. According to the divisors(?) you wrote, only 3 of them were divisible by 19, and the only number that can evenly divide the them all is one. That's what I see, what did I miss?

I'm not a mathematician. I'm a muslim. I'm saying this about 19 because of the mention of the number 19 by God in The Holy Qur'aan as a number of significance. (74 : 30-31).

I agree with you, that there are theoretically an infinite numbers. And I don't believe we can actually do math with infinity, because we can't grasp it. Many would disagree, and I don't mind. Also, I don't find it relevant for the question.

What is the chance, that the number that Qur'aan says is of significance, has so many relations between the sentence with which virtually all chapters of Qur'aan begins (In the Name of Allaah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful)? The chance of a random number being dividable by 19 with no remainder is small. But the chance of those numbers I posted in the original post, all being made up of sequences that can be directly derived by the sentence's numerical values, and always in the same order, wether stand-alone values, or accumulated values. Also regardless of wether we just line up the values of the letters individually, suggesting that even swapping two random letters in the sequence, would make the sentence less compatible with the number 19.

It sure doesn't look to me like someone was sitting and looking at a list of numbers dividable by (up to 62 digits) and hoping to find something that would match. Rather I think, if someone would get more creative, they would find even more astonishing "lottery wins".

The refering of all these things to chance is completely fine by me, if one is one hundred percent sure, that his world view is unshakeable. The matter of the fact is, that most people's arent. There are plenty of flaws in the idea, that we are advanced chimps. When we say, that we have 98% in common with chimps DNA-wise, that is based on a flawed understanding of DNA. Back when this was discovered, the general idea among scientists was, that only that 1,5% of the DNA was significant. Since then we have found many tasks being governed by the other 98,5% of the DNA-string, and therefor now when we compare the DNA of a chimp and a human, we should make a comparison of the whole DNA-string, leading to a significant drop in similarity compared to only comparing that 1,5% that actually almost matches.

I could go on with the rest of the flaws in the theory of evolution, but I'm here for the math, and particularly the chance of such a sentence having meaning.

Thanks for a comprehensive answer, though. I still hope, that a master of statistics would tell me how to calculate it.
 

_{. . . the only number that can evenly divide the them all is one. That's what I see, what did I miss?}

You didn’t miss anything. One is common to all of these numbers. See god is number one and he’s omnipresent; this is proof of his omnipresence.  

_{I'm not a mathematician. I'm a muslim.}

No kidding?  I’m not a mathematician yet, but I’m a pastafarian. Anyway, there is no reason you cannot be both. 

Pastafarians and the FSM and are very tolerant of other’s religious beliefs, including mathematical religious beliefs.  For example, I still make oblations to the god of my ancestors, The Banana Goddess, when I make banana daiquiris.  I make a special one, with 432 imperial minims of gold rum, and offer it to her. She usually doesn’t drink it, so I oblige as a high priestess pro tempore, and drink it for her.  Sometimes I offer it to a worthy soul.  It’s a great honor.

------------

_{I'm saying this about 19 because of the mention of the number 19 by God in The Holy Qur'aan as a number of significance. (74 : 30-31).}

Ok. What does significant mean in this context?   In statistics, “significant” means the calculated event occurred more often than chance. The higher the event counts are above the expected value the more significant the statistic, and the statistician has more confidence that it didn’t happen by chance. This means there is a greater confidence that it happens for reasons other than chance. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen by chance.  

Let’s say (hypothetically) after several statistical analyses that 19 occurs 30 times more than chance and 20 times more than any other comparable text.  What does this mean? Does it mean a deity inspired the words?  Maybe, but someone could argue the deity is evil. Here’s how:

The verses you use from the Qur’an (74:30-31) and the verses following, explains that 19 is the exact number of angels (or demons) guarding Hellfire.  Hellfire is where Allah sends unbelievers and other evil people. Allah used 19 angles because 19 is used to represent evil and when you see 19, you should know it represents evil.  Allah tricked the writer of the Qur’an to use words that would cause 19 to occur 30 times more than chance, so that the future readers would be enlightened and know the text is really a cryptic presentation of satanic verses.  Statistical analyses support this theory.  (I don’t need statistical analyses to know this hypothetical more than probably pịsses you off, along with every follower of Islam. This sometimes happens when science meets religion. The two are often in conflict.)  

_{What is the chance, that the number that Qur'aan says is of significance, has so many relations between the sentence with which virtually all chapters of Qur'aan begins (In the Name of Allaah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful)?}

The chance depends on how the relationships are analyzed, what values are assigned to what letters, how often the letters are used, how often the letters are used in relation to other letters, and how often words are used in relation to other words, etc.  Any of these will bias the results towards or away from common divisors.

_{The chance of a random number being dividable by 19 with no remainder is small.}

It’s only small if 5.2631% is small.  

_{Also regardless of wether we just line up the values of the letters individually, suggesting that even swapping two random letters in the sequence, would make the sentence less compatible with the number 19.}

Swapping letters shouldn’t make a difference if you are summing the values.  Here is a numerical equivalent using ASCII decimal codes, Here, GOD = 71, 79, 68. Adding these numbers gives 218. In this context, GOD equals DOG because both equal 218. Cats are usually annoyed by this; they think GOD should equal CAT.  Dogs, of course, do not have a problem with this.

Here’s is one of my favorite numerical analysis using (appropriately enough) the ASCII code. 

The founder of Microsoft is Bill Gates III. Here’s a proof he’s in league with the devil!

By converting the letters of his current name to the ASCII values and adding his III (proof this it is not just any Bill Gates), you get the following:

B        I        L       L          G        A      T         E         S        III

66 +  73 +  76 + 76  +   71  +  65 +  84  +  69  +  83 +  3  =  666

This is the beginning of humanity’s ultimate and total enslavement.

Here’s more proof

M S  - D O S   6 . 2 1

77+83+45+68+79+83+32+54+46+50+49 = 666

W I N D O W S 95

87+73+78+68+79+87+83+57+53+1 = 666

You have to add 1 to this because it only equals 665 if you don’t. 665 is an evil number anyway, but 666 is more recognized.

--------------------------

_{It sure doesn't look to me like someone was sitting and looking at a list of numbers dividable by (up to 62 digits) and hoping to find something that would match. Rather I think, if someone would get more creative, they would find even more astonishing "lottery wins".}

Actually, someone was. That someone was moi. As explained above, I did it so you would notice that one is common to all of these numbers.  You are right about more wins if you are more creative. The look on my father’s face, when he saw the bible code results, was a big win.  That wasn’t a big of a win compared to faking a pregnancy when I was 16. That was second in drama only to my faking a suicide when I was 13. Creativity does give more astonishing lottery wins, for sure. 

-----------------

_{The refering of all these things to chance is completely fine by me, if one is one hundred percent sure, that his world view is unshakeable. The matter of the fact is, that most people's arent.}

I don’t know anyone who is one hundred percent sure of his or her worldview. I do know a few who act as if they are – at least when expressing certain opinions.  I change my opinion about ideas and concepts all the time. New information comes in to view every day. My perception changes over time. Thinking is a dynamic process; at least it is supposed to be.  My perception of the world is very different compared to when I was a child and it’s different from just a few months ago.  

_{There are plenty of flaws in the idea, that we are advanced chimps.}

For the record, I never said that.  I have said that I am a genetically enhanced chimp. We are different from humans. For one thing, we have opposable big toes. This comes in very handy when playing a piano piece written for four hands. In this case, one chimp equals two humans.  You should see us type!

_{When we say, that we have 98% in common with chimps DNA-wise, that is based on a flawed understanding of DNA. Back when this was discovered, the general idea among scientists was, that only that 1,5% of the DNA was significant. Since then we have found many tasks being governed by the other 98,5% of the DNA-string, and therefor now when we compare the DNA of a chimp and a human, we should make a comparison of the whole DNA-string, leading to a significant drop in similarity compared to only comparing that 1,5% that actually almost matches.}

That discovery was more than 35 years ago, and the range is 95% to 98% common DNA.  It seems reasonable the humans who discovered this would also figure out the details of how the assemblies function as well as the lengths of sequences. They did.  The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) )—originally thought to be “junk” DNA, controls this assembly more than the other nuclear DNA.  Even at the low end of the DNA spectrum, chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to any other animal, including gorillas.   

_{I could go on with the rest of the flaws in the theory of evolution, but I'm here for the math, and particularly the chance of such a sentence having meaning.}

I’m sure you could go on about the flaws, there are many. The germ theory has many flaws too. Girolamo Fracastoro proposed the germ theory in 1546 and it’s well older than the Darwinian theory of evolution (1858). If we fully understood it, we wouldn’t have germ-based diseases anymore. Even with these flaws, we still know there are germs, and we still know how to control them enough to prevent and cure many diseases.  

The DNA theory is a separate branch of science, and it well more corroborates rather than contradicts the veracity of Darwinian evolution theory.  To my knowledge, when there are conflicts, the Darwinian evolution theory is updated to reflect the DNA theory. 

_{Thanks for a comprehensive answer, though. I still hope, that a master of statistics would tell me how to calculate it.}

You’re welcome. I hope you find what you are looking for. 

.

Hi GingerAle,

Thanks for another very long response, which you this time used mostly to make fun of me, and talk about everything other than what I was talking about.

We have like 10 topics going on by now, while I only answered the many different points of your first message, because I found it appropriate after you had written such a long response - not to make this thread about any and everything.

I'm still interested in knowing the possibility of 19 being so in tune with the numerical values of this sentence, if anyone serious is willing to answer this question.

I'm afraid in order to show the values of each number, one will have to know the arabic letters of which there are 28. The lowest value according to my knowledge is 1, and the highest is 1000. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000. Each letter has one and only one of these values.

Therefor as I said, one of those sequences are made up of the numerical value of the letters making up the 19-letter sentence, each followed immediately by it's sequence number. This gives us a 62-digit sequence, that is divisible by 19 (21602403143053065718309200108114012501311430152001681710184019).

Changing one letter in the sequence, will subsequently change the order of numbers, leaving a very small possibility of the sequence still being compatible with 19. Please also count in the other sequences, and how they are made up.

I would like a serious answer regardless of what one might think of my world view. And if one would like to discuss world views I suggest we do that in another forum, since this is one of math, and frankly the different disciplines should be held apart for as long as it takes to finish the task concerning them. They compliment each other of course, but when your opinion biological or cosmological opinion becomes an obstacle to your mathematical abilities, you can't claim to have practiced transdisciplinary science in a constructive way. If still, one would like to discuss it, I'd gladly give the first cup of coffee for that conversation.