I’m not talking about describing everyone’s future based on their date of birth, but can certain types of numerology make you think twice if it’s legitimate?

I mean are they wrong to look for mathematical patterns in everything? The same as we were trained to do.

Here is my example:

The NCAA Tournament bracket is impossible to predict every game. So let’s say the numerology way would have the same statistical chance as traditional maths team rankings.

So let’s say the numerologists says they will take the player’s jersey numbers and determine the points scored by some complex assignment of winning potential versus the opposing team’s numbers.

The traditional mathematician says that’s BS and says I’ll take each player’s jersey numbers and computer their average scoring by how long each jersey number stays in the game.

Who wins the prediction? Are both approaches based on science? And is it so complex we can’t prove anything?

6 hours ago, Trurl said:

I’m not talking about describing everyone’s future based on their date of birth, but can certain types of numerology make you think twice if it’s legitimate?

I mean are they wrong to look for mathematical patterns in everything? The same as we were trained to do.

Here is my example:

The NCAA Tournament bracket is impossible to predict every game. So let’s say the numerology way would have the same statistical chance as traditional maths team rankings.

So let’s say the numerologists says they will take the player’s jersey numbers and determine the points scored by some complex assignment of winning potential versus the opposing team’s numbers.

The traditional mathematician says that’s BS and says I’ll take each player’s jersey numbers and computer their average scoring by how long each jersey number stays in the game.

Who wins the prediction? Are both approaches based on science? And is it so complex we can’t prove anything?

This seems on the face of it to be a silly question. Numerology is quite obviously not science.

Why would what , at best, is a pervesion of standard mathematics be a part of standard mathematics?

7 hours ago, Trurl said:

I’m not talking about describing everyone’s future based on their date of birth, but can certain types of numerology make you think twice if it’s legitimate?

I mean are they wrong to look for mathematical patterns in everything? The same as we were trained to do.

Here is my example:

The NCAA Tournament bracket is impossible to predict every game. So let’s say the numerology way would have the same statistical chance as traditional maths team rankings.

So let’s say the numerologists says they will take the player’s jersey numbers and determine the points scored by some complex assignment of winning potential versus the opposing team’s numbers.

The traditional mathematician says that’s BS and says I’ll take each player’s jersey numbers and computer their average scoring by how long each jersey number stays in the game.

Who wins the prediction? Are both approaches based on science? And is it so complex we can’t prove anything?

The roots of numerology come from ancient history, rather than victorian party tricks.

If you want to look up serious scientific investigation you need to look in a history book, not a mathematics one.

Try this one, originally in French, but translated into English by Princeton professors.
You will find the roots in ancient history of Sumeria, India, South America, Greece amongst others.
I stress it is neither a mathematics book nor a numerology books, just records what is known or hypothesised historically, including secret codes hidden in ancient religous texts.
But Ifrah was a maths teacher.

Let me know if you want more detail.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by studiot

Science, as we know it, is deeply rooted in causality.
Unless you can establish a cause for an effect, you are just describing patterns.
Mind you, sometimes those numerological patterns may turn out to hold true, but that is not science; it is, at best, guesswork, and at worst, bullsh*t.