pzkpfw

I just remembered another kind of actual numerology (dunno what it's called but did a quick google with some of the above and didn't see it): My ex father in law used to have the approach to life of believe everything anybody says or writes. Why would they lie or make stuff up? He once spent time trying to tell me all about something he'd learned. The idea was to add up all the digits in a number, iterating until there's just one digit left. That would be applied to a first number based on other numerology on something like your name, such as those above. This would give you a single digit, that had some kind of bogus meaning (a "5" means you like Jazz music and hate vegetables). He was extremely "amazed" that, e.g. 367 = (3 + 6) + 7 = 9 + 7 = 16 = 7 367 = 3 + (6 + 7) = 3 + 13 = 3 + 4 = 7 ... both come to 7. OMG! (This was taken as proof there was some meaning to it.)

I don't mind quotes being trimmed for clarity, but showing just that bit of my post then going on to add detail (confirming the rest of my post) might have the unfortunate effect of making it seem like I do think there's anything to astrology. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do but to be clear to any lurker skim-reading: I do not.

(Working off memory of something I read years ago; so treat this as anecdotal ...) Somebody noticed that professional athletes in some sport had a higher than chance probability of having certain astrological signs. Non-science nonsense would say "well, when mercury is in retrograde ...". But it (the "pattern") was studied and it was realised it did have to do with when they were born. As children starting yearly age-grade sports, those born sooner than the others had a statistically significant advantage in physical development (size, strength, dexterity, ...), that carried through their young sporting years. It helped keep them in the sport and develop. (Again, all statistics; bell curves apply.) @Trurl is this what you might mean by your "numerology"?

I think you're not very clear on what numerology even is. Possibly this is an effect of your posts in forums such as this. It's common for math related, um, musings, to be called "numerology" in forums. It might help to think of the question "what is alternative medicine called if it's proven to work?" The answer is "medicine". In other words, if you have an example of (suspected) numerology, that actually "works" in some provable way, you'd maybe just have actual math (of some type; statistics probably). Also, watch the 2011 movie "Moneyball".

But to care about gravity from the sides, your 1 dimensional thing has to exist on at least a 2 dimensional plane, right? You may as well drop the 1 dimensional thing, it's just muddying the waters. I don't think your idea works. Consider an object at C, it's attracted to (and vice versa) A and B. That averages out to the mid point - centre of gravity. Consider an object at D, it's attracted to (and vice versa) A and B. That averages out to the mid point - centre of gravity. D is closer to B than A, but the effects in general still average out. There is nothing about A and B being in a line (according to D) that makes anything extra happen. (NB: arrows are just for direction. They are not intended to be vectors (length does not indicate strength, or accurate addition).) The above assumes A and B are of equal mass. e.g. from a distance, you'd calculate/notice the gravitational effects of Earths Moon as being at its centre of mass. But the Moon is not homogenous, there are lumps of stuff in it (mascons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy) ) that can make the path of things orbiting the Moon a bit wobbly.

Over here "sesqui" came to mean "disaster". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesqui_1990

I just hope that soon he's Calling [on] Elvis.

Why do the moons of other planets get no love? (Maybe because nobody knew they were there when this kind of mush started being invented?)

Wow! I'd have to see the context, but that seems weird. And I'm less than or equal to the smartest person alive!

Thread title ATOW: "≤ can mean- till it or till it OR infinity ?" In itself there's nothing about infinity in ≤, it simply means "less than or equal to". What you call "dash under" is the result of combining < with =. (z < 4 means z is less than 4, and won't equal 4; z ≤ 4 means z is less than or equal to 4.) The second to last line of your image is in the form: ½ ≥right side formula > 0 i.e. with some algebra they show the right side formula must have a value from zero to half; but while it could equal half it can't equal zero. ( ½ ≥ p means half is greater than or equal to p, and also, p is less than or equal to half.) That's used to show the left side formula (as it's equal to the right side formula) has a value in the range: (0, ½] ... where "(" is used to imply ">" that end and "]" implies "≤" that end.

I get this kind of thing at work: People using AI to flesh-out their emails. Which they send to other people. Who use AI to summarise those emails. All seems a bit weird.

Back in the day, Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS defaulted to white text on a blue background. The claim was that we tend to see blue as "more distant", so this combination gave the least eye strain.

'a[t] top the webpage it says store! look it is clearly there it says: Browse, Activity, Leaderboard, and "Store"' This didn't need to be a PM. Yeah, do you see products in it? Likely to just be a default feature of the software the board uses. Still not a Brain Teaser or Puzzle.

If there's a store here it's news to me, and I've been here for a few years. How is this a Brain Teaser or Puzzle? (That doesn't mean "I have a question".)

Many thanks (again) to the mods who keep forums like this readable/usable. ... all voluntary. You are doing something that people appreciate.