Unity+

For one thing, that is a St. James translation, which gives different translations of meaning. The "strength of a unicorn" is simply referred to as a measure of strength. At the time at which that particular Bible was written they decided to reference such as a measure of strength. I have not presented any evidence and I haven't made any up either. I can respect such opinions. I never implied such, and if it translated in such a way I did not do this intentionally. Though not scientific, mathematics sometimes makes some "faith" based assumptions, such as many hypotheses that rely on the Riemann Hypothesis to be true. Also, there is no evidence behind Hawking radiation, yet we accept it as fact(though there are the few who are skeptical towards the idea. It is an interesting idea, but unproven at this moment in time(Unless I am unaware of a recent discovery). Now, here is my counter-argument to that claim. There is no promotion to the violence if one were to develop an analysis of the statements made in the Bible based on the connections between readings. Let us become "unscientific" about this and let us make an analysis of the Bible. In no way had God promoted violence within the Bible. If you remember, in the beginning of the Creation story within the Bible there is the Fall of man. This ultimately begins to Spiral of Violence, with the killing of Abel by Cain. This violence continues on with humanity and will last centuries. Did humanity promote violence? Yes. Did God within the Bible? Not that I am aware of. EDIT: And to include on from the New Testament, Jesus Christ(and historically Jesus did exist, you can make a counter-argument if you want, but it is whether you see him as just a person or whatever is to be made a conclusion by you) did not promote violence at all. He was totally against it. Also, a response to the Skeptic's Notated Bible: If man had not had the knowledge of evil, then there would be no need to know right from wrong. In order to know wrong, there must be knowledge of evil.

Well...I don't know then. I guess that ends my search. I don't really have the resources to do anything of this magnitude at this moment.

Well, he is online so we can never know, and even if he says he is serious the chances we can trust this user is about the approximation of none.

I think the user is just trolling about this. Responding with rationality won't do much.

I have seen many who are actually trolls, but most I know that are Christian aren't like that(both in real life and online).

Mathematica's memory for amount of digits depends on the memory of the computer and Mathematica doesn't calculate the value in one try, but relies on an algorithm to calculate all the values(I can tell you that it takes a long time for an output to come out). I know this because I have programmed specific mathematical algorithms involving(which have existed before) to carry out the product larger than the 2^32 limit(though, I have a 64 bit computer, so it would max out at 2^64). Well, for the actual proving of the prime number as it would be confirmed Daedalus is using some program using the NVidia GPU, which will still take some time in order for it to confirm the prime number. I simply used Fermat's Little theorem(which is still not enough to prove it, but states that it most likely is prime). I did recheck Wilson's theorem document and realized there was something wrong. Mathematica did stop it's calculation there(unfortunately). Right now, I am waiting for Daedalus to report whether CUDALucas has determined it to be a prime or not. It will take some time. I am keeping my fingers crossed. I will give him credit if it is prime. Since I am calculating this with Mathematica 9, there is much precision within the process. Though you could argue that computers do make rounding mistakes, which may be relevant to calculation in this circumstance, I don't see any evidence as to this conclusion.

This is actually pretty interesting, especially with how there are similar principles with energy and the flow of electrons. For example, you describe certain concepts with pressure. That same concept is found if energy, especially with Tesla coils and how the pressure intensifies the strength of the result(maybe obvious, yet still interesting).

Where does it say such a thing? That ends my point on that statement. Yes, and this is the religion section. I apologize if it seemed I was attacking you. I was just trying to get a clearer understanding of the argument. I think that can be more in the broader sense of opinion rather than just religion. For example, believing in something in some government that is against the idea would be an example, though yes there are religions(especially some Christian sects) that believe medicine is bad and evil. I particularly find them ignorant because they clearly haven't read the Bible at all. That is one thing I actually do dislike or find uncomfortable about certain religious people, which is the fact that they believe something without even reading what was behind the whole belief in the first place. If i remember correctly, there are only 40% of Christians who have read the Bible all the way through(I have read almost the whole Bible). Igorance is what led to the corruption of the Catholic church and government within England(correct me if I am wrong). They made it impossible or improbably for people to gain access to a readable Bible to actually see what the Bible had stated, which lead to false teachings. I can see and understand where all the "hate" towards religion came from that aspect and yes many disasters in history, with religion and war, have been caused by ignorance and I think that is the main attack towards religion; the aspect of things that clearly if A happened, than B must be true. If millions of people were killed because of false teachings of a religion then clearly the religion must be hogwash, which is entirely false because the religion itself doesn't even teach violence at all.

Sorry to say, but it is you that makes the religious, like me, look bad. No wonder so many people think the religious are cranks. Please, stop trolling.

I finally wrote a paper on this concept: http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=6481ecefe3c97fab4b92b14a459e5dbf It is just a rough draft, so it may need revising. If you don't want to download it, just go here to read it: https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=z31EAAAAAEAJ&pg=GBS.PA0

Yes the Area. A matrix can be a k by d, where k is the width and d is the height. Multiply them to get the area. [math]\begin{bmatrix} 3&2 &5 \\ 1& 3 &5 \\ 6&3 & 4 \end{bmatrix}=A_{3\times 3}[/math]

I am assuming that since the amount of arrangements possible for a set of elements is equal to the amount of elements within the set to the factorial, that for a matrix it would be the area of the matrix factorial. Is this true?

If you really want to debate with dignity, you might as well cut the arrogance because it doesn't make for a proper debate. Taking advantage of human fault is not a point of a debate. I guess my point was not clear, which was clearly my fault. Am I stating that God is proven scientifically? No, I am not, but back to analyzing your key points. Okay...I will. That has what I currently discussed. Here is my point. Since God clearly cannot be proven or disproven scientifically we can enter the realm of philosophy, which tends to look at science in a different light. Since philosophy is not debated with scientific evidence, but with philosophical logic this means things can be debated not with observable evidence measured through scientific rigor, but with a form of "human logic" for lack of a better term. Be careful before you put forth a sentence. There is scientific evidence, which I think you meant to put forth within your argument, and just regular evidence, which can be left as many forms of evidence. Do we have any scientific evidence that can prove God? I would have to say not at this moment and I don't think we can because trying to do so would be pseudo science. However, there is philosophical "evidence" and argument as a way of the definition by analysis of the mechanisms of science and many forms of logic that exist. Now your arguments are just getting very "dull" because you clearly imply that all religous imply this statement. An object falls to the ground. Would I say that "God did it?" Well, I would say that the object that gravity cause the object to fall to the ground and that the design of the mechanism behind the existence of gravity are created by God(though this is a very simple example). If you want to argue more on this point, then so be it. Well, the problem with your argument somewhat breaks down because we can clearly tell that fairies and leprechauns were invented by humanity through the greed instinct, which clearly God(through scripture of the Christian faith) is against such. Again, you forget to say scientific evidence. My argument above argues this. Again, the arrogance in this statement is beyond the measure of a debate.

And here is for multiplication: [math]n\times C(x)_{r}\begin{Bmatrix} \cdots \end{Bmatrix},s(r_{p})[/math] [math]\frac{d_{i}n}{d_{e}}[/math],[math]rn[/math] The next set of operations are the simple of addition and subtraction. [math]n+ C(x)_{r}\begin{Bmatrix} \cdots \end{Bmatrix},s(r_{p})[/math] [math]\frac{d_{i}}{d_{e}}+\frac{nd_{e}}{d_{e}}[/math], [math]r+n[/math] And then there is the subtraction of Raymond Arithmetic: [math]n- C(x)_{r}\begin{Bmatrix} \cdots \end{Bmatrix},s(r_{p})[/math] [math]\frac{d_{i}}{d_{e}}-\frac{nd_{e}}{d_{e}}[/math], [math]r-n[/math] Now onto powers: [math](C(x)_{r}\begin{Bmatrix} \cdots \end{Bmatrix}, s(r_{p}))^{n}[/math] [math](\frac{d_{i}}{d_{e}})^{n}[/math], [math]r^{n}[/math] And here is rooting Collatz-Matrix equations: [math]\sqrt[n]{C(x)_{r}\begin{Bmatrix} \cdots \end{Bmatrix}, s(r_{p})}[/math] [math]\sqrt[n]{\frac{d_{i}}{d_{e}}}[/math], [math]\sqrt[n]{r}[/math] Here are a few properties to notice. For multiplication, you may never divide or multiply by 0. For exponentiation, where n is equal to 0... Where [math]d_{c} = -1[/math]. Here would be an example of a Collatz-Matrix equation to the 0th that is 5x5 and x equals 1. [math]\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5\\ 0 & 0& 0& 0 & 5\\ 0 & 0& 0& 0 &5 \\ 0& 0& 0& 0&5 \\ 0 & 0 & 0& 0 &5 \end{bmatrix}[/math] A Collatz-Matrix equation, like this, could be simplified to a one dimensional Collatz-Matrix equation: [math]C(x)_{k}\begin{Bmatrix} x-1 & x+1 \end{Bmatrix},s(k_{p})[/math] This would apply to all dimensions of Collatz-Matrix equations: In this case, the variable [math]s_{p}[/math] is a special case dimension, which refers to this Collatz-Matrix equation as a trans-linear equation. It is not proven yet, but I postulate that the if for any determinant of a Collatz-Matrix equation if solving for x when y equals -1, x will always equal 1. A formula that is used for finding the numbers that will work in all directions in a matrix solution for Collatz-Matrix equations is the following: [math]d_{i}xr-d_{e}r[/math] As a side note, if a parameter is simply equal to x, then it is not necessary to include it within the notation. However, if you are determining the determinant of the Collatz-Matrix equation it will be necessary to include it within the parameter brackets to show the existence of these parameters.

Hyper-Dimensional Number System Problem: There exists number systems below above the natural number system(whole numbers), however the question is whether there exists number systems above below the known natural number line. For example, Though one can increase the amount of dimensions to increase the amount of number systems, but can one develop a number system provable below the 1st dimension? EDIT: This assumes that there is no number system for the 0th dimension. Here is a continuation of Raymond Arithmetic. Now, in order to properly carry out the operations, the Collatzian ratio must be found. The actual operations will be carried out on the Collatzian ratio and the variable r. ,[math]\frac{r}{n}[/math] Which then , would result in the following, like the two dimensional Collatz-Matrix equation.

If you are implying that stating that God does exist is a fallacy, then you yourself are making yourself looking like a fool, if you will. As I have stated in another post stating that God does or does not exist with scientific experiment is pseudoscience. Science is the analysis, your belief is the conclusion. Many believe that the Universe developed through the physical mechanisms, other stated that the Universe, in fact in some way, was created by God.

Of course, this implies that God is a delusion of the mind. I think you forget to apply another part of the argument. Science cannot prove or disprove God. This means that simply stating that it is a fact that God does not exist is an utter admittance to applying pseudoscience based on a claim that you will declare or imply as a scientific statement. As John Lennox stated to Richard Dawkins during a debate, not allowing one possibility to exist or as something to accept just shows your denial of the possibility that something does exist. It is more bias than actual analysis. Now back to the question. Are people who believe in God broken? Of course now. Stating such assertions brings forth a negative connotation to what you imply. Many of the religious have made scientific discoveries and mathematical developments that have benefited the world. Michael Faraday is a good example. There will be the few that declare the religious incomplete scientists(like the mathematician with a debate with John Lennox did), but you must realize they are not willing to accept the idea of a religious scientist or mathematician.