Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] The parabolic jolt

Expand Messages
  • Jan Sammer
    ... I am not sure that you are right in your solution (my reservations have mainly to do with the chopped-off zeroes), but I appreciate the effort at dealing
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Richard Mallett:

      > Personally, with a mathematical background, I see the sequence 30, 60, 100
      > in terms of triangular numbers 3, 6, 10 (each multiplied by 10) and
      > lending itself to a graphic demonstration, thus :-
      >
      > * ;
      > ** ;
      > = 30 ;
      >
      > * ;
      > ** ;
      > *** ;
      > = 60 ;
      >
      > * ;
      > ** ;
      > *** ;
      > **** ;
      > = 100
      >
      > Is it possible that Jesus used a graphical demonstration in his teaching
      > (with collections of objects that were gradually built up into triangles -
      > the rule of three again) and thus arrived at the sequence 30, 60, 100 ?
      >
      > Richard.
      >
      I am not sure that you are right in your solution (my reservations have
      mainly to do with the chopped-off zeroes), but I appreciate the effort at
      dealing with the actual figures, rather than just discussing whether they're
      reasonable, disproportionate, ascending or descending. Frankly I do not
      think we have a satisfactory solution yet.

      Jan
    • David C. Hindley
      ... 60, 100 in terms of triangular numbers 3, 6, 10 (each multiplied by 10) and lending itself to a graphic demonstration, thus :- * ; ** ; = 30 ; * ; ** ; ***
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Richard mallet notes:

        >>Personally, with a mathematical background, I see the sequence 30,
        60, 100
        in terms of triangular numbers 3, 6, 10 (each multiplied by 10) and
        lending itself to a graphic demonstration, thus :-

        * ;
        ** ;
        = 30 ;

        * ;
        ** ;
        *** ;
        = 60 ;

        * ;
        ** ;
        *** ;
        **** ;
        = 100

        Is it possible that Jesus used a graphical demonstration in his
        teaching
        (with collections of objects that were gradually built up into
        triangles -
        the rule of three again) and thus arrived at the sequence 30, 60, 100
        ?<<

        This seems to most directly address Ted's interest in the possible
        meaning of the numeric progression found in the parable. I suspected
        some sort of progression was being used, but was at a total loss to
        figure out what it came from. What does it all mean in interpretive
        terms, though? It would suggest that the author of the parable was
        mathematically inclined, and familiar with progressions. Perhaps a bit
        of Gematria was intended.

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA
      • Russ Conte
        ... 100 in terms of triangular numbers 3, 6, 10 (each multiplied by 10) and ... These numbers can be precisely derived at least two different ways, one as a
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Richard mallet notes:
          >>Personally, with a mathematical background, I see the sequence 30, 60,
          100 in terms of triangular numbers 3, 6, 10 (each multiplied by 10) and
          >>lending itself to a graphic demonstration, thus :-

          These numbers can be precisely derived at least two different ways, one
          as a numerical sequence, one as points on a parabola, as follows:

          30 = 2 * 15
          60 = 3 * 20
          100 = 4 * 25

          This makes the pattern obvious. These numbers can also be found in the
          following equation (which is a parabola, by the way):

          y = 5x^2+15x+10

          Substituting the values of 1, 2 and 3 for x will yield 30, 60 and 100
          for y.

          Interpretation is hardly my strong suit, but these numbers do not go
          along a linear path. They continue to get bigger on an exponential
          basis. For example, the next numbers would by 150, 210, 280, 360, 450,
          550 and 660. Whatever is being referenced in the parable, it seems fair
          to me to say that the return on investment will not be linear, but
          exponential, and maybe that's the point of the parable.

          Just my modest 2¢.

          Russ Conte
        • Barbara Leger
          And then we have to ask ourselves: (1) What esoteric meaning does the parabola have? (2) What esoteric meanings lie in the numbers you and others have provided
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            And then we have to ask ourselves:

            (1) What esoteric meaning does the parabola have?
            (2) What esoteric meanings lie in the numbers you and others have provided here?

            I think you're onto something here. Just my 2 cents as well.*S*

            Barb Leger

            Russ Conte wrote:

            > Richard mallet notes:
            > >>Personally, with a mathematical background, I see the sequence 30, 60,
            > 100 in terms of triangular numbers 3, 6, 10 (each multiplied by 10) and
            > >>lending itself to a graphic demonstration, thus :-
            >
            > These numbers can be precisely derived at least two different ways, one
            > as a numerical sequence, one as points on a parabola, as follows:
            >
            > 30 = 2 * 15
            > 60 = 3 * 20
            > 100 = 4 * 25
            >
            > This makes the pattern obvious. These numbers can also be found in the
            > following equation (which is a parabola, by the way):
            >
            > y = 5x^2+15x+10
            >
            > Substituting the values of 1, 2 and 3 for x will yield 30, 60 and 100
            > for y.
            >
            > Interpretation is hardly my strong suit, but these numbers do not go
            > along a linear path. They continue to get bigger on an exponential
            > basis. For example, the next numbers would by 150, 210, 280, 360, 450,
            > 550 and 660. Whatever is being referenced in the parable, it seems fair
            > to me to say that the return on investment will not be linear, but
            > exponential, and maybe that's the point of the parable.

            >
            >
            > Just my modest 2¢.
            >
            > Russ Conte
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.