Author Topic: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God  (Read 5297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10571
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« on: March 12, 2011, 09:48:12 AM »
I read a detailed book about this once, and it was quite fascinating. It delved even deeper than the video into the mathematical consistency of ratios in nature*. Cool stuff. This video is a mere introduction to the concept.

HT: Ann Barnhardt

Fibonacci numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 01:05:23 PM by IronDioPriest »
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 17012
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2011, 09:54:48 AM »
Fascinating.  Math is God/God is math.

Don't be an idiot; it all just banged into existence./s
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44972
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2011, 11:22:56 AM »
Just a fluke, eh?  /

 ::angel::
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline AmericanPatriot

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2011, 12:57:10 PM »
Coincidental (maybe), I was reading a newsletter from one of my favorite marketing gurus, Perry Marshall.
He is religious and isn't afraid to say it.
Anyhow, he talks about Elliott Wave and how it's related to botany

"2 months ago I needed to create a new innovation for the Maui seminar. A way to deal with the frustration and resistance that nearly *everyone* is feeling right now. So I started asking myself some new questions:

* In currency trading there's a pattern called the Elliott Wave. It came from math and botany. 'This has *something* to do with marketing, I just don't know what. What is it?'

* Sunflowers arrange their seeds in an absolutely optimum dense pattern. Which, interestingly, has a connection with the Elliott Wave. This definitely has *something* to do with advertising. What's the connection?"

I'm not sure but thought I read that the Elliott wave is related to Fibonacci.
I could be wrong. Have been before.
In that case, quoting Emily LaTella "never mind"

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10571
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2011, 01:04:24 PM »
Coincidental (maybe), I was reading a newsletter from one of my favorite marketing gurus, Perry Marshall.
He is religious and isn't afraid to say it.
Anyhow, he talks about Elliott Wave and how it's related to botany

"2 months ago I needed to create a new innovation for the Maui seminar. A way to deal with the frustration and resistance that nearly *everyone* is feeling right now. So I started asking myself some new questions:

* In currency trading there's a pattern called the Elliott Wave. It came from math and botany. 'This has *something* to do with marketing, I just don't know what. What is it?'

* Sunflowers arrange their seeds in an absolutely optimum dense pattern. Which, interestingly, has a connection with the Elliott Wave. This definitely has *something* to do with advertising. What's the connection?"

I'm not sure but thought I read that the Elliott wave is related to Fibonacci.
I could be wrong. Have been before.
In that case, quoting Emily LaTella "never mind"

Indeed.

R. N. Elliott's analysis of the mathematical properties of waves and patterns eventually led him to conclude that "The Fibonacci Summation Series is the basis of The Wave Principle".[1] Numbers from the Fibonacci sequence surface repeatedly in Elliott wave structures, including motive waves (1, 3, 5), a single full cycle (5 up, 3 down = 8 waves), and the completed motive (89 waves) and corrective (55 waves) patterns. Elliott developed his market model before he realized that it reflects the Fibonacci sequence. "When I discovered The Wave Principle action of market trends, I had never heard of either the Fibonacci Series or the Pythagorean Diagram".[1]

The Fibonacci sequence is also closely connected to the Golden ratio (1.618)*. Practitioners commonly use this ratio and related ratios to establish support and resistance levels for market waves, namely the price points which help define the parameters of a trend.[5] See Fibonacci retracement.

* The "ratios in nature" I referred to above.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44972
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2011, 04:50:33 PM »
Interesting.

http://goldennumber.net/phipower.htm

Coincidence.

Too easy!
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline AmericanPatriot

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2011, 06:57:08 PM »
There's some pretty good stuff on this guy's site
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/

This is the guy I quoted above.

On the subject of numbers, here is one of the articles on his site
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

Quote
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem:
The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time
In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.
Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications.
Oddly, few people know anything about it.
Allow me to tell you the story.
Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.
So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a list of theorems.
That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
Yes, it does seem perfectly reasonable that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that they are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.
Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were many things that were “obviously” true but nobody could figure out a way to prove them.
In the early 1900?s, however, a tremendous sense of optimism began to grow in mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) were convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.
A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.
In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.
Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”
If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel discovered it, and what it means – in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates
Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.
Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement
“I am lying.”
“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.
So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.
No statement alone can completely prove itself true.
His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivism” of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.
Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things than are true than you can prove.
A “theory of everything” – whether in math, or physics, or philosophy – will never be found. Because it is impossible.
OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?
Here’s what it means:
•   Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
•   All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
•   You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
•   Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle is “deductive reasoning.”
Example of a deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal
•   Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle is “inductive reasoning.”
Examples of inductive reasoning:
1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal
1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs falling objects
Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.
For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. You cannot prove that the universe is rational. You can only observe that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does.
Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is logical and based on fixed discoverable laws.
You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
•   There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
•   The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
•   The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
•   The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
•   Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
•   If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
•   Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
•   Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:
•   In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
•   The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
•   All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
•   Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
In other words when we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also conscious.
Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
Interesting aside…
If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”
If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.
Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.
No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
Perry Marshall
“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.”


Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10571
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2011, 07:22:51 PM »
Dang, that IS good stuff AP. Usually when I try to digest mathematical concepts my eyes roll back in my head and my mind wanders. I'm just not math-minded, and so I lose my concentration. I read that whole thing through, and find it fascinating. I'm gonna share it with Mrs. IDP and my boys.

I like the money shot:[blockquote]If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement: “Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause. Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.[/blockquote]

The text of this post seems to demonstrate that he be true. I'd be interested to see how an atheist would attempt to counter the logic.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline AmericanPatriot

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2011, 07:36:23 PM »
The guy that has this is a marketing guru, as I mentioned.
Totally unlike all the main IM gurus.
He does sell stuff but delivers great thought provoking content.
Besides liking his stuff, I admire his conviction to put this kind of stuff out there regardless of any possible cosequences to his business
There's some other good stuff at the link.

The math tends to make me glassy eyed too.
In my younger days, I was supposed to have some aptitude for it

BTW, glad you liked it

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2011, 08:01:15 PM »


AmericanPat  #6:   ::thumbsup::

Yes, this is to be shared.

 

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2011, 08:05:32 PM »

Rumor has it that Pythagoras was a musician and he developed his tonal theory and the theory of pi in order to transcribe his music to paper. 


Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2011, 09:01:15 PM »
I recall reading somewhere that SETI broadcasts radio pulses in the Fibonacci sequence. They believe that an intelligent species capable of receiving it will recognize it as the product of another intelligent species.

It's also a textbook problem for first year computer science students. I remember having to write programs that worked with Fibonacci and factorial sequences, ex: http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus4/html/page214.html
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44972
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2011, 11:20:08 AM »
"Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic."

 ::thumbsup::

But since the mind of an atheist is the closest thing to a truly "closed system" it is not possible for them to ever be able to be in a position to admit the presence of an outside agency...so wallowing in mindlessness, chaos and insanity is ultimately all they have to cling to.  How lonely that must be!
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline LadyVirginia

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5167
  • Mt. Vernon painting by Francis Jukes
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2011, 11:58:50 PM »
Cool.

I started reading thinking I'd quit after a few lines but no.  Pretty interesting.

 ::cool::
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10571
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2011, 01:10:39 AM »
Cool.

I started reading thinking I'd quit after a few lines but no.  Pretty interesting.

 ::cool::

Yip. One thought builds on the last and leads to the next, building a logical case.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline LadyVirginia

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5167
  • Mt. Vernon painting by Francis Jukes
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2011, 10:44:56 PM »
Cool.

I started reading thinking I'd quit after a few lines but no.  Pretty interesting.

 ::cool::

Yip. One thought builds on the last and leads to the next, building a logical case.

I'm showing this to my one kid who's more artsy, always saying math has no point and is boring (though she does her math class very well). It'll give her something to chew on.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Offline radioman

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2011, 11:26:49 PM »
I will post this on my trombone forum to see what the atheist response will be.

There are a lot of people over there that assure me that the Bible is a work of fiction, and that is a fact. I'm not sure how they proved that fact, but I'm interested in reading their response the Gobel's Incompleteness Theorom.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 11:37:41 PM by radioman »
TGIF - "Thank God I'm Forgiven"

Offline radioman

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2011, 08:06:38 AM »
I will post this on my trombone forum to see what the atheist response will be.

There are a lot of people over there that assure me that the Bible is a work of fiction, and that is a fact. I'm not sure how they proved that fact, but I'm interested in reading their response the Gobel's Incompleteness Theorom.

From Trombone Player #1:

Interesting angle. But, even allowing the step where he claims that GIT implies the existence of something physically outside the universe (of which more below), it breaks down quite trivially where Perry Marshall then inserts a religious position into that, and claims that that is the logical thing to do. No, the logical thing to do at that point would be to recognise that one had reached a point where a consequence of incompleteness had become crucial, and then explore further axioms that one might assume in order to complete the particular gap that one had arrived at. One could use a religious position as an axiom - but what would be the point, scientifically? Axioms should be as simple as possible, and the assumption that there is a complex set of interacting and anthropomorphic forces out there acting on us (as described by most religions in their god concept) would be both way more complex and less specific than would be sensible.
It is worth remembering that the devisings of religions are always in response to a sense of incompleteness (though not the mathematical sense used by Godel) - and so GIT will naturally make people think of religious comparisons, whatever they personally may think of religiousness. But existing religions are all a throwing up of the hands that occurred in response to problems that we as a people have now long since solved... Sun gods and creation stories? We know a bit more about cosmology, geology and biology now. Maybe one day we will demonstrate that we have reached the limit of knowledge in some direction - but we don't seem to be anywhere near that limit in any direction yet!

However, to return to an earlier point as promised, there is a second big philosophical hole in this... GIT asserts that, in any sufficiently interesting system (and "interesting" has quite a low threshold here), there exist statements about that system that you cannot prove - not that things physically exist outside of that system. It says that a system cannot physically describe itself in total completeness, not that things are required to exist outside that system in order to make it look more complete. Using GIT to assert that things must exist outside of the universe is not logical.

Perhaps the biggest (and simplest) hole though, is this: If GIT really does assert that any system must have things physically outside of it, then what does it say about Perry Marshall's supposedly complete {universe + god} system? Why, that there must be something outside of that...

If you want to learn more about GIT, I recommend a highly entertaining (but brainbashing) book by Douglas Hofstadter, entitled "Godel, Escher, Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid", in which (en route to musing on the nature of consciousness) he gradually lays out the steps to a detailed lay understanding of GIT, interweaved with a lot of entertaining and thought-provoking chapters illustrating the points through whimsical examples and metaphors, named and structured after puns on J.S. Bach's works. It's a great book, but not a quick read.
 
 
 
TGIF - "Thank God I'm Forgiven"

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2011, 10:35:47 AM »

Hofstadter puns Bach, what more does one need to know?