A question about LOST -- mainly for Weedpacket

BuzzLY

Ok, to go TOTALLY off-topic... 🙂

WeedPacket, you have repeatedly impressed me and others here with your mathematical wizardry, so I was wondering if you are a fan of Lost, specifically with how it relates to the numbers in the show.

For those who don't watch the show, the numbers that have repeated significance are:

4 8 15 16 23 42

Fans on various Lost sites have been trying to figure out what they mean. Recently, someone posted claiming that he was a numerologist that used to work for the CIA and FBI :rolleyes:. Here is his post:

http://www.4815162342.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=52084

My question for you, WeedPacket: Are his calculations valid? Seems to me from first glance that he's just doing some "number magic," which would work with any set of numbers. What do you think?

Weedpacket

No, I've never actually seen LOST (too many intersecting demands) and I suspect that it's a bit late for me to start. Almost certainly the numbers are highly context-sensitive (a safe combination, part/serial number, e.g.,) and isn't purely a numeric relation. Otherwise, it wouldn't be LOST, it would be NUMB3RS....

A "numerologist who used to work for the CIA and FBI" ... I wonder in what capacity? If it was as a numerologist, do they consult tarot card readers as well? (Backpedalling so fast the chain's come off...) As for the working ... you take some numbers, add them, multiply them, do some subtraction and you get some other numbers. Woohoo.

But I'll play along.

Set z = x.
Subtract 108 from z.
Now multiply z by x.
Now add 4405 to z.
Multiply it by x again.
Subtract 87270 to z.
Multiply it by x again.
Add 881464 to it.
Multiply it by x again.
Subtract 4239552 from it.
Multiply it by x again.
Add 7418880 to it.

Writing that in conventional terms instead of "guess a number" terms:

z=x(x(x(x(x(x-108)+4405)-87270)+881464)-4239552)+7418880

Oh, now I'm just going to cry. That's just a polynomial, which I can factorise:

(x-4)(x-8)(x-15)(x-16)(x-23)(x-42)

Not really surprising. It had to be a polynomial, since there was only multiplication and addition going on, and

If x is one of the numbers, 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, or 42, you get z = 0.

If x is anything else, you get z not equal to 0.

is just saying that the roots of the above expression are those numbers.

All the subsequent carryon is just a demonstration that the coefficients of a polynomial can all be written in terms of sums of products of its roots. Introductory Theory of Equations stuff. Impressive if the poster had come up with it independently, but unless it was just stumbled on by accident in this one instance (which is what numerologists tend to do) it's not really something to write home about (hmm, I smell troll).

Call the coefficients p[1], p[2], etc. (in the above, p[1]=-108,p[2]=4405, etc.)
Writing
∑α for the sum of all the roots,
∑αβ for the sum of all distinct pairs of roots - αβ, αγ, βγ, etc. multiplied together
∑αβγ for the sum of all distinct triples of roots multiplied together,
etc.

You have
∑α = -p[1]
∑αβ = p[2]
∑αβγ = -p[3]
...
αβγ...κ=(-1)ⁿ p[n]

Which is just a generalisation of the observation that

(x-a)(x-b) = x^2 - (a+b)x + ab
(x-a)(x-b)(x-c) = x^3 - (a+b+c)x^2 + (ab+ac+bc)x - abc
(x-a)(x-b)(x-c)(x-d) = x^4 - (a+b+c+d)x^3 + (ab+ac+ad+bc+bd+cd)x^2 - (abc+abd+acd+bcd)x + abcd
etc.

Take that up to (x-f), plug in the numbers, and compare the sums and products on the right with JDC's working (note that the sum of triples there (the "ugly" on) isn't written as symmetrically as it could have been).

Oh, and just to fill the gap in JDC's post:
48+415+416+423+442
+815+816+823+842
+1516+1523+1542
+1623+1642

+23*42

4405 :eek:

Weedpacket

Greetings,

I am a professional numerologist. I have done work for the RSA, the W3C, the KFC, and a few other less powerful (but more well-known) institutions.

Lost is a great show, and when I first saw the numbers, I was mildly intrigued, but I dismissed them, thinking "What does Hollywood know about numerology?" Still, it's a good show, so I kept watching. After the finale of the first season, however, I realized that they were haunting me. I couldn't figure out why, so after a few days, I decided to start investigating. This has been my passion since that time, and I believe I have finally found the beginning of what I was looking for. Read on....

The following is the most fascinating mathematical thing about these numbers; it is what makes them special, and demonstrates a rich and beautiful property that no other 6 numbers have.

The procedure below might look a bit strange at first, but trust me--after inspecting it in detail, you will see how truly amazing the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 actually are. If you read on, it may seem at first that the other numbers I introduce below are completely arbitrary, but when you see how they are related to the 6 numbers, it's clear that they are quite important. To view their formulas below, it's best to copy and paste into a fixed-width text editor such as notepad. That way you can see the patterns in their equations better.

The way this works is to begin with a number x, run through the process below, and

If x is one of the numbers, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, you get z = 0.
Exclamation If x is anything else, you get z not equal to 0.

This is not just true for most numbers, it is always true.

Set z = x.
Subtract 27 from z.
Now multiply z by x.
Now add 295 to z.
Multiply it by x again.
Subtract 1665 to z.
Multiply it by x again.
Add 5104 to it.
Multiply it by x again.
Subtract 8028 from it.
Multiply it by x again.
Add 5040 to it.

Now, what's so interesting about the numbers used in the above process? If you thought the above was impressive, take a look at this...
(copy and paste into notepad for best viewing)

2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7

= 27 !

23(4 + 5 + 6 + 7)
+ 24(5 + 6 + 7)
+ 25(6 + 7)
+ 26(7)

34(5 + 6 + 7)
35(6 + 7)
36(7)
45(6 + 7)
46(7)
567
-------------------------
= 1665

(That one took me a LONG, LONG time to figure out. It looks ugly, but there's a definite symmetry in the equation!)

(2 3 4 5 )
+ (2 3 4 6 )
+ (2 3 5 6 )
+ (2 4 5 6 )
+ (2 3 4 7)
+ (2 3 5 7)
+ (2 4 5 7)
+ (2 3 6 7)
+ (2 4 6 7)
+ (2 5 6 7)
+ ( 3 4 5 6 )
+ ( 3 4 5 7)
+ ( 3 4 6 7)
+ ( 3 5 6 7)

+ ( 4 5 6 *7)

= 5104

(That was also a difficult one, but not near as bad as the former)

( 34567)
+ (2 4567)
+ (23 567)
+ (234 67)
+ (2345 7)

+ (23456 )

= 8028

23456*7

= 5040 :eek:

I hope you found this enlightening and maybe it will help others gain further insight into the properties of the numbers.

dalecosp

Weedpacket wrote:
Greetings,

I am a professional numerologist. I have done work for the RSA, the W3C, the KFC

[...]

= 8028

23456*7

= 5040 :eek:

I hope you found this enlightening and maybe it will help others gain further insight into the properties of the numbers.

WP

😃 😃 😃 !!

BuzzLY

LMAO... Thanks WP. As usual, you come through with flying colors!