"Twins" in Mythology sets forth theory that mathematical mystery is behind the lore
| Following up upon "Mountains in Mythology" I seek to set forth the theory (after all, I am "Theoryman") that "twins" in mythology set out covert lore for a scheme of "squaring" in a three phase scheme.|
As an original matter, any number in any scheme which reflects itself is a "twin" of that number. Said again, if we have 3 x 3 we have a set of numbers, and herein, that number (3) "mirrors" itself forming its "twin". As an original matter, if indeed there exist a "three phase" of creation (trinity) scheme, it becomes obvious when we examine the "twins" in such a system that we are capable of securing three different "sets".
There is (1) "male-male" twins; (2) "female-female" twins, and (3) "male-female" twins. It would be most beneficial to review the lore in connection with "twins" and the role they play in the mythology. Lets imagine that there actually exist a trinity scheme. That in connection with this scheme one phase has ran its course (the "past"); that we are in phase two (the "present"); and that another phase will follow upon the end of phase two (the "future").
Lets step it up: lets image that any one of the three phases can exist all on its own, or in its own right, and under its "own rules" (or "laws"). Lets imagine that any two phases can operate with one of the other two (one with two; one with three; or, two with three), or in fact all three in unison. Here's the real mystery, lets imagine you are capable of creating such a scheme. How would you go about it?
As an original matter, where did numbers originate? A review would demonstrate that there are are "schools" devoted to differing view(s). As one who has investigated the issue I can assure you your search will lead you to number theory as expressed in out oldest writings on the matter. These ancient text have a common theme: they tell us "god gave them to us". I ask, and challenge, show me anyone whom created a number. You may show me those whom created a number theory system, but not a "number" itself.
This is sobering, because, when we examine number theory we see we are doing nothing less than arranging that which was passed down to us under any particular scheme we have now formed those numbers under. This brings us back to the "origins" of number theory, and the schemes used at the time to where we cannot trace number theory any further back, or any longer. How number theory fully operated remains encased in mystery, if not defiance, on how it all operated. We can turn our attention to Persia and Egypt because the oldest records about number theory begins in these areas of the world.
Lets examine the "calendars" these societies formulated and test them with the aid of our "twins". We are dealing, in one fashion or another, with a complete circle. That is "360" degrees. Yet we know the idea was crafted with a "365" day cycle. There are various theories for why this is, none of which need to distract us.
The number "9" is said to be the number of completion. This is so, because, the theory is, once we reach "10" we are doing nothing more than adding "1-9", or using them all over again. We add 1 to 10 for 11; 2 to 10 for 12, etc., until we reach 20, and we start all over again: 1 to 20 for 21; 2 to 20 for 22, etc. The thing that is relevant is the fact we have only nine numbers which keep repeating themselves, only on a higher "scale". Many believe "0" is not a number at all, but a "cipher". We either start with nothing, that is "0", or we reason that there always existed "1", from which all sprang. Take your pick. How would one cut itself up into 2, then 3, or 3 from the start? And if this holds truth, or at least relevance, where did 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 come from?
We can add 1 to 3 for 4, 2 to 3 for 5, and finally, 3 to 3 for 6, from the original "trinity". Now we have to deal with 7, 8, and 9. Do we add the "trinity" to 6, that is, use the "original trinity" (1-3) once again? Or do we use the second "trinity" (4, 5, 6), to compile a third "trinity", which constitutes 7, 8, and 9, if its even possible to? I would ask you to take note that the first occurrence of a "twin" happened when we used 3 + 3 to gain 6. And is it strange that 6 is but an inverted 9 (3 x 3).
Getting back to "twins" as they operate on our calendar. Lets take 10 x 10 for 100; 11 x 11 for 121; and 12 x 12 for 144. "Twins" create "squares".
Add these squares: 100, 121, and 144. They equal "365". Lets take 13 x 13 for 169, and 14 x 14 for 196. Again, they equal "365". So, our "twins" have some associated, if not by fiat and edit, with the "365" day calendar. I am not aware anyone has made the association, so I bring it to your attention. It is interesting to note we have two groups which created this association (10, 11, 12, and 13, 14). What are the unique features of either group, standing all alone, and our "365" day calendar? By the way, if we add 3 + 6 + 5 we get "14". Relevant to out "twins", 1, 2, and 3, all squared (1 + 4 + 9) equals "14".
Lets add all the "odd" numbers up in consecutive order: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc., and see what we get. 1 + 3 = 4 + 5 =9 + 7 =16 + 9 = 25. Said again, once we add the odd numbers to each "answer" we add the next odd number and we get "squares" in consecutive order. That is we get 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., or the "odd" and the "even" number roots of the "squares" in consecutive order. Work it out, it will take you into infinity.
What is important, and the focus of our attention, is how the "Twins in Mythology" and the lore surrounding them can explain the basis for these twin myths period. They are an intricate part of the creation scheme which they themselves speak to. How do we extract the secrets they hold within their lore to gain insight in number theory.
It seems to me that if those whom have sent our numbers down to us tell us they were given to them (those societies did not create them), and we have not added any number to the scheme to "improve" that scheme, who are we to question it? We need to turn our attention to the "myths" associated with that number theory scheme and see what they hold, if we are able to discern it.
Lets try one more thing. 1 x 1 + 1 + 1 = 3; 2 x 2 + 2 +2 = 8; 3 x 3 + 3 + 3 = 15. Do you see it? The point is, that even in front of our faces, we miss so much that is "obvious". Such is our fate in examining the "twins" in "mythology".