• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

More symmetric running competition

Roman57

Active Member
May 26, 2005
305
47
45
Berkeley, CA
✟66,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As a mathematician, I am fascinated by an idea of introducing negative numbers where negative numbers aren't typically used. For example, floors are typically labeled with positive numbers. But I had an idea of labeling with 0 and negative numbers ground and basement floors. As it turns out, its not really my idea: thats how they do it in Europe. But, as someone who was raised in Russia and then migrated to US, I haven't seen it, since neither Russia nor US does it. So I came up with my own original idea of floor number 0, floor number -1, etc. and was fascinated by it. And then eventually when I visitted Europe I realized I rediscovered the wheel.

My other idea of negative numbers is with running competition. Conventionally, they take photos of the fastest runners in order to make them proud. But my idea is that they should also take photos of the slowest runners to make them ashamed. And they should make it symmetric. For example, if its a race of 100 people, and they take photos of 5 fastest runners, they should also take photos of 5 slowest runners. Thus, the other 90 are neither fastest nor slowest and thus their photos aren't taken.

And here is an irony. While, clearly, my idea will humiliate the bottom 5, it will also take humiliation AWAY from the 90 runners in the middle. Because you see, according to the conventional race, those 90 in the middle will say they lost by the virtue of not winning the prize. But I say no, they didn't lose: they weren't those 5 at the bottom. Instead, they had a draw!

So this would also change the dynamics of a race in two ways:

a) In conventional race, everyone is stressing because they have to be at the top to avoid losing. My race will take stress AWAY from most people. As long as they know they aren't horrible, they know they aren't going to lose. Yes, they would have to push in order to win. But not winning is not the same as losing (separating out slowest runners that do lose would make this point very clear). So they won't be "in a crisis mode" so to speak.

b) In conventional race, the runners at the bottom typically give up, they aren't even trying any more since by the time they get to the finish line the crowd disperses anyway. But in my variation of the race, the ones at the bottom will be trying extra hard, since they will be trying to avoid being at the bottom 5. And the crowd won't be dispersing: it would be eagerly waiting to see who is at the bottom 5 that they will be taking picture of.

This should be reflected financially too. In conventional race, everyone pays entrance fee, and the winners get a prize. Thus, people that aren't at the top lose a little bit of money, by paying entrance fee and not getting a prize, while people at the top gain a lot of money by getting a prize that is a lot more expansive than the entrance fee that they have paid. But in the version of the race that I propose, there is no entrance fee, to reflect the fact that most people do NOT lose. Instead, the people at the very bottom pay money to the people at the very top.

So lets say the race has 100 people. In conventional setting, they might take 5 dollar entrance fee from each person, then pay 250 dollars to the first place, 150 dollars to the second place and 100 dollars to the third place, and they don't punish the people at the bottom in any way. But the way I propose it is different. I propose that there is no entrance fee. Instead, the slowest runner hands 250 dollars to the fastest runner, the second slowest runner hands 150 dollars to the second fastest runner, and the third slowest runner hands 100 dollars to the third fastest runner.

This can also be done publicly. So, after the race is completely finished, all the runners sit on the chairs. Then they call out the fastest runner to stand in front. They announce his time and the crowd makes thumbs-up sound. As the top runner stands, they call out the slowest runner to stand next to him. They announce his time and the crowd makes thumbs-down sound. Then they announce that the slowest runner will pay 250 dollars to the fastest runner. He pays, right in front of the audience, and they clap. Then they repeat the same thing for second top runner and second bottom runner with 150 dollars, and then they repeat it for third top runner and third bottom runner with 100 dollars.

And here is something interesting about it. With conventional races, as mentioned earlier, by the time the slowest runners come, the crowd already disperses. And the fastest runners aren't typically associated with slowest runners (unless they have something else in common): they are typically associated with runners that are also fast, although perhaps not as fast as them. But in my version of a race, the fastest runner will specifically meet the slowest runner in that money transaction, which would make it unusual, thus fascinating.

Now, while I am at it, here is another version of a race. What if, instead of only 3 or 5 people winning or losing, what if I will make the whole top half win and the whole bottom half lose. For example, we can set a rule that everyone gets 5 dollars for each person they beat and loses 5 dollars for each person that beat them. So, again, lets look at the race of 100 people. The person at the top beat 99 of them (he didn't beat himself, obviously). So he got 99*5=495 dollars. The person at the second place beat 98 people and was beaten by 1 person. So he gains 98*5-5=985. The person at the third place beat 97 people and was beaten by 2 people, so he gains 97*5-2*5-975, and so forth. Then the person at the 49-th place beat 50 people and was beaten by 48 people, so he gains 50*5-48*5=10 dollars. The person at the 50-th place beat 48 people and was beaten by 50 people, so he "gains" 48*5-50*5=-10 dollars: and gaining -10 dollars is the same as losing 10 dollars. But its really cool to say "gaining -10 dollars": remember my fascination with negative numbers to designate basement floors? Then the person at the 51-st place gains -20 dollars (or loses 20 dollars) and keep going all the way to the person at the bottom gaining -495 (or losing 495) dollars.

Within this context, money transfers will be private rather than public, because the first 3 or first 5 won't stand out from the rest plus nobody has time to watch 50 different transfers.

So, lets call conventional model, with 5 winners and 95 losers, model 1, the model I described earlier with 5 winners, 5 losers and 90 people in between model 2, and lets call the model with 50 winners and 50 losers model 3. So I already talked about the differences in dynamics between model 1 and model 2 (see a and b above). But now lets compare model 3 to them:

c) In model 1, there is huge pressure at the top, moderate pressure in the middle, and no pressure in the bottom. In model 2, there is high pressure at the top and bottom, and low pressure in the middle. In model 3, there is even pressure throughout

d) In model 3, the winners don't get special acknowledgement they get in the other two models. Yet, at the same time, other people at the top half get acknowledged for being at the top half. So lots of people get a chance to feel like they won. Let me give you a personal story. When I was in cross country team in high school back in good old 1997, I was at the top half but never the top. So if they were to do it with model 3, I would be winning every time. But unfortunately they did model 1 instead of model 3 so I was losing instead of winning. And no, money wasn't involved in high school races: the whole thing about entrance fee is what I remember from a different race I ran as an adult. But anyway you get a point.

And then we can also combine model 2 and model 3, which we will call model 4. So according to model 4, there would be two sets of transactions taking place on top of each other: model 2 transactions and model 3 transactions. Thus, the fastest runner will win 250 dollars from model 2, 495 dollars from model 3, making it total of 745 dollars (and likewise the slowest runner will lose 745 dollars). The second fastest runner will win 150 dollars from model 2, 485 dollars from model 3, making it total of 635 dollars (and likewise the second slowest runner will lose 635 dollars). The third fastest runner will win 100 dollars from model 2, 475 dollars from model 3, making it total of 575 dollars (and likewise the third slowest runner will lose 575 dollars). But then the 4-th fastest runner will not gain anything from model 2 and will only gain 465 dollars from model 3, so he will gain 465 dollars total. The 5-th runner will gain 455 total, the 6-th runner 445 total, etc. So if you look at 4-th runner, 5-th runner, 6-th runner spaced only 10 dollars apart, while 1-st, 2-nd and 3-rd are ahead by a lot more than that, then again it makes sense to strive to be at the top. Yet, at the same time, other runners don't feel overlooked either. So within this framework, model 2 transactions will be made public (as described earlier) while model 3 transactions will take place privately afterwords. Likewise, the three runners in the bottom get humiliated publically, while others in the bottom half lose money privately.

And here is another interesting idea. So, back when I was going to Junior High back in 1994, the detention room was 134. So for bad behavior the student was first sent to the office, and then from the office they were sent to room 134 (and office was a separate room). Now, I had an idea of making it more symmetric: if they were sending people for bad behavior to the room 134, they should be sending people for good behavior to room 143 (143 comes from switching around 3 and 4). Also, the opposite to "off" is "on". So, if for bad behavior the students were sent to the office, then for good behavior they should be sent to the onice. So I came up with an idea of calling room 143 an "onice" and sending students there for good behavior. I remember, back in 1994, I wrote a note, pretending as if its a teacher who wrote it, that said that I behaved really well, and so I should go to onice 143. Actually there was no room 143, but I didn't know it. So I kept asking different teachers where is the room 143. And one of them took my hand and said "maybe 134" and I was like "no no, 143" and shown her that note. I don't remember what was her response.

Now, going back to races: it would be really cool to send 5 top runners to the onice and the bottom 5 runneres to the office. I had that idea too back in Junior High. So my family knew Galen Rowell, who was a famous photographer but unfortunately died in a plane crush. He was also a runner. So me and my father were regularly running with him. Usually my father was slow, so me and Galen had to wait for him. Anyway, one of those times we ran, Galen said he went to a race and won. I asked him "did you wait" (in reference to my idea of being sent to the onice after the race). He responded "if I were to wait I wouldn't win the race" (thinking I was talking about waiting for other runners in the middle of a race, similarly to how we wait for my dad). And I was like "no no, did you wait AFTER the race, not during". Galen was confused. My dad said "he is joking".

And here is yet another idea. If someone cheats on a race, instead of saying he didn't finish, they should say he finished, but he took infinite amount of time. Thus, he ran with infinitesimal velocity and, accordingly, takes the last place. So if you humiliate 5 people at the bottom then in case of 1 cheater you will humiliate only 4 people besides him, since he is counted as one of the 5. This idea is fascinating because it introduces infinities and infinitesimals.
 

Roman57

Active Member
May 26, 2005
305
47
45
Berkeley, CA
✟66,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now, while I am at it, here is another version of a race. What if, instead of only 3 or 5 people winning or losing, what if I will make the whole top half win and the whole bottom half lose. For example, we can set a rule that everyone gets 5 dollars for each person they beat and loses 5 dollars for each person that beat them. So, again, lets look at the race of 100 people. The person at the top beat 99 of them (he didn't beat himself, obviously). So he got 99*5=495 dollars. The person at the second place beat 98 people and was beaten by 1 person. So he gains 98*5-5=985. The person at the third place beat 97 people and was beaten by 2 people, so he gains 97*5-2*5-975, and so forth. Then the person at the 49-th place beat 50 people and was beaten by 48 people, so he gains 50*5-48*5=10 dollars. The person at the 50-th place beat 48 people and was beaten by 50 people, so he "gains" 48*5-50*5=-10 dollars: and gaining -10 dollars is the same as losing 10 dollars. But its really cool to say "gaining -10 dollars": remember my fascination with negative numbers to designate basement floors? Then the person at the 51-st place gains -20 dollars (or loses 20 dollars) and keep going all the way to the person at the bottom gaining -495 (or losing 495) dollars.

So the version I just quoted is based on median and percentile. But here is a different version that is based on mean and z-score. Instead of getting 5 dollars per the person you beat (and losing 5 dollars per the person who beat you), what about getting 100 dollars per standard deviation above the mean (and losing 100 dollars per standard deviation below the mean)? In this case we get the following situation:


e) Lets say we have few professional runners and everyone else is recreational, and everyone is in good shape. Then professional runners will gain lots of money while everyone else will lose a little each. So that would be very similar situation to the conventional races with entrance fee. The only difference is that the entrance fee for slower runners will be slightly larger than the one for faster runners

f) Lets say that there are no professional runners, most people are in good shape, but a few are beginners. Then those few beginners will lose lots of money, and everyone else will gain just a little bit of money. So that would be the opposite situation to conventional races. In conventional races, a few people gain a lot, everyone else loses a little, but here a few people would lose a lot and everyone else will gain a little

g) Lets say we have few professional runners, few beginners and everyone else is a recreational runner in good shape. Then basically beginners will be paying professional runners and everyone else will be gaining or losing much smaller amounts compared to that. But, unlike the version with percentiles, we won't be able to "match" the slowest runner with fastest runner, because the amount lost by the slowest runner won't be the same as the amount gained by the fastest runner. So in this case the each runner will be paying to, or being paid from, the bank.

h) In terms of what is more interesting what is more boring ... on the one hand, in case of median/percentile version, we are guaranteed to see winners and losers, making it more interesting to someone who wants to see how winners behave and how losers behave. But on the other hand in case of mean/Z-score things can play out differently like having few winners without real losers, or few losers without real winners, etc. making it more interesting for someone who wants to see just what would happen this time.

i) In median/percentile version of 3, while there is no pressure to be at the top or avoid the bottom, there is insentive to beat each given runner, as you gain 5 dollars for beating each runner or lose 5 dollars for being beaten by each runner. On the other hand in the current version there is no insentive to beat each given runner. There is only insentive to be above or below the mean. Of course, the mean is determined by the runenrs at a given race (we are not looking at the general stats, we are only looking at people that shown up to a given race) but you can't directly see it just whom you beat.

j) However, this seems fairer, because if most runners are spaced half a minute from each other, yet two runners came within two seconds from each other, then it makes sense to acknowledge that they are almost the same.

And then we can also combine model 2 and model 3, which we will call model 4. So according to model 4, there would be two sets of transactions taking place on top of each other: model 2 transactions and model 3 transactions. Thus, the fastest runner will win 250 dollars from model 2, 495 dollars from model 3, making it total of 745 dollars (and likewise the slowest runner will lose 745 dollars). The second fastest runner will win 150 dollars from model 2, 485 dollars from model 3, making it total of 635 dollars (and likewise the second slowest runner will lose 635 dollars). The third fastest runner will win 100 dollars from model 2, 475 dollars from model 3, making it total of 575 dollars (and likewise the third slowest runner will lose 575 dollars). But then the 4-th fastest runner will not gain anything from model 2 and will only gain 465 dollars from model 3, so he will gain 465 dollars total. The 5-th runner will gain 455 total, the 6-th runner 445 total, etc. So if you look at 4-th runner, 5-th runner, 6-th runner spaced only 10 dollars apart, while 1-st, 2-nd and 3-rd are ahead by a lot more than that, then again it makes sense to strive to be at the top. Yet, at the same time, other runners don't feel overlooked either. So within this framework, model 2 transactions will be made public (as described earlier) while model 3 transactions will take place privately afterwords. Likewise, the three runners in the bottom get humiliated publically, while others in the bottom half lose money privately.

If instead of doing median/percentile we do mean/Z-score, then this would change too. Instead of having 5 at the top, 5 at the bottom, we will agree to praise everyone that is more than two standard deviations above mean, and humiliate everyone who is more than two standard deviations below mean. And then we will never know what will happen each time. Sometimes we praise a few people without humiliating anyone (just as being done in conventional race) but other times we will humiliate a few people without praising anyone (which is a fascinating concept since this is never being done). And yet other times we will praise a few and humiliate a few, but the number of people we praise might not match the number of people we humiliate. In the situation where we humiliate a few people without praising anyone, basically everyone will feel like a winner by the virtue of not being humiliated. In a situation where we praise a few without humiliating anyone, most people will feel like losers for missing out on a praise (just like happens in conventional races). And in a situation where we praise a few and humiliate a few, everyone else will feel neutral. Also the situation where we humiliate a few and don't praise anyone is quite funny: its like great performance have never been acknowledged because the really slow runner took all the spotlight.

And here is yet another idea. If someone cheats on a race, instead of saying he didn't finish, they should say he finished, but he took infinite amount of time. Thus, he ran with infinitesimal velocity and, accordingly, takes the last place. So if you humiliate 5 people at the bottom then in case of 1 cheater you will humiliate only 4 people besides him, since he is counted as one of the 5. This idea is fascinating because it introduces infinities and infinitesimals.

If we do mean/Z-score version of this idea, then it becomes important whether we look at the time or at the speed:

k) If we look at the time, then things get very interesting. If at least one person cheated, then they spent infinite amount of time, which makes the standard deviation of time spent infinity. Therefore, the difference between time spent by players that didn't cheat, divided by infinite standard deviation, will become infinitesimal. This means that the money paid by cheaters should be evenly distributted among the players that didn't cheat, regardless of how well they did. Well, quite frankly, not evenly: the non-cheaters that had better time should get infinitesimly more money than non-cheaters with worse time. But, unfortunately, we don't have infinitesimal money available: the smallest money we have is a cent. I guess, in theory, if banks were convinced to help them out and introduce infinitesimal amount of money into the computer records, this would be possible. But I don't think banks will change financial system just for that. So we will have to live with an idea that they will owe each other infinitesimal amount of money that they will never be able to pay. But then again, its no different from a situation where some owns someone a third of dollar, which is rounded up to 33 cents, but actually its not 33 cents, it is 33.33333.... cents, which can't be paid in exact amount either.

l) If, instead, we look at speed, then things get a lot easier. In this case, the cheaters had infinitesimal average speed (and again we will have to round it up to zero even though we don't want to). Since some people had finite speed, some infinitesimal, and nobody had infinite speed, standard deviation will be finite (neither infinite nor infinitesimal). Therefore, the Z-score of each runner will be finite too. And then there will be finite differences between the amount of money non-cheaters will gain. But there won't be any difference between the amount of money cheaters lost, since all cheaters ran with infinitesimal velocities. Looking at the speed makes more sense than looking at the time anyway. Because lets say that someone will run 5k in 10 minutes, which beats all the records. They deserve lots of money. If we look at their speed it reflects it, but if we look at the time, it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Johan2222

Active Member
Jan 25, 2025
223
63
66
Taunton
✟6,679.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As a mathematician, I am fascinated by an idea of introducing negative numbers where negative numbers aren't typically used. For example, floors are typically labeled with positive numbers. But I had an idea of labeling with 0 and negative numbers ground and basement floors. As it turns out, its not really my idea: thats how they do it in Europe. But, as someone who was raised in Russia and then migrated to US, I haven't seen it, since neither Russia nor US does it. So I came up with my own original idea of floor number 0, floor number -1, etc. and was fascinated by it. And then eventually when I visitted Europe I realized I rediscovered the wheel.

My other idea of negative numbers is with running competition. Conventionally, they take photos of the fastest runners in order to make them proud. But my idea is that they should also take photos of the slowest runners to make them ashamed. And they should make it symmetric. For example, if its a race of 100 people, and they take photos of 5 fastest runners, they should also take photos of 5 slowest runners. Thus, the other 90 are neither fastest nor slowest and thus their photos aren't taken.

And here is an irony. While, clearly, my idea will humiliate the bottom 5, it will also take humiliation AWAY from the 90 runners in the middle. Because you see, according to the conventional race, those 90 in the middle will say they lost by the virtue of not winning the prize. But I say no, they didn't lose: they weren't those 5 at the bottom. Instead, they had a draw!

So this would also change the dynamics of a race in two ways:

a) In conventional race, everyone is stressing because they have to be at the top to avoid losing. My race will take stress AWAY from most people. As long as they know they aren't horrible, they know they aren't going to lose. Yes, they would have to push in order to win. But not winning is not the same as losing (separating out slowest runners that do lose would make this point very clear). So they won't be "in a crisis mode" so to speak.

b) In conventional race, the runners at the bottom typically give up, they aren't even trying any more since by the time they get to the finish line the crowd disperses anyway. But in my variation of the race, the ones at the bottom will be trying extra hard, since they will be trying to avoid being at the bottom 5. And the crowd won't be dispersing: it would be eagerly waiting to see who is at the bottom 5 that they will be taking picture of.

This should be reflected financially too. In conventional race, everyone pays entrance fee, and the winners get a prize. Thus, people that aren't at the top lose a little bit of money, by paying entrance fee and not getting a prize, while people at the top gain a lot of money by getting a prize that is a lot more expansive than the entrance fee that they have paid. But in the version of the race that I propose, there is no entrance fee, to reflect the fact that most people do NOT lose. Instead, the people at the very bottom pay money to the people at the very top.

So lets say the race has 100 people. In conventional setting, they might take 5 dollar entrance fee from each person, then pay 250 dollars to the first place, 150 dollars to the second place and 100 dollars to the third place, and they don't punish the people at the bottom in any way. But the way I propose it is different. I propose that there is no entrance fee. Instead, the slowest runner hands 250 dollars to the fastest runner, the second slowest runner hands 150 dollars to the second fastest runner, and the third slowest runner hands 100 dollars to the third fastest runner.

This can also be done publicly. So, after the race is completely finished, all the runners sit on the chairs. Then they call out the fastest runner to stand in front. They announce his time and the crowd makes thumbs-up sound. As the top runner stands, they call out the slowest runner to stand next to him. They announce his time and the crowd makes thumbs-down sound. Then they announce that the slowest runner will pay 250 dollars to the fastest runner. He pays, right in front of the audience, and they clap. Then they repeat the same thing for second top runner and second bottom runner with 150 dollars, and then they repeat it for third top runner and third bottom runner with 100 dollars.

And here is something interesting about it. With conventional races, as mentioned earlier, by the time the slowest runners come, the crowd already disperses. And the fastest runners aren't typically associated with slowest runners (unless they have something else in common): they are typically associated with runners that are also fast, although perhaps not as fast as them. But in my version of a race, the fastest runner will specifically meet the slowest runner in that money transaction, which would make it unusual, thus fascinating.

Now, while I am at it, here is another version of a race. What if, instead of only 3 or 5 people winning or losing, what if I will make the whole top half win and the whole bottom half lose. For example, we can set a rule that everyone gets 5 dollars for each person they beat and loses 5 dollars for each person that beat them. So, again, lets look at the race of 100 people. The person at the top beat 99 of them (he didn't beat himself, obviously). So he got 99*5=495 dollars. The person at the second place beat 98 people and was beaten by 1 person. So he gains 98*5-5=985. The person at the third place beat 97 people and was beaten by 2 people, so he gains 97*5-2*5-975, and so forth. Then the person at the 49-th place beat 50 people and was beaten by 48 people, so he gains 50*5-48*5=10 dollars. The person at the 50-th place beat 48 people and was beaten by 50 people, so he "gains" 48*5-50*5=-10 dollars: and gaining -10 dollars is the same as losing 10 dollars. But its really cool to say "gaining -10 dollars": remember my fascination with negative numbers to designate basement floors? Then the person at the 51-st place gains -20 dollars (or loses 20 dollars) and keep going all the way to the person at the bottom gaining -495 (or losing 495) dollars.

Within this context, money transfers will be private rather than public, because the first 3 or first 5 won't stand out from the rest plus nobody has time to watch 50 different transfers.

So, lets call conventional model, with 5 winners and 95 losers, model 1, the model I described earlier with 5 winners, 5 losers and 90 people in between model 2, and lets call the model with 50 winners and 50 losers model 3. So I already talked about the differences in dynamics between model 1 and model 2 (see a and b above). But now lets compare model 3 to them:

c) In model 1, there is huge pressure at the top, moderate pressure in the middle, and no pressure in the bottom. In model 2, there is high pressure at the top and bottom, and low pressure in the middle. In model 3, there is even pressure throughout

d) In model 3, the winners don't get special acknowledgement they get in the other two models. Yet, at the same time, other people at the top half get acknowledged for being at the top half. So lots of people get a chance to feel like they won. Let me give you a personal story. When I was in cross country team in high school back in good old 1997, I was at the top half but never the top. So if they were to do it with model 3, I would be winning every time. But unfortunately they did model 1 instead of model 3 so I was losing instead of winning. And no, money wasn't involved in high school races: the whole thing about entrance fee is what I remember from a different race I ran as an adult. But anyway you get a point.

And then we can also combine model 2 and model 3, which we will call model 4. So according to model 4, there would be two sets of transactions taking place on top of each other: model 2 transactions and model 3 transactions. Thus, the fastest runner will win 250 dollars from model 2, 495 dollars from model 3, making it total of 745 dollars (and likewise the slowest runner will lose 745 dollars). The second fastest runner will win 150 dollars from model 2, 485 dollars from model 3, making it total of 635 dollars (and likewise the second slowest runner will lose 635 dollars). The third fastest runner will win 100 dollars from model 2, 475 dollars from model 3, making it total of 575 dollars (and likewise the third slowest runner will lose 575 dollars). But then the 4-th fastest runner will not gain anything from model 2 and will only gain 465 dollars from model 3, so he will gain 465 dollars total. The 5-th runner will gain 455 total, the 6-th runner 445 total, etc. So if you look at 4-th runner, 5-th runner, 6-th runner spaced only 10 dollars apart, while 1-st, 2-nd and 3-rd are ahead by a lot more than that, then again it makes sense to strive to be at the top. Yet, at the same time, other runners don't feel overlooked either. So within this framework, model 2 transactions will be made public (as described earlier) while model 3 transactions will take place privately afterwords. Likewise, the three runners in the bottom get humiliated publically, while others in the bottom half lose money privately.

And here is another interesting idea. So, back when I was going to Junior High back in 1994, the detention room was 134. So for bad behavior the student was first sent to the office, and then from the office they were sent to room 134 (and office was a separate room). Now, I had an idea of making it more symmetric: if they were sending people for bad behavior to the room 134, they should be sending people for good behavior to room 143 (143 comes from switching around 3 and 4). Also, the opposite to "off" is "on". So, if for bad behavior the students were sent to the office, then for good behavior they should be sent to the onice. So I came up with an idea of calling room 143 an "onice" and sending students there for good behavior. I remember, back in 1994, I wrote a note, pretending as if its a teacher who wrote it, that said that I behaved really well, and so I should go to onice 143. Actually there was no room 143, but I didn't know it. So I kept asking different teachers where is the room 143. And one of them took my hand and said "maybe 134" and I was like "no no, 143" and shown her that note. I don't remember what was her response.

Now, going back to races: it would be really cool to send 5 top runners to the onice and the bottom 5 runneres to the office. I had that idea too back in Junior High. So my family knew Galen Rowell, who was a famous photographer but unfortunately died in a plane crush. He was also a runner. So me and my father were regularly running with him. Usually my father was slow, so me and Galen had to wait for him. Anyway, one of those times we ran, Galen said he went to a race and won. I asked him "did you wait" (in reference to my idea of being sent to the onice after the race). He responded "if I were to wait I wouldn't win the race" (thinking I was talking about waiting for other runners in the middle of a race, similarly to how we wait for my dad). And I was like "no no, did you wait AFTER the race, not during". Galen was confused. My dad said "he is joking".

And here is yet another idea. If someone cheats on a race, instead of saying he didn't finish, they should say he finished, but he took infinite amount of time. Thus, he ran with infinitesimal velocity and, accordingly, takes the last place. So if you humiliate 5 people at the bottom then in case of 1 cheater you will humiliate only 4 people besides him, since he is counted as one of the 5. This idea is fascinating because it introduces infinities and infinitesimals.
So as a mathematician, do you know the mathematical revelation of how love was established by God in scripture?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
16,603
6,316
✟365,007.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So as a mathematician, do you know the mathematical revelation of how love was established by God in scripture?

This thread should be laid to rest as it's full of hate. It's proposing to shame the least performing athletes who also tend to be the poorest or possibly having various forms of physical or mental handicaps.

Shaming the least is the OPPOSITE of what Jesus taught. It's an anti-Christian philosophy. Someone should report this thread be closed.
 
Upvote 0

Roman57

Active Member
May 26, 2005
305
47
45
Berkeley, CA
✟66,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This thread should be laid to rest as it's full of hate.

Its not hate. My motivations are the following:

1) It is unusual as nobody does it as of yet. Things that are unusual are fascinating. For example, in mathematics, I like nonstandard analysis better than regular analysis because nonstandard analysis is unusual.

2) Its logical, and it obeys mathematical symmetries.

Coupling 1 and 2 lead to fascinating combination. Its fascinating to label ground floor 0 and basement floors with negative numbers because its not being done yet it obeys symmetries. If you read that thread closely, you find that I proposed to have "reward rooms" in schools because there are detention rooms (do CTRL?+F for onice and 143). That idea is positive rather than negative.

3) Its funny. Usually people shame someone because they want to shame. But here I propose to shame some people because I reward some other people, in fact I am making sure that their numbers match (if I reward 5 people I shame 5 people). Thats a very unusual type of shaming. Think of bullies in school. Do bullies try to make sure that the number of people they are bullying equal the number of people highly popular? I doubt it.
 
Upvote 0

Roman57

Active Member
May 26, 2005
305
47
45
Berkeley, CA
✟66,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So as a mathematician, do you know the mathematical revelation of how love was established by God in scripture?

Not sure what are you alluding to. I don't see mathematics in the Bible. I heard of Bible codes, but I don't know much about it. And I am not sure thats what you are referring to either. Can you elaborate?
 
Upvote 0

Johan2222

Active Member
Jan 25, 2025
223
63
66
Taunton
✟6,679.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not sure what are you alluding to. I don't see mathematics in the Bible. I heard of Bible codes, but I don't know much about it. And I am not sure thats what you are referring to either. Can you elaborate?
The key that opened this for me was Genesis 41.32 KJV where Joseph is speaking to pharaoh about his dreams and he says;

Genesis 41:32 KJV
And . . . doubled . . . twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.

I wondered what he meant by that statement and where he got his information from, so I did some research and what I found far exceeded my expectations.

Here is an example;

In Genesis 22.2 the word love first appears in scripture at the beginning of a passage where Abraham (meaning father of many) took his only begotten son into the land of Moriah to offer him as a sacrifice upon a mountain.

Some 2200 years after Abraham was born, God (the Father of many) took His only begotten Son into the land of Moriah to offer Him as a sacrifice upon a mountain.

Golgotha, the place where Christ was crucified is a peak in the Mountain range of Moriah.

Isaac, (meaning laughter) is mysteriously omitted from the Genesis story for two chapters, and the next time he appears is when he receives his bride, Rebekah.

Christ (The bringer of eternal laughter to mankind) has been mysteriously omitted from the history of man for two millennia, and the next time He will appear is when He receives His bride. (John 3.29. Matthew 25.10)

Abraham’s senior servant, Eliezer, (which means God comforts) who wields Abraham’s power over all of his possessions, is sent by Abraham to find a bride of unusual faith for Isaac.

God’s Holy Spirit (who Christ called "the comforter") who wields God’s power over all of creation was sent to earth by God to find a bride of unusual faith for Christ.

Abraham possesses the fire and the knife and Isaac bore the burden of the wood.

God possesses the Holy Spirit (revealed in the burning bush and tongues of fire) and the power of life and death, and Christ bore the burden of the cross.

Abraham had two sons; the son of the flesh, Ishmael, born first, and the son of the promise, Isaac, born afterwards by a miraculous conception.

God had two sons; the son of the flesh, Adam, born first, and the son of the promise, Jesus, born afterwards by a miraculous conception.

DOUBLED TWICE

Doubled twice being “God's signature”, it is obviously not just coincidence that the word love first occurs in Genesis 22.2 (incidence number 2 of 222 in scripture) where it uncovers the love of the Spirit, while Genesis 2.22, incidence number 1 of 222 uncovers the love of man, but notably the word love is not used to describe it.

Here are the two scriptures.

Genesis 2:22 KJV
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (the first time Adam saw Eve.)

Genesis 22:2 KJV
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (the foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Christ.)

1 Corinthians 15:45-47 KJV

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Knowing that Christ is number 2 in heaven (John 14.28) and that the numbers were only put into the Bible about 400 years ago only served to confirm Joseph’s revelation and that there is no coincidence with God.

[10] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Isaiah 46:

After I found this, I started doing a study of Numbers in the Bible and I discovered that every number in every verse reveals meaning in the verse.

Some are not obvious, some are more so, like John 6.66.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0