nimagraven Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choose/the/light Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 duh!!! makes perfect sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 26, 2008 Author Share Posted May 26, 2008 QUOTE (different strings @ May 26 2008, 04:20 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 03:20 PM) QUOTE (OriginalFan @ May 25 2008, 06:05 PM)QUOTE (Maestro @ May 24 2008, 11:33 PM) Splitting 2112 makes perfect sense to the casual Rush fan. Splitting 2112 yeilds the integers 21 and 12 repectively... Now, if we take the integers of The Cask of '43 - four and three repectively- and reverse them, this yeilds the integers 3 and 4. Now, if we take the integer 21 and divide it by the all-powerful 3, this returns the number 7 and, by the same logic, if we divide the integer 12 by the integer 4 this returns our all-powerful number 3. Now if we concatinate 7 and 3 this yeilds the decimal number 73 -which in ASCII Code represents the letter 'I' What was Ayn Rand's theme in Anthem? The suppression of individuality? If splitting 2112 by the The Cask of '43 yeilds 73, and 73 = 'I' and 'I' = 1001001, then it follows that 'I'=2112. You see? It all makes perfect sense! III. Will you marry me? I love the way your mind works! K Noone's ever proposed to Moi before! How Untraditionally Sweet! III. So is that a yes Maestro That's a definate I don't perhaps maybe know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choose/the/light Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 11:41 AM) QUOTE (different strings @ May 26 2008, 04:20 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 03:20 PM) QUOTE (OriginalFan @ May 25 2008, 06:05 PM)QUOTE (Maestro @ May 24 2008, 11:33 PM) Splitting 2112 makes perfect sense to the casual Rush fan. Splitting 2112 yeilds the integers 21 and 12 repectively... Now, if we take the integers of The Cask of '43 - four and three repectively- and reverse them, this yeilds the integers 3 and 4. Now, if we take the integer 21 and divide it by the all-powerful 3, this returns the number 7 and, by the same logic, if we divide the integer 12 by the integer 4 this returns our all-powerful number 3. Now if we concatinate 7 and 3 this yeilds the decimal number 73 -which in ASCII Code represents the letter 'I' What was Ayn Rand's theme in Anthem? The suppression of individuality? If splitting 2112 by the The Cask of '43 yeilds 73, and 73 = 'I' and 'I' = 1001001, then it follows that 'I'=2112. You see? It all makes perfect sense! III. Will you marry me? I love the way your mind works! K Noone's ever proposed to Moi before! How Untraditionally Sweet! III. So is that a yes Maestro That's a definate I don't perhaps maybe know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaldad Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 PLEASE, stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus The God Of Balance Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Wow....um, my head hurts now. Anyone have some Advil?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0N Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 26 2008, 03:56 PM) I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . I think he just means you can derive 1001001 from 2112 and 43, and thats the link I hope so anyway, else its way beyond me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 29, 2008 Author Share Posted May 29, 2008 QUOTE (J0N @ May 29 2008, 02:51 AM)QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 26 2008, 03:56 PM) I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . I think he just means you can derive 1001001 from 2112 and 43, and thats the link I hope so anyway, else its way beyond me We Have A Winner!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimagraven Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 12:17 PM) QUOTE (J0N @ May 29 2008, 02:51 AM)QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 26 2008, 03:56 PM) I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . I think he just means you can derive 1001001 from 2112 and 43, and thats the link I hope so anyway, else its way beyond me We Have A Winner!!!!!! Not really. You're just putting a lot of useless ends together to derive a meaning that no one else had seen/thought of before. That's not really meaningful, it's like the six degrees of separation hypothesis. It's just a likelihood not that it was actually DEVISED around that. That's why I still maintain that there isn't really a link. More of coincidence than anything. Now if you could get 2112 and 1001001 to actually mean something without adding just a lyric into the equation, I'd be impressed, until then I'm nonplussed over it logically, because it's a song lyric mixed with two names of songs. Plus, 2112 is never a lyric in 2112, yet Cask of '43 is. Just sayin', I don't really think it's fair to compare two separate classes and a property in a separate class (Hey.. We HAVE been talking binary and all) . I personally don't believe Neil Peart is some kind of grand master of math that sat there and did all the workings out to make all this fit - he's a musician and his songs tend to have a meaning, but I don't really think he went to all this trouble lol. I mean, it's possible, but it's also highly unlikely. It's kind of like putting poop in cake. Lots of ingredients make cake, but it doesn't mean it'll taste good if you put the poop in the cake . Thus, the end result in a way is garbage (Though I mean this in the nicest way possible, Maestro). GIGO and all that . Yet another computing term I thought I'd throw in LOL. It just so happens, you can mix the ingredients together, but does the end result mean it's a good or correct one? Well, that's highly debatable . Edited May 29, 2008 by nimagraven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0N Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 29 2008, 06:36 PM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 12:17 PM) QUOTE (J0N @ May 29 2008, 02:51 AM)QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 26 2008, 03:56 PM) I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . I think he just means you can derive 1001001 from 2112 and 43, and thats the link I hope so anyway, else its way beyond me We Have A Winner!!!!!! Not really. You're just putting a lot of useless ends together to derive a meaning that no one else had seen/thought of before. That's not really meaningful, it's like the six degrees of separation hypothesis. It's just a likelihood not that it was actually DEVISED around that. That's why I still maintain that there isn't really a link. More of coincidence than anything. Now if you could get 2112 and 1001001 to actually mean something without adding just a lyric into the equation, I'd be impressed, until then I'm nonplussed over it logically, because it's a song lyric mixed with two names of songs. Plus, 2112 is never a lyric in 2112, yet Cask of '43 is. Just sayin', I don't really think it's fair to compare two separate classes and a property in a separate class (Hey.. We HAVE been talking binary and all) . I personally don't believe Neil Peart is some kind of grand master of math that sat there and did all the workings out to make all this fit - he's a musician and his songs tend to have a meaning, but I don't really think he went to all this trouble lol. I mean, it's possible, but it's also highly unlikely. It's kind of like putting poop in cake. Lots of ingredients make cake, but it doesn't mean it'll taste good if you put the poop in the cake . Thus, the end result in a way is garbage (Though I mean this in the nicest way possible, Maestro). GIGO and all that . Yet another computing term I thought I'd throw in LOL. It just so happens, you can mix the ingredients together, but does the end result mean it's a good or correct one? Well, that's highly debatable . Shhhhh! I was winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 29, 2008 Author Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 29 2008, 10:36 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 12:17 PM) QUOTE (J0N @ May 29 2008, 02:51 AM)QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 26 2008, 03:56 PM) I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . I think he just means you can derive 1001001 from 2112 and 43, and thats the link I hope so anyway, else its way beyond me We Have A Winner!!!!!! Not really. You're just putting a lot of useless ends together to derive a meaning that no one else had seen/thought of before. That's not really meaningful, it's like the six degrees of separation hypothesis. It's just a likelihood not that it was actually DEVISED around that. That's why I still maintain that there isn't really a link. More of coincidence than anything. Now if you could get 2112 and 1001001 to actually mean something without adding just a lyric into the equation, I'd be impressed, until then I'm nonplussed over it logically, because it's a song lyric mixed with two names of songs. Plus, 2112 is never a lyric in 2112, yet Cask of '43 is. Just sayin', I don't really think it's fair to compare two separate classes and a property in a separate class (Hey.. We HAVE been talking binary and all) . I personally don't believe Neil Peart is some kind of grand master of math that sat there and did all the workings out to make all this fit - he's a musician and his songs tend to have a meaning, but I don't really think he went to all this trouble lol. I mean, it's possible, but it's also highly unlikely. It's kind of like putting poop in cake. Lots of ingredients make cake, but it doesn't mean it'll taste good if you put the poop in the cake . Thus, the end result in a way is garbage (Though I mean this in the nicest way possible, Maestro). GIGO and all that . Yet another computing term I thought I'd throw in LOL. It just so happens, you can mix the ingredients together, but does the end result mean it's a good or correct one? Well, that's highly debatable . Oh... ...I dunno... It was only a casual observation in the first place; the [1001001]='I' 'argument' is a very old [1985]. I was simple trying to have bit of fun with it. No big deal. Garbage In, Garbage Out. But then again... ...Not that Neil had/has anything to do with it [it would seems like an 'Alex-Sot-Of-Thing' to me -maybe even Hugh Syme's]; but, the puppet master left his marionette's 'hand-control' on the reverse of Farewell To Kings in the shape of an "X-1" And it takes two line-segments to form an 'X' and one line segment to form a 1 -and we all know [2+1] = 3 (most of the time) Not to mention the bones going out the window in the insert on Roll The Bones are also in the shape of "X-1" (or "1-X", depending on your point of view...) And it goes without mention that the majority of the pips on the AlbumArt dice from Roll The Bones are themselves, indeed number 3; and, if you were to hold said AlbumArt upsidedown in a mirror RUSH could be made out to be LAZY... And I'm STILL counting all the references to The All Powerful Number 3 on Moving Pictures alone... Again... ...These are all old observations intened for the enjoyment or bemusement and/or befuddling of The Casual Rush fan. Just coincidence? Who knows? Still makes Perfect Sense to me... It was meant in good, clean fun. Nothing more, nothing less. In no way am I an 'Offical Source' of information. No harm, no foul. III. Edited May 30, 2008 by Maestro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 29, 2008 Author Share Posted May 29, 2008 (edited) O& incidentally: Not that it really means anything; but if we were to take two's complement of 1001001 [i.e., 0110110], split that, then we would have: [0110] & [0110]. Do I detect a some sort of familar form of symmetry here. How do the digits from that album go? [2112] or something like that? Its only obvious; there is a certain Order to The Universe! O& BTW, Jon... ...You did 'Win.' Congradulations! III. Edited May 30, 2008 by Maestro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 Just a post to resurrect the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telegraphcreeklocal Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 08:24 PM) Just a post to resurrect the thread! Hows it up there in Redding! Hilltop drive ring a bell. It rhymes with Hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 QUOTE (telegraphcreeklocal @ May 29 2008, 08:28 PM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 08:24 PM) Just a post to resurrect the thread! Hows it up there in Redding! Hilltop drive ring a bell. It rhymes with Hell... Local News: Redding's okay but only just; Red Bluff sucks out loud; Eureka's better than both/either. It's my destination. Changing residence next year. Mount Shasta's still in tact (for now) Mount Shasta Mall is what it is. Just caught Mannhiem Steamroller at the Convention Center last month. Weaverville almost burned to the ground last year. Shasta Lake is always big fun! Thanx for asking. III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimagraven Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 04:33 PM) O& incidentally: Not that it really means anything; but if we were to take two's complement of 1001001 [i.e., 0110110], split that, then we would have: [0110] & [0110]. Do I detect a some sort of familar form of symmetry here. How do the digits from that album go? [2112] or something like that? Its only obvious; there is a certain Order to The Universe! O& BTW, Jon... ...You did 'Win.' Congradulations! III. Yes, except it's rather like clutching at straws, which is kind of the point. Plus, you use the same zero twice to come to your conclusion, which could potentially instantly makes it false . The real answer is that you come up with 0110 and 110. The fact that there's symmetry there is the simple fact that it's a coincidence. In binary, it's quite easy to get a number that's symetrical. Especially because it's only 7 bits . Try it in 32, and I think you might find a problem. Again, BECAUSE 0110 and 0110 are not able to be derived in ASCII (Except for the 0110 and 011 which can be derived in ASCII) you come across a problem. You are setting a 0 constant to a parity, which is false. A parity can be even or odd, and this case it is constantly even. That is an impossibility in itself, which is why your new deduction doesn't work nor does it make any sense in the mathematical scheme of things. The only way it WOULD work was if you were talking about a machine that worked in octets. Then yes, they WOULD set the parity bit to zero. HOWEVER, you come across a fundamental problem that you have added a 0 in the middle of the binary.. And not at the end . In theory, the correct answer you're looking for is 0110 and 110(0)(1) which completely breaks the symmetry and is actually the correct version you are looking for Again, I'm talking about ASCII because ASCII runs in 7 bits. We've deduced that 1001001 is 73/43/I and therefore, any binary number you start messing around with in 7 bits, for the sake of this argument, since you can't change the meaning if you change the 1001001 formula (because that'd break the connection to I etc) it is 7 bit ASCII. Sorry. You won't win me over. I still remain unconvinced and will still argue this one. There's too many logical breaks in it. Forgot to add before I had to go catch my public transport that you can't get symetry from 7 bits. If 1001001 was symetrical it'd be 10011001 and the result would be 01100110. Of course, you could still say there's parity on top of that, but we just found out we = null on that anyway :/. Edited May 30, 2008 by nimagraven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgyspice Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Man, I was less confused when I saw Primer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OriginalFan Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 12:41 PM)QUOTE (different strings @ May 26 2008, 04:20 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 03:20 PM) QUOTE (OriginalFan @ May 25 2008, 06:05 PM)QUOTE (Maestro @ May 24 2008, 11:33 PM) Splitting 2112 makes perfect sense to the casual Rush fan. Splitting 2112 yeilds the integers 21 and 12 repectively... Now, if we take the integers of The Cask of '43 - four and three repectively- and reverse them, this yeilds the integers 3 and 4. Now, if we take the integer 21 and divide it by the all-powerful 3, this returns the number 7 and, by the same logic, if we divide the integer 12 by the integer 4 this returns our all-powerful number 3. Now if we concatinate 7 and 3 this yeilds the decimal number 73 -which in ASCII Code represents the letter 'I' What was Ayn Rand's theme in Anthem? The suppression of individuality? If splitting 2112 by the The Cask of '43 yeilds 73, and 73 = 'I' and 'I' = 1001001, then it follows that 'I'=2112. You see? It all makes perfect sense! III. Will you marry me? I love the way your mind works! K Noone's ever proposed to Moi before! How Untraditionally Sweet! III. So is that a yes Maestro That's a definate I don't perhaps maybe know Ah well... I tried Untraditional Kismet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 29 2008, 10:43 PM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 04:33 PM) O& incidentally: Not that it really means anything; but if we were to take two's complement of 1001001 [i.e., 0110110], split that, then we would have: [0110] & [0110]. Do I detect a some sort of familar form of symmetry here? How do the digits from that album go? [2112] or something like that? Its only obvious; there is a certain Order to The Universe! O& BTW, Jon... ...You did 'Win.' Congradulations! III. ...Plus, you use the same zero twice to come to your conclusion, which could potentially instantly makes it false ... ...You are setting a 0 constant to a parity, which is false. A parity can be even or odd, and this case it is constantly even... ...The only way it WOULD work was if you were talking about a machine that worked in octets. Then yes, they WOULD set the parity bit to zero.... ...HOWEVER, you come across a fundamental problem that you have added a 0 in the middle of the binary.. And not at the end . ...In theory, the correct answer you're looking for is 0110 and 110(0)(1) which completely breaks the symmetry... ...Again, I'm talking about ASCII because ASCII runs in 7 bits... We've deduced that 1001001 is 73/43/I and therefore, any binary number you start messing around with in 7 bits, for the sake of this argument, since you can't change the meaning if you change the 1001001 formula (because that'd break the connection to I etc) it is 7 bit ASCII. Forgot to add before I had to go catch my public transport that you can't get symetry from 7 bits... If 1001001 was symetrical it'd be 10011001 and the result would be 01100110.... I concede the argument... It is TRUE... I, in my haste, inadvertantly added an imaginary zero mid-string where I shouldn't have... [0110 [j(0)]110] An oversite... ...Simply because someone wants something to be true doesn't make it so; but such a desire can influence one's perception... Such was my case in this situation... I know bits can be [and sometimes, for a host of reasons must be] added to the end of 7-bit byte; but, never, for any LOGICAL reason should a bit be slipped into the middle of a word... Here I am mistaken and freely admit it... Indeed, had I been more objective, had I slowed myself down a bit I'd have caught myself and realized the symmetry I sought was indeed, the last string you mentioned: [01100110]! Thanx for pointing out my error... [Can't blame a guy for trying!!!] Octal... ...Haven't heard that in an aeon. Three-bit bytes! How quaint! III. Edited May 31, 2008 by Maestro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 QUOTE (OriginalFan @ May 30 2008, 01:35 PM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 12:41 PM)QUOTE (different strings @ May 26 2008, 04:20 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 26 2008, 03:20 PM) QUOTE (OriginalFan @ May 25 2008, 06:05 PM)QUOTE (Maestro @ May 24 2008, 11:33 PM) Splitting 2112 makes perfect sense to the casual Rush fan. Splitting 2112 yeilds the integers 21 and 12 repectively... Now, if we take the integers of The Cask of '43 - four and three repectively- and reverse them, this yeilds the integers 3 and 4. Now, if we take the integer 21 and divide it by the all-powerful 3, this returns the number 7 and, by the same logic, if we divide the integer 12 by the integer 4 this returns our all-powerful number 3. Now if we concatinate 7 and 3 this yeilds the decimal number 73 -which in ASCII Code represents the letter 'I' What was Ayn Rand's theme in Anthem? The suppression of individuality? If splitting 2112 by the The Cask of '43 yeilds 73, and 73 = 'I' and 'I' = 1001001, then it follows that 'I'=2112. You see? It all makes perfect sense! III. Will you marry me? I love the way your mind works! K Noone's ever proposed to Moi before! How Untraditionally Sweet! III. So is that a yes Maestro That's a definate I don't perhaps maybe know Ah well... I tried Untraditional Kismet She gives up to easily, huh peeps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 (edited) So, if we split 2112d [an even integer] by 33d [an odd interger] it yeilds 64d -which we all know is 2^6 or 00I0 0000b, correct ? Edited May 31, 2008 by Maestro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimagraven Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 haha, lol, at least you admit it . I know some people who would try to argue blind with me over that. Over your next conundrum.. Let me get back to you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenken Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I dont know if it was mentioned, but there's no mystery to 1001001. That's binary code, used in all computers. That's the language that computers speak. They're using the metaphor of machines in the song, and that's just something to represent that in the chorus. They're basically saying the computer has gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gangster of Boats Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 DINGDINGDING! We have a lyrical winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoenataArctica Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 QUOTE (Maestro @ May 25 2008, 12:33 AM) Splitting 2112 makes perfect sense to the casual Rush fan. Splitting 2112 yeilds the integers 21 and 12 repectively... Now, if we take the integers of The Cask of '43 - four and three repectively- and reverse them, this yeilds the integers 3 and 4. Now, if we take the integer 21 and divide it by the all-powerful 3, this returns the number 7 and, by the same logic, if we divide the integer 12 by the integer 4 this returns our all-powerful number 3. Now if we concatinate 7 and 3 this yeilds the decimal number 73 -which in ASCII Code represents the letter 'I' What was Ayn Rand's theme in Anthem? The suppression of individuality? If splitting 2112 by the The Cask of '43 yeilds 73, and 73 = 'I' and 'I' = 1001001, then it follows that 'I'=2112. You see? It all makes perfect sense! III. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND LOST NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now